issue-1995-12-20•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-20
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-20
issue-1995-12-20Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-20Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 95-30990 Requirements for Approval of Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belts
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65609-65610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30990]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 18 and 75
RIN 1219-AA65
Requirements for Approval of Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belts
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed Rule; extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from the mining community for
additional time in which to prepare comments, the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA) is extending the period for public comment
on its proposed rule addressing the requirements for approval of flame-
resistant conveyor belts to be used in underground mines.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, MSHA, Room 631, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia
22203.
[[Page 65610]]
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments on a computer disk
along with a hard copy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 703-235-1910.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 31, 1995, MSHA published a
document in the Federal Register (60 FR 55353) announcing the reopening
of the rulemaking record on its proposed standard for flame-resistant
conveyor belts used in underground mines. Comment period was scheduled
to close on December 15, 1995. By this document, the Agency is
extending the comment period to February 5, 1996. All interested
parties are encouraged to submit comments prior to that date.
Dated: December 15, 1995.
J. Davitt McAteer,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 95-30990 Filed 12-15-95; 4:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30985 Proposed Removal of Federal Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and San Francisco Bay and Delta of the State of California
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65614-65616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30985]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 131
[FRL-5399-8]
Proposed Removal of Federal Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters of the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and San Francisco
Bay and Delta of the State of California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In December 1994, under the authority of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a rule
establishing four sets of water quality criteria to protect the
designated uses for the surface waters of the Sacramento River, San
Joaquin River, and San Francisco Bay and Delta of the State of
California (Bay/Delta). Subsequent to this promulgation, the State of
California adopted water quality standards for the Bay/Delta and
submitted them to EPA for approval. On September 26, 1995, the Regional
Administrator for EPA Region IX approved the state water quality
standards as protective of the designated uses for the relevant
waterbodies. Currently, the State of California is in the process of
implementing these state-adopted and EPA-approved water quality
standards through a state water rights hearing
[[Page 65615]]
process. Accordingly, EPA's promulgated water quality standards are no
longer needed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Therefore, EPA proposes to remove the rule.
DATES: Comments on this proposal will be accepted until March 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Palma Risler, Water
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Palma Risler, Water Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105, 415-744-2017. The public record for this
rulemaking is available through this contact at this same address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In December 1994, under the authority of section 303 of the CWA,
EPA promulgated a rule establishing four sets of water quality criteria
to protect the designated uses for the surface waters of the Sacramento
River, San Joaquin River, and San Francisco Bay and Delta of the State
of California (Bay/Delta)(60 FR 4664, January 24, 1995). These criteria
consisted of estuarine habitat criteria (consisting of a salinity
requirement measured at three different locations in Suisun Bay for a
specified number of days during the critical spring months), fish
migration criteria (consisting of an indexed value representing
successful fish migration on the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin
River), fish spawning criteria on the lower San Joaquin River
(consisting of a salinity requirement measured at various points in
April and May), and narrative criteria protecting the brackish tidal
marshes in Suisun Marsh. A description of these criteria are provided
in the preamble to the final rule and in the rulemaking record.
Prior to federal promulgation of the water quality standards for
the Bay/Delta, EPA, the Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife
Service of the U.S. Department of Interior, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce worked with the
State of California to attempt to resolve the water quality issues in
the Bay/Delta underlying EPA's rulemaking. This effort led to an
agreement, informally called the ``Bay Delta Accords'' signed by the
federal agencies, California state agencies, and interested
stakeholders. These Bay Delta Accords, signed by all the parties in
December 1994, articulate both substantive measures and processes to
protect the Bay/Delta estuary, and laid out the framework for the
adoption, review, and approval of the new State standards.
On May 22, 1995, the California State Water Resources Control Board
adopted water quality standards for the Bay/Delta in its water quality
control plan (1995 WQCP). After these revised standards were approved
by the California Office of Administrative Law in accordance with
California law, the revised standards were submitted to EPA for its
review under section 303(c) of the CWA on July 27, 1995. On September
26, 1995, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region IX approved these
standards as protective of the designated uses for the Bay/Delta. The
reasons for this approval are set forth in the approval letter and are
supplemented by additional information in the rulemaking record. Both
the approval letter and this supporting information are included in the
public record for this rulemaking.
The CWA gives the states primary responsibility for adopting water
quality standards. Throughout the rulemaking process to promulgate
federal water quality standards for the Bay/Delta, EPA has maintained
that it would withdraw the federal standards if the State adopts and
submits standards to the Agency that meet the requirements of the Act.
EPA also indicated this intent in the Bay Delta Accords.
EPA recognizes that with the exception of the Suisun Bay narrative
criteria,1 the State's 1995 WQCP provisions are not precisely
identical to the federal promulgation. Nevertheless, for the reasons
set forth in EPA's approval, the Technical Support Memorandum dated
September 21, 1995, underlying the approval, and this rulemaking
record, EPA found that the provisions in the 1995 WQCP protect the
designated uses of the estuary and otherwise meet the requirements of
the CWA. The state is currently implementing these standards.
Accordingly, the EPA rule is no longer needed to meet the requirements
of the CWA, and EPA proposes to remove the rule at 40 CFR 131.37.
\1\ The State's 1995 WQCP includes a description of ``beneficial
uses'' of the Bay/Delta waters and a set of ``objectives'' that
protect those beneficial uses. In its review of the 1995 WQCP, and
in keeping with past practice, EPA is treating the State's
beneficial uses and objectives as the ``designated uses'' and
``criteria'' required under the federal Clean Water Act. To avoid
confusion, this document will generally use the federal terms
``designated uses'' and ``criteria.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA understands that the 1995 WQCP is the subject of state court
litigation raising both procedural and substantive challenges to the
plan. Although EPA believes that the State Board should ultimately
prevail in this litigation, there is always a possibility in such
litigation for adverse court actions affecting the 1995 WQCP. Should
EPA proceed to final withdrawal of the federal water quality standards
as proposed in this notice, and the 1995 WQCP is subsequently rejected
or remanded, there would be no water quality standards in effect in
California carrying out the Bay Delta Accords. EPA intends to work with
the State so that if this situation were to arise, the requirements of
the Clean Water Act and the purposes of the Bay Delta Accords are
achieved.
Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (56 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the order (i.e,
Regulatory Impact Analysis and review by the Office of Management and
Budget). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as those
actions likely to lead to a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in this order. Pursuant to the terms of this
order, EPA has determined that the withdrawal of this rule would not be
``significant.''
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA is
certifying that a withdrawal of this rule would not have significant
impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no information collection requirements associated with
the withdrawal of this rule that are covered under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
[[Page 65616]]
D. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year.
Today's proposal contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. In fact, removing the federal water
quality standards for the Bay/Delta will facilitate the State of
California's implementation of the state adopted and EPA-approved water
quality standards for the Bay/Delta.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131
Environmental protection, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution
control, Water quality standards, Water quality criteria.
Dated: December 14, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Part 131 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 131--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Sec. 131.37 [Removed and reserved]
2. Section 131.37 is removed and reserved.
[FR Doc. 95-30985 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30967 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Nacote Creek, New Jersey
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65613-65614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30967]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05-95-065]
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Nacote Creek, New Jersey
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: At the request of the New Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJDOT), the Coast Guard is proposing to change the regulations
governing operation of the Route 9 Bridge across Nacote Creek, mile
1.5, in Smithville, Atlantic County, New Jersey. This proposal would
require the Route 9 Bridge to open on signal except during the period
from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., when a two-hour advance notice for openings
would be required. This change should help relieve the bridge owner of
the burden of having a bridgetender constantly available at times when
there are few or no quests for openings, while still proving for the
needs of navigation.
DATE: Comments must be received on or before February 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District, c/o Commander (obr), First Coast Guard District, Bldg. 135A,
Governors Island, New York 10004-5073, or may be hand-delivered to the
same address between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (212) 668-7170.
Comments will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection and copying at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Kassof, Bridge Administrator-NY,
Fifth Coast Guard District, (212) 668-6969.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written views, comments, data, or
arguments. Persons submitting comments should include their names and
addresses, identify this rulemaking (CGD05-95-065), the specific
section of this rule to which each comment applies, and give reasons
for each comment. The Coast Guard requests that all comments and
attachments be submitted in an unbound format suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If that is not practical, a second copy of any bound
material is requested. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of
comments should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this rule in view of the comments.
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a
public hearing by writing to the Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District,
c/o Commander (obr), First Coast Guard District at the address listed
under ADDRESSES. The request should include reasons why a hearing would
be beneficial. If it determines that the opportunity for oral
presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a
public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The principal persons involved in drafting this document are Mr. J.
Arca, Fifth Coast Guard District, Bridge
[[Page 65614]]
Branch-NY, Project Officer, and CAPT R.A. Knee, Fifth Coast Guard
District Legal Office, Project Counsel.
Background and Purpose
The Route 9 Bridge across Nacote Creek, mile 1.5, at Smithville,
Atlantic County, NJ, has a vertical clearance of 5' above mean high
water (MHW) and 8' above mean low water (MLW) in the closed position.
The current regulations require the bridge to open on signal at all
times.
Review of the bridge logs provided by NJDOT reveals that from 11
p.m. to 7 a.m., there were no requests for bridge openings in 1992 and
1993, and only 13 requests for openings in 1994 during these hours.
NJDOT is seeking relief from the requirement that a bridgetender be
present during the hours of 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. when there are minimal
requests for openings.
The New Jersey Department of Transportation requested that the
Coast Guard make a permanent change to the regulations governing
operation of the Route 9 Bridge to require the draw to open on signal
except from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., which would require a two-hour advance
notice. At all other times, the bridge would open on signal. The
bridgetenders would be on call to open the draw when the advance notice
is given. A 24-hour special telephone number would be posted on the
bridge and maintained by the NJDOT.
Accordingly, a new provision allowing the draw of the Route 9
bridge, at mile 1.5, to remain closed during late night and early
morning hours unless two hours advance notice is given will be
designated as paragraph (a). The current provision allowing the draw of
the Atlantic County (Rte. 575) bridge, at mile 3.5, to remain closed
unless eight hours advance notice is given will be designated as
paragraph (b). A general provision requiring the passage of Federal,
State, and local government vessels used for public safety through all
drawbridges in published at 33 CFR 117.31, and is no longer required to
be published for each waterway. Therefore, this proposal would remove a
provision requiring passage of public vessels from section 117.732.
Regulatory Evaluation
The proposed action 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 Coast Guard expects the
economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory
Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and
procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact
that the rule will not prevent mariners from transiting the bridge. It
will only require mariners to plan their transits.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' include independently owned and operated
small businesses that are not dominant in their field and that
otherwise qualify as ``small business concerns'' under section 3 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). Because it expects the impact of
this proposal to be minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this proposal will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This proposal 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 rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and it has been determined
that this proposal will not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this
proposal and concluded that under section 2.B.2.e.(32)(e) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B (as amended, 59 FR 38654, July 29, 1994), this
proposal is categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation. A Categorical Exclusion Determination statement has been
prepared and placed in the rulemaking docket.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section
117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106
Stat. 5039.
2. Section 117.732 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 117.732 Nacote Creek.
(a) The Route 9 bridge, mile 1.5, shall open on signal except that
from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall open if at least two hours
advance notice is given.
(b) The draw of the Atlantic County (Rte. 575) bridge, mile 3.5, at
Port Republic, shall open on signal if at least eight hours advance
notice is given.
Dated: November 22, 1995.
W.J. Ecker,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 95-30967 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30948 Indiana Permanent Regulatory Program Amendment
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65611-65613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30948]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 914
[IN-110, Amendment Number 93-7, Part II]
Indiana Permanent Regulatory Program Amendment
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of additional changes to an
amendment previously submitted by Indiana as a modification to the
State's permanent regulatory program (hereinafter referred to as the
Indiana program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977 (SMCRA). The changes add new language concerning minor field
revisions to the second of three subparts of the original amendment.
The changes are intended to incorporate language desired by the State.
This notice sets forth the times and locations that the Indiana
program and the proposed amendment to that program will be available
for public inspection, the comment period during which interested
persons may submit written comments on the proposed amendment, and the
procedures that will be followed for a public hearing, if one is
requested.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before 4:00 p.m. on
[[Page 65612]]
January 4, 1996; if requested, a public hearing on the proposed
amendment is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on January 3, 1996; and requests
to present oral testimony at the hearing must be received on or before
4:00 p.m. on January 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to testify at the hearing
should be directed to Mr. Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Indianapolis
Field Office, at the address listed below. If a hearing is requested,
it will be held at the same address.
Copies of the Indiana program, the amendment, a listing of any
scheduled public meetings, and all written comments received in
response to this notice will be available for public review at the
following locations, during normal business hours, Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Indianapolis
Field Office, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania
Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, IN 46204. Telephone: (317) 226-6166.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 402 West Washington Street,
Room 295, Indianapolis, IN 46204. Telephone: (317) 232-1547.
Each requester may receive, free of charge, one copy of the
proposed amendment by contacting the OSM Indianapolis Field Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger W. Calhoun, Director,
Telephone (317) 226-6166.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Indiana Program
On July 29, 1982, the Indiana program was made effective by the
conditional approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Information
pertinent to the general background on the Indiana program, including
the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and a detailed
explanation of the conditions of approval of the Indiana program can be
found in the July 26, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 32107). Subsequent
actions concerning the conditions of approval and program amendments
are identified at 30 CFR 914.10, 914.15, and 914.16.
II. Discussion of the Proposed Amendments
Since July 29, 1982, (the date of conditional approval of the
Indiana program), a number of changes have been made to the Federal
regulations concerning surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
Pursuant to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17, OSM informed
Indiana on May 22, 1985 (Regulatory Reform I), on August 24, 1988
(Regulatory Reform II), and on September 20, 1989 (Regulatory Reform
III), that a number of Indiana regulations are less effective than or
inconsistent with the revised Federal requirements.
By letter dated December 30, 1993 (Administrative Record No. IND-
1322), the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) submitted to
OSM a State program amendment package (number 93-7) consisting of
revisions to 38 sections of the Indiana rules. These revisions address
changes to the Indiana program that were identified in the three
letters referred to above, and certain required program amendments. The
State has also proposed additional changes which Indiana believes will
further improve the approved State program. The primary focus of the
submittal is on soil capability and restoration standards, individual
civil penalties, significant/non-significant revisions, coal
exploration, and performance bonds.
OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the January 24,
1994, Federal Register (59 FR 3528), and, in the same notice, opened
the public comment period and provided opportunity for a public hearing
on the adequacy of the proposed amendment. The comment period closed on
February 24, 1994.
By letter dated December 6, 1995 (Administrative Record Number IND-
1415), Indiana submitted additional minor changes to amendment 93-7.
By letter dated January 12, 1995 (Administrative Record Number IND-
1423), OSM provided Indiana with comments concerning the proposed
amendment. Indiana responded by letter dated January 25, 1995
(Administrative Record Number IND-1419). In that letter, Indiana said
that it wishes to separate amendment 93-7 into three subparts. OSM
approved the amendments contained in subpart I on November 9, 1995 (60
FR 56516).
By letter dated May 5, 1995 (Administrative Record Number IND-
1462), Indiana submitted additional minor changes to subpart II of
amendment 93-7, and added a new subparagraph at 301 IAC 12-3-121(d)
concerning minor field revisions.
Indiana proposes to add the following language.
310 IAC 12-3-121(d).
If the director determines on a case-by-case basis or by policy
guidelines that the conditions of paragraph (c) of this section are met
and that the proposed change does not require technical review or
design analysis, the proposed change may be approved as a minor field
revision by the field inspector in the inspection report or on a form
signed in the field. Minor field revisions must be properly documented
and separately filed and may include, but are not necessarily limited
to, the following:
(1) Soil stockpile locations and configurations.
(2) As-built pond certifications.
(3) Minor transportation facilities changes.
(4) Pond depth/shape/orientation.
(5) Temporary drainage control/water storage areas.
(6) Equipment changes.
(7) Explosive storage areas.
(8) Minor mine management/support facility locations (not refuse).
(9) Adding United States Soil Conservation Service conservation
practices.
(10) Methods of erosion protection on diversions.
(11) Temporary cessation orders.
(12) Minor diversion location changes.
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is now
seeking comment on whether the amendment proposed by Indiana satisfies
the requirements of 30 CFR 732.15 for the approval of State program
amendments. If the amendment is deemed adequate, it will become part of
the Indiana program.
Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under DATES or at locations other than the Indianapolis Field Office
will not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included
in the Administrative Record.
Public Hearing
Persons wishing to comment at the public hearing should contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the close of
business on January 2, 1996. If no one requests an opportunity to
comment at a public hearing, the hearing will not be held.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions.
The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all
persons scheduled to comment have been heard.
[[Page 65613]]
Persons in the audience who have not been scheduled to comment and who
wish to do so will be heard following those scheduled. The hearing will
end after all persons who desire to comment have been heard.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to comment at a hearing,
a public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. Persons
wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed
amendment may request a meeting at the Indianapolis Field Office by
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All
such meetings will be open to the public and, if possible, notices of
meetings will be posted in advance at the locations listed above under
ADDRESSES. A summary of the meeting will be included in the
Administrative Record.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is exempted from review by the Office of
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 and has determined that, to the
extent allowed by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of
subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are
not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and
program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated
by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA
(30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15 and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of
whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing
Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts
730, 731, and 732 have been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)] provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Hence, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: December 12, 1995.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 95-30948 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30923 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Muscatine, IA
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65601-65602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30923]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-17]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Muscatine, IA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Muscatine Municipal Airport, Muscatine, IA. The development of a new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) based on the relocated
Port City Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring
Equipment (VOR/DME), has made the proposal necessary. The intended
effect of this proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace
for aircraft executing the SIAP at Muscatine Municipal Airport.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Air
[[Page 65602]]
Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
Docket No. 95-ACE-17, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the office of the Manager, Air Traffic Operations Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Air Traffic Operations Branch,
ACE-530C, Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone number: (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
ACE-17.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to provide additional controlled
airspace for a new SIAP based on the relocated Port City VOR/DME at the
Muscatine, IA, Municipal Airport. The additional airspace would
segregate aircraft operating under VFR conditions from aircraft
operating under IFR procedures. The area would be depicted on
appropriate aeronautical charts thereby enabling pilots to
circumnavigate the area or otherwise comply with IFR procedures. Class
E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE IA E5 Muscatine, IA [Revised]
Muscatine Municipal Airport, IA
(Lat. 41 deg.22'00'' N., long. 91 deg.08'44'' W)
Port City VOR/DME
(Lat. 41 deg.21'59'' N., long. 91 deg.08'57'' W)
Muscatine NDB
(Lat. 41 deg.21'44'' N., long. 91 deg.08'46'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Muscatine Municipal Airport and within 1.4
miles each side of the 067 deg. radial of the Port City VOR/DME
extending from the 6-mile radius to 7 miles northeast of the airport
and within 2.6 miles each side of the 256 deg. bearing from the
Muscatine NDB extending from the 6-mile radius to 7 miles southwest
of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on November 30, 1995.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 95-30923 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30922 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Hastings, NE
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65602-65603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30922]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-16]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Hastings, NE
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Hastings Municipal Airport, Hastings, Nebraska. The development of a
new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) based on the Global
Positioning System (GPS) has made the proposal necessary. The intended
effect of this proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace
for aircraft executing the SIAP at Hastings Municipal Airport.
[[Page 65603]]
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Air
Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
Docket No. 95-ACE-16, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the office of the Manager, Air Traffic Operations Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Air Traffic Operations Branch,
ACE-530C, Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone number: (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
ACE-16.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to provide additional controlled
airspace for a new SIAP based on the GPS at the Hastings, Nebraska,
Municipal Airport. The additional airspace would segregate aircraft
operating under VFR conditions from aircraft operating under IFR
procedures. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical
charts thereby enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area or otherwise
comply with IFR procedures. Class E airspace designations for airspace
areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the
earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE NE E5 Hastings, NE [Revised]
Hastings Municipal Airport, NE
(Lat. 40 deg.36'16''N., long. 98 deg.25'39''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7 mile radius of Hastings Municipal Airport and within 2
miles each side of the 338 deg. bearing from the Hastings Municipal
Airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10 miles north of the
airport and within 2 miles each side of the 143 deg. bearing from
Hastings Municipal Airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10
miles southeast of the airport, and within 3 miles each side of the
219 deg. bearing from Hastings Municipal Airport extending from the
6.7-mile radius to 10 miles southwest of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on November 30, 1995.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 95-30922 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30921 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Carroll, IA
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65603-65604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30921]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-15]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Carroll, IA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Arthur N. Neu Airport, Carroll, Iowa. The development of a new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) based on the Global Positioning
System
[[Page 65604]]
(GPS) has made the proposal necessary. The intended effect of this
proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft
executing the SIAP at Arthur N. Neu Airport.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Air
Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
Docket No. 95-ACE-15, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the office of the Manager, Air Traffic Operations Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Air Traffic Operations Branch,
ACE-530C, Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone number: (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
ACE-15.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
the FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to provide additional controlled
airspace for a new SIAP based on the GPS at the Arthur N. Neu Airport.
The additional airspace would segregate aircraft operating under VFR
conditions from aircraft operating under IFR procedures. The area would
be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts thereby enabling pilots
to circumnavigate the area or otherwise comply with IFR procedures.
Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and
effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document
would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE IA E5 Carroll, IA [Revised]
Arthur N. Neu Airport, IA
(Lat. 42 deg.02'46''N. long. 94 deg.47'20''W)
Carroll NDB
(Lat. 42 deg.02'42''N., long. 94 deg.47'07''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Arthur N. Neu Airport and within 2.6
miles each side of the 142 deg. bearing from the Carroll NDB
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles southeast of the
airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on November 30, 1995.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 95-30921 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30920 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Atlantic, IA
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65604-65605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30920]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-14]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Atlantic, IA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Atlantic, IA. The development of a new Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) based on the Global Positioning System (GPS) has made
the proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to
provide additional
[[Page 65605]]
controlled airspace for aircraft executing the SIAP at Atlantic
Municipal Airport.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Air
Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
Docket No. 95-ACE-14, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, MO. 64106
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the office of the Manager, Air Traffic Operations Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Air Traffic Operations Branch,
ACE-530c, Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone number: (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
ACE 14'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to provide additional controlled
airspace of a new SIAP based on the GPS at the Atlantic, IA, Municipal
Airport. The additional airspace would segregate aircraft operating
under VFR conditions from aircraft operating under IFR procedures. The
area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts thereby
enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area or otherwise comply with IFR
procedures. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending
upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are
published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17,
1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation of part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE IA E5 Atlantic, IA [Revised]
Atlantic Municipal Airport, IA
(Lat. 41 deg.24'26'' N., long. 95 deg.02'49'' W)
Atlantic NDB
(Lat. 41 deg.24'26'' N., long. 95 deg.02'47'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Atlantic Municipal Airport and within 4
miles each side of the 315 deg. bearing from the Atlantic NDB
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 8.3 miles northwest of the
airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on November 30, 1995.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 95-30920 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30917 Proposed Amendment to Class E airspace; Worcester, MA
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65605-65607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30917]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ANE-61]
Proposed Amendment to Class E airspace; Worcester, MA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish Class E airspace at
Worcester, MA (ORH). With the commissioning of the Automated Surface
Observation System (ASOS) at the Worcester Municipal Airport, weather
reporting is now continuously available at that
[[Page 65606]]
airport. This action is necessary to establish controlled airspace
extending upward from the surface for aircraft operating under
instrument flight rules (IFR) to and from the Worcester Municipal
Airport during the times when the air traffic control tower is closed.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, ANE-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
Docket No. 95-ANE-60, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803-5299; telephone (617) 238-7530; fax (617) 238-7596.
The official docket file may be examined in the Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, New England Region, ANE-7, Room 401, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (617) 238-
7040; fax (617) 238-7055.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the Air Traffic Division, Room 408, by contacting the Manager,
System Management Branch at the first address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Duda, System Management
Branch, ANE-533, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-
5299; telephone (617) 238-7533; fax (617) 238-7596.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed first under ADDRESSES
above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:
``Comments to Docket No. 95-ANE-61.'' The postcard will be date/time
stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on
or before the closing date for comments will be considered before
taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this
notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments
submitted will be available for examination in the Rules Docket both
before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing
each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,800
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-
3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the application procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish a Class E surface
area at the Worcester Municipal Airport, Worcester, MA (ORH). Since the
air traffic control tower (ATCT) at Worcester does not operate
continuously, aircraft operating under instrument flight rules (IFR) to
and from Worcester would not have had the benefit of weather reports
from the airport during the times when the tower is closed. The lack of
continuous weather reporting also required that the controlled airspace
for Worcester could not extend to the surface. Recently, however, an
Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) has been commissioned at
Worcester, making weather reporting now available continuously. As
result, this action is necessary to establish controlled airspace
extending from the surface for those aircraft operating to and from
Worcester under IFR during the times when the ATCT is closed. Class E
airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from the
surface of the earth in the vicinity of airports are published in
paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and
effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document
would be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined that these proposed regulations only involve
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore these proposed regulations--(1) are not ``significant
regulatory actions'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) are not
``significant rules'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) do not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as these routine matters will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that these
proposed rules will not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1994, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Subpart E--Class E Airspace
* * * * *
Paragraph 6002 Class E surface areas extending upward from the
surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ANE MA E2 Worcester, MA [New]
Worcester Municipal Airport, MA
(Lat. 42 deg.16'02'' N, long. 71 deg.52'32'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-
mile radius of Worcester Municipal Airport. This Class E airspace
area is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will
thereafter by continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.
* * * * *
[[Page 65607]]
Issued in Burlington, MA, on December 13, 1995.
John J. Boyce, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 95-30917 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30896 Radio Broadcasting Services; Cassville and Kimberling City, MO
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30896]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-179; RM-8728]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Cassville and Kimberling City, MO
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Kevin
M. and Patricia W. Wodlinger, proposing the substitution of Channel
261C2 for Channel 261A at Cassville, Missouri, reallotment of Channel
261C2 to Kimberling City, Missouri, and modification of the license for
Station KRLK accordingly. The coordinates for Channel 261C2 at
Kimberling City are 36-30-00 and 93-23-00. We shall propose to modify
the license for Station KRLK in accordance with Sections 1.420(g) and
(i) of the Commission's Rules and will not accept competing expressions
of interest for the use of the channel or require petitioner to
demonstrate the availaility of an additional equivalent class channel
for use by such parties.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before February 5, 1996, and reply
comments on or before February 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: William J. Pennington, III,
Post Office Box 1447, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29465.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-179, adopted December 6,
1995, and released December 15, 1995. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street,
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contact.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-30896 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30879 Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs; Foreign Prohibitions on Longshore Work by U.S. Nationals
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30879]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 89
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs; Foreign Prohibitions on
Longshore Work by U.S. Nationals
[Public Notice No. 2314]
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of Comment Period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 24, 1995, the Department of State issued a
proposed rulemaking regarding longshore work by foreign nationals in
U.S. ports and waters. In response to requests from several interested
parties, the Department is extending the deadline for comments by 30
days, from December 26, 1995 to January 26, 1996.
DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit comments in triplicate
no later than January 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Office of Maritime and Land
Transport (EB/TRA/MA), Room 5828, Department of State, Washington, D.C.
20520-5816.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard T. Miller, Office of Maritime and Land Transport, Department of
State, (202) 647-6961.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 24, 1995, the Department of
State issued a proposed rulemaking (60 FR 58026) updating the list of
longshore work by particular activity, of countries where performance
of such a particular activity by crewmembers aboard United States
vessels is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice in the
country. The crews of ships registered in or owned by nationals of the
countries on the list may not perform the activities enumerated on the
list. Citing the need for more time to assess the full effects of the
proposed rule, a number of parties have requested an extension of the
comment period. Consequently, the Department will extend the deadline
by 30 days, from December 26, 1995 to January 26, 1996.
(8 U.S.C. 1288, Pub. L. 010-649, 104 Stat. 4878)
Dated: December 14, 1995.
Daniel K. Tarullo,
Assistant Secretary, Economic and Business Affairs, Department of
State.
[FR Doc. 95-30879 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30862 Exemption of the Securities of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Argentina, and the Republic of Venezuela Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for Purposes of Trading Futures Contracts on Those Securities
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65607-65609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30862]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 240
[Release No. 34-36580, International Series Release No. 900, File No.
S7-34-95]
RIN 3235-AG68
Exemption of the Securities of the Federative Republic of Brazil,
the Republic of Argentina, and the Republic of Venezuela Under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for Purposes of Trading Futures
Contracts on Those Securities
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule amendment and solicitation of public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission proposes for comment an amendment to Rule 3a12-
8 (``Rule'') that would designate debt obligations issued by the
Federative Republic of Brazil (``Brazil''), the Republic of Argentina
(``Argentina''), and the Republic of Venezuela (``Venezuela'')
(collectively the ``Proposed Countries'') as ``exempted securities''
for the purpose of marketing and trading of futures contracts on those
securities in the United States. The amendment is intended to permit
futures trading on the sovereign debt of the Proposed Countries. This
change is not intended to have any substantive effect on the operation
of the Rule.
DATES: Comments should be submitted by January 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be submitted in triplicate and addressed
to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549. All comments should refer
to File No. S7-34-95, and will be available for public inspection and
copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James T. McHale, Attorney, Office of
Market Supervision (``OMS''), Division of Market Regulation
(``Division''), Securities and Exchange Commission (Mail Stop 5-1), 450
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, at 202/942-0190.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Under the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA''), it is unlawful to trade
a futures contract on any individual security unless the security in
question is an exempted security (other than a municipal security)
under the Securities Act of 1933 (``Securities Act'') or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''). Debt obligations of foreign
governments are not exempted securities under either of these statutes.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission''),
however, has adopted Rule 3a12-8 under the Exchange Act to designate
debt obligations issued by certain foreign governments as exempted
securities under the Exchange Act solely for the purpose of marketing
and trading futures contracts on those securities in the United States.
As amended, the foreign governments currently designated in the Rule
are Great Britain, Canada, Japan, Australia, France, New Zealand,
Austria, Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, the
Republic of Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Mexico (the ``Designated Foreign
Governments''). As a result, futures contracts on the debt obligations
of these countries may be sold in the United States, as long as the
other terms of the Rule are satisfied.
The Commission today is soliciting comments on a proposal to amend
Rule 3a12-8 (17 CFR 240.3a12-8) to add the debt obligations of Brazil,
Argentina, and Venezuela to the list of Designated Foreign Government
securities that are exempted by Rule 3a12-8. To qualify for the
exemption, futures contracts on debt obligations of the Proposed
Countries would have to meet all the other existing requirements of the
Rule.
II. Background
Rule 3a12-8 was adopted in 1984 1 pursuant to the exemptive
authority in Section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act in order to provide a
limited exception from the CEA's prohibition on futures overlying
individual securities.2 As originally adopted, the Rule provided
that the debt obligations of Great Britain and Canada would be deemed
to be exempted securities, solely for the purpose of permitting the
offer, sale, and confirmation of ``qualifying foreign futures
contracts'' on such securities. The securities in question were not
eligible for the exemption if they were registered under the Securities
Act or were the subject of any American depositary receipt so
registered. A futures contract on such a debt obligation is deemed
under the Rule to be a ``qualifying foreign futures contract'' if the
contract is deliverable outside the United States and is traded on a
board of trade.3
\1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 20708 (``Original
Adopting Release'') (March 2, 1984), 49 FR 8595 (March 8, 1984) and
19811 (``Original Proposing Release'') (May 25, 1983), 48 FR 24725
(June 2, 1983).
\2\ In approving the Futures Trading Act of 1982, Congress
expressed its understanding that neither the SEC nor the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') had intended to bar the sale
of futures on debt obligations of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland to U.S. persons, and its expectation
that administrative action would be taken to allow the sale of such
futures contracts in the United States. See Original Proposing
Release, supra note 1, 48 FR at 24725 (citing 128 Cong. Rec. H7492
(daily ed. September 23, 1982) (statements of Representatives
Daschle and Wirth)).
\3\ As originally adopted, the Rule required that the board of
trade be located in the country that issued the underlying
securities. This requirement was eliminated in 1987. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 24209 (March 12, 1987), 52 FR 8875 (March
20, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conditions imposed by the Rule were intended to facilitate the
trading of futures contracts on foreign government securities in the
United States while requiring offerings of foreign government
securities to comply with the federal securities laws. Accordingly, the
conditions set forth in the Rule were designed to ensure that, absent
registration, a domestic market in unregistered foreign government
securities would not develop, and that markets for futures on these
instruments would not be used to avoid the securities law registration
requirements. In particular, the Rule was intended to ensure that
futures on exempted sovereign debt did not operate as a surrogate means
of trading the unregistered debt.
Subsequently, the Commission amended the Rule to include the debt
securities issued by Japan, Australia, France, New Zealand, Austria,
Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland,
Italy, Spain, and, most recently, Mexico.4
\4\ As originally adopted, the Rule applied only to British and
Canadian government securities. See Original Adopting Release, supra
note 1. In 1986, the Rule was amended to include Japanese government
securities. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 23423 (July 11,
1986), 51 FR 25996 (July 18, 1986). In 1987, the Rule was amended to
include debt securities issued by Australia, France and New Zealand.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25072 (October 29, 1987), 52
FR 42277 (November 4, 1987). In 1988, the Rule was amended to
include debt securities issued by Austria, Denmark, Finland, the
Netherlands, Switzerland, and West Germany. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 26217 (October 26, 1988), 53 FR 43860 (October 31,
1988). In 1992 the Rule was again amended to (1) include debt
securities offered by the Republic of Ireland and Italy, (2) change
the country designation of ``West Germany'' to the ``Federal
Republic of Germany,'' and (3) replace all references to the
informal names of the countries listed in the Rule with references
to their official names. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
30166 (January 6, 1992), 57 FR 1375 (January 14, 1992). In 1994, the
Rule was amended to include debt securities issued by the Kingdom of
Spain. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34908 (October 27,
1994), 59 FR 54812 (November 2, 1994). Finally, the Rule was amended
to include the debt securities of Mexico. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 36530 (November 30, 1995), 60 FR 62323 (December 6,
1995) (``Mexico Adopting Release'').
[[Page 65608]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (``CME'') has proposed that the
Commission amend Rule 3a12-8 to include the sovereign debt of the
Proposed Countries.5 The CME intends to develop a futures contract
market in Brady bonds issued by the Proposed Countries.6 Brady
bonds are issued pursuant to the Brady plan which allows developing
countries to restructure their commercial bank debt by issuing long-
term dollar denominated bonds.7 The Commission understands that
Brady bonds issued by the Proposed Countries are currently traded
primarily in the over-the-counter market in the United States.
\5\ See Letter from William J. Brodsky, President and Chief
Executive Officer, CME, to Arthur Levitt, Jr., Chairman, Commission,
dated November 10, 1995 (``CME petition'').
\6\ The marketing and trading of foreign futures contracts is
subject to regulation by the CFTC. In particular, Section 4b of the
CEA authorizes the CFTC to regulate the offer and sale of foreign
futures contracts to U.S. residents, and Rule 9 (17 CFR 30.9),
promulgated under Section 2(a)(1)(A) of the CEA, is intended to
prohibit fraud in connection with the offer and sale of futures
contracts executed on foreign exchanges. Additional rules
promulgated under 2(a)(1)(A) of the CEA govern the domestic offer
and sale of futures and options contracts traded on foreign boards
of trade. These rules require, among other things, that the domestic
offer and sale of foreign futures be effected through the CFTC
registrants or through entities subject to a foreign regulatory
framework comparable to that governing domestic futures trading. See
17 CFR 30.3, 30.4, and 30.5 (1991).
\7\ There are several types of Brady bonds, but ``Par Bradys''
and ``Discount Bradys'' represent the great majority of issues in
the Brady bond market. In general, both Par Bradys and Discount
Bradys are secured as to principal at maturity by U.S. Treasury
zero-coupon bonds. Additionally, usually 12 to 18 months of interest
payments are also secured in the form of a cash collateral account,
which is maintained to pay interest in the event that the sovereign
debtor misses an interest payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed amendment, the existing conditions set forth in
the Rule (i.e., that the underlying securities not be registered in the
United States,8 the futures contracts require delivery outside the
United States,9 and the contracts be traded on a board of trade)
would continue to apply.
\8\ The Commission notes that while no Brady bonds of Proposed
Countries have been registered in the United States, certain
sovereign debt issues of Argentina and Venezuela have been so
registered. The trading of futures on U.S-registered debt securities
of Argentina and Venezuela would not be exempted under Rule 3a12-8
from the CEA's general prohibition on futures overlying individual
securities.
\9\ The CME's proposed futures contracts will be cash-settled
(i.e., settlement of the futures contracts will not entail delivery
of the underlying securities). The Commission has recognized that a
cash-settled futures contract is consistent with the requirement of
the Rule that delivery must be made outside the United States. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25072 (October 29, 1987), 52 FR
42277 (November 4, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether to amend the Rule to add new countries, the
Commission has considered whether there is an active and liquid
secondary trading market in the particular sovereign debt. There
appears to be an active and liquid market in the debt instruments of
the Proposed Countries. According to the CME, as of December 31, 1993,
the total public and publicly guaranteed debt 10 of Brazil,
Argentina, and Venezuela was approximately US$86 billion, US$55
billion, and US$74 billion, respectively.11 Moreover, the cash
market for Brady bonds issued by the Proposed Countries evidences
relatively active trading. Based on data provided by the CME, the total
1994 trading volume in the Brady bonds of Brazil, Argentina, and
Venezuela was approximately US$371 billion, US$360 billion, and US$320
billion, respectively.12
\10\ Public debt is an external obligation of a public debtor,
including the national government, a political subdivision (or any
agency of either) and autonomous public bodies. Publicly guaranteed
debt is an external obligation of a private debtor that is
guaranteed for repayment by a public entity.
\11\ See Letter from Carl A. Royal, Senior Vice President and
Special Counsel, CME, to James T. McHale, Attorney, OMS, Division,
Commission, dated November 30, 1995 (citing the World Bank's 1995
World Debt Tables as the source for this information) (``November 30
letter'').
\12\ See November 30 letter, supra note 11. As mentioned
earlier, the Commission recently amended the Rule to include the
debt securities of Mexico. The total 1994 trading volume in Mexican
Brady bonds was approximately US$282.3 billion. See Mexico Adopting
Release, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the above data, the Commission believes preliminarily
that the debt obligations of the Proposed Countries should be subject
to the same regulatory treatment under the Rule as the debt obligations
of the Designated Foreign Governments. Moreover, the trading of futures
on the sovereign debt of Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela should
provide U.S. investors with a vehicle for hedging the risks involved in
the trading of the underlying sovereign debt of the Proposed Countries.
In addition, the Commission preliminarily believes that the
proposed amendment offers potential benefits for U.S. investors. If
adopted, the proposed amendment would allow U.S. boards of trade to
offer in the United States, and U.S. investors to trade, a greater
range of futures contracts on foreign government debt obligations. The
Commission does not anticipate that the proposed amendment would result
in any direct cost for U.S. investors or others. The proposed amendment
would impose no recordkeeping or compliance burdens, and merely would
provide a limited purpose exemption under the federal securities laws.
The restrictions imposed under the proposed amendment are identical to
the restrictions currently imposed under the terms of the Rule and are
designed to protect U.S. investors.
Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission in
amending rules to consider potential impact on competition. Because the
proposal is intended to expand the range of financial products
available in the United States, the Commission preliminarily believes
that the proposed amendment to the Rule will not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Exchange Act.
IV. Request for Comments
The Commission seeks comments on the desirability of designating
the debt securities of the Proposed Countries as exempted securities
under Rule 3a12-8. Comments should address whether the trading or other
characteristics of the Proposed Countries' debt warrant an exemption
for purposes of futures trading. Commentators may wish to discuss
whether there are any legal or policy reasons for distinguishing
between the Proposed Countries and the Designated Foreign Governments
for purposes of the Rule. The Commission also solicits comments on the
costs and benefits of the proposed amendment to Rule 3a12-8.
Specifically, the Commission requests commentators to address whether
the proposed amendment would generate the anticipated benefits, or
impose any costs on U.S. investors or others. Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on the general application and operation of the Rule
given the increased globalization of the securities markets since the
Rule was adopted.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
Pursuant to Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. Sec. 605(b), the Chairman of the Commission has certified that
the amendment proposed herein would not, if adopted, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
certification, including the reasons therefor, is attached to this
release as Appendix A.
[[Page 65609]]
VI. Statutory Basis
The amendment to Rule 3a12-8 is being proposed pursuant to 15
U.S.C. Secs. 78a et seq., particularly Sections 3(a)(12) and 23(a), 15
U.S.C. Secs. 78c(a)(12) and 78w(a).
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
VII. Text of the Proposed Amendment
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission is
proposing to amend Part 240 of Chapter II, Title 17 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
1. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read in part as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77eee, 77ggg,
77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78i, 78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78p,
78q, 78s, 78w, 78x, 78ll(d), 79q, 79t, 80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-
37, 80b-3, 80b-4 and 80b-11, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
2. Section 240.3a12-8 is amended by removing the word ``or'' at the
end of paragraph (a)(1)(xv), removing the ``period'' at the end of
paragraph (a)(1)(xvi) and adding ``; or'' in its place, and adding
paragraph (a)(1)(xvii), paragraph (a)(1)(xviii), and paragraph
(a)(1)(xix) to read as follows:
Sec. 240.3a12-8 Exemption for designated foreign government securities
for purposes of futures trading.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(xvii) the Federative Republic of Brazil;
(xviii) the Republic of Argentina; or
(xix) the Republic of Venezuela.
* * * * *
By the Commission.
Dated: December 13, 1995.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
Note: Appendix A to the Preamble will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix A--Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
I, Arthur Levitt, Jr., Chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, hereby certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the
proposed amendment to Rule 3a12-8 (``Rule'') under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') set forth in Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 36580, which would define government debt
securities of Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela (collectively the
``Proposed Countries'') as exempted securities under the Exchange
Act for the purpose of trading futures on such securities, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons. First, the proposed amendment
imposes no record-keeping or compliance burden in itself and merely
allows, in effect, the marketing and trading in the United States of
futures contracts overlying the government debt securities of the
Proposed Countries. Second, because futures contracts on the sixteen
countries whose debt obligations are designated as ``exempted
securities'' under the Rule, which already can be traded and
marketed in the U.S., still will be eligible for trading under the
proposed amendment, the proposal will not affect any entity
currently engaged in trading such futures contracts. Third, because
the level of interest presently evident in this country in the
futures trading covered by the proposed rule amendment is modest and
those primarily interested are large, institutional investors,
neither the availability nor the unavailability of these futures
products will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, as that term is defined for broker-dealers
in 27 CFR 240.0-10 and to the extent that it is defined for futures
market participants in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's
``Policy Statement and Establishment of Definitions of `Small
Entities' for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.'' 1
\1\ 45 FR 18618 (April 30, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: December 13, 1995.
Arthur Levitt, Jr.,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 95-30862 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30821 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 5
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65618-65631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30821]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 611 and 655
[Docket No. 951208293-5293-01; I.D. 110995B]
RIN 0648-AF01
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 5
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement the measures
contained in Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries (FMP). Amendment 5
is intended to further the Americanization of the fisheries and to
implement measures to prevent overfishing and avoid overcapitalization
of the domestic fleet.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before
January 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule should be sent to: Dr. Andrew
A. Rosenberg, Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-
2298. Mark the outside of the envelope, ``Comments on Amendment 5
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish.''
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or any other aspect of
the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed
rule should be sent to the Northeast Regional Director at the address
above and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Attention: NOAA
Desk Officer), Washington, D.C. 20503.
Copies of the Amendment, final environmental impact statement,
regulatory impact review, and other supporting documents are available
upon request from David R. Keifer, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New
Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst,
508-281-9104.
[[Page 65619]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Amendment 5 was developed in response to concerns regarding
overcapitalization expressed by industry representatives at several
meetings of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and
its Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish (SMB) Committee in the early
1990's. Increases in domestic squid landings and a stagnation in the
growth of butterfish landings at well below the maximum sustainable
yield (MSY) for that species moved the Council to develop this
comprehensive amendment.
At its July, 1992, meeting, the Council voted to publish a notice
of control date for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish
fisheries. The control date established was August 13, 1992 (57 FR
36384, August 13, 1992). This notice informed the public that the
Council was considering a moratorium on vessel permits issued for these
fisheries. At its July, 1994, meeting, the Council reconsidered the
need for a control date for the Atlantic mackerel fishery. The data the
Council reviewed indicated the catch and fishing effort had decreased
in 1993 and 1994, while stock biomass remained high. In response, the
Council rescinded the control date for the Atlantic mackerel fishery
(59 FR 49235, September 27, 1994). Initial public scoping meetings to
discuss possible management measures for SMB took place in January,
1993, at which time the vessel moratorium, mesh restrictions, and area
and seasonal closures were identified as measures for consideration. A
public hearing draft of Amendment 5 was adopted by the Council at its
June, 1994, meeting and presented at public hearings in December, 1994.
As a result of issues raised at the hearings, the Council voted in
February, 1995, to issue a supplement to Amendment 5 that contained
revisions to the Loligo minimum mesh net requirement and the qualifying
criteria for the vessel moratoria. Public hearings were conducted in
April, 1995, to present the revised Amendment. The Council adopted
Amendment 5 on May 25, 1995, for submission to NMFS for Secretarial
review.
Status of the Stocks
In 1993, the 17th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop
(17th SAW) was convened to examine the status of several species,
including Illex and Loligo squid and butterfish.
Results of SAW 17, as indicated in the March, 1994, plenary report,
estimated MSY for Loligo squid to be 36,000 metric tons (mt) based on
the finding that the Loligo has a life span of one year rather than
three, as previously believed. The present MSY for Loligo squid is
specified in the FMP as 44,000 mt, based on the assumption that Loligo
squid has a 3-year life span. The 17th SAW advised that Loligo is
considered to be fully utilized when based on the revised MSY of 36,000
mt.
The present MSY for Illex is specified in the FMP as 30,000 mt and
is based on the disproven assumption that the life span of these
animals is 2 years. Though the 17th SAW determined that Illex also has
a life span of 1 year, it did not recommend revising the MSY. Instead,
the 17th SAW recommended that, since Illex is a transboundary stock
between the United States and Canada, a joint assessment should be
conducted before a revised MSY could be recommended. However, the 17th
SAW advised that the current MSY for Illex may be inappropriate and
cautioned that, while the stock is under-exploited based on current
MSY, the potential for recruitment overfishing may be substantial.
The exploitation rate for butterfish is unknown. However, the stock
is at a low-to-medium biomass level and current catch levels are well
below the MSY of 16,000 mt. The adult component of the stock has
declined since 1990 and is currently well below average. It is
estimated that 50 percent of the harvest of butterfish over the past
several years has been discarded due to both the relatively small size
of the fish and the lack of markets. The largest butterfish landings in
recent years have been made as bycatch in the Loligo squid fishery.
At the time the Council was developing and adopting Amendment 5,
the most recent stock assessment for Atlantic mackerel was that done in
1991, when the 12th SAW assessed the stock as underexploited with a
high biomass. That assessment indicated that, following a period of
poor year classes from 1976 through 1980, there were several years with
relatively good recruitment, yielding especially strong year classes in
1982, 1987, and 1988. These cohorts contributed to a marked increase in
stock biomass. Estimated spawning stock biomass was 3,010,000 mt in
1991 with an exploitation rate of 2 percent.
The recently concluded 20th SAW determined that, based on the 1994
stock assessment, the Atlantic mackerel stock continues to be under-
exploited and at a high biomass level. The exploitation rate of two
percent has not changed. The 20th SAW further concluded that the long-
term potential catch (LTPC) projected for the Canadian and U.S.
Atlantic mackerel combined was approximately 150,000 mt. This
represents an increase of 16,000 mt from the previous LTPC value of
134,000 mt. The LTPC is the estimate of allowable annual catch levels
that would sustain the fishery for several years.
Management Measures
NMFS is requesting comment on all measures contained in Amendment
5. However, NMFS has serious concerns about the proposed criteria for
entry into the fisheries for the squids and butterfish, the exemption
proposed for the sea herring fishery, the Council's proposal to
constrain ABC by the LTPC value, and the use of the 50-fathom curve as
a boundary for the exemption from the minimum mesh size for Loligo
during prosecution of the summer Illex fishery. Because of NMFS'
concerns regarding the enforceability of the 50-fathom curve as a
boundary, NMFS proposes a set of latitude-longitude coordinates to
achieve the Council's intent in an enforceable manner. While comment is
sought on all measures contained in the proposed rule, NMFS asks the
public to focus on these measures in particular, to assist in
conducting a thorough and deliberative review of the amendment before
final approval or disapproval by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary).
In addition, NMFS notes that the provision contained in Amendment 5
that would require the Secretary to publish a control date for the
Atlantic mackerel fishery when commercial landings reach 50 percent of
allowable biological catch (ABC) is not included in this proposed rule.
NMFS does not consider this provision to be a management measure to be
implemented by a fishery management plan. Rather, it is viewed as a
statement of Council intent; NMFS expects that the Council will
recommend the publication of a notice of control date when it deems
this action necessary.
The permit and reporting requirements and revision to the annual
specification process, if approved, will be implemented for the 1997
fishing year. Other provisions may be effective prior to that time.
Elimination of the Potential for Joint Ventures and Directed Foreign
Fishing for the Squids and Butterfish
The Council proposes to eliminate foreign participation in these
fisheries. Joint ventures and total allowable levels of foreign fishing
(TALFF) have not been allocated for squid or butterfish since the mid-
1980's. The Council concluded that the domestic fleet has the capacity
to harvest the OY from
[[Page 65620]]
these fisheries. However, joint venture and TALFF allocations for
Atlantic mackerel may continue. If there is TALFF specified for
Atlantic mackerel, there will be butterfish bycatch TALFF allocated
that is equal to 0.08 percent of the mackerel TALFF, in order to reduce
waste of bycatch in that fishery. The definitions of ``other allocated
species'' and ``prohibited species'' at 50 CFR 611.50(b) are modified
accordingly, to make squids ``prohibited species.''
MSY for Loligo Squid
The Council would revise the MSY for Loligo squid to 36,000 mt from
44,000 mt. The revision is based on the finding that the squid has a
one-year life span. The stock is considered to be fully-exploited.
Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) and LTPC for Atlantic Mackerel
The FMP currently specifies ABC for Atlantic mackerel as that U.S.
catch that would yield an SSB of 600,000 mt. The Council would revise
this threshold upward to 900,000 mt to promote recruitment. A time
series based on the 1991 assessment found that the median year class
size for years 1962-93, inclusive, was 1.277 billion fish. When the SSB
was less than 900,000 mt, only 35 percent of the ensuing year classes
were observed to be above the median. Conversely, 82 percent of the
year classes were above the median recruitment level when SSB exceeded
900,000 mt.
The Council would also constrain ABC with a derived LTPC. The
current LTPC specified annually by the Council would be 150,000 mt
minus the projected annual Canadian catch. Therefore, at present, if
this measure were approved, ABC could be no larger than 150,000 mt and
is likely to be less. The Council believes that management of Atlantic
mackerel should be based on long-term yield projections. However, NMFS
is concerned about the fact that Atlantic mackerel stock abundance is
very high currently, and that limiting ABC by LTPC may be overly
constraining in the short term. The 20th SAW states that at current
stock abundance amounts, Atlantic mackerel landings of 200,000 mt could
be sustained for several years because of foregone yield in the fishery
recently.
Seasonal Quota for Loligo Squid
This management measure would give the Regional Director authority
to establish annual seasonal quotas for Loligo based on the
recommendations of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) and the Council. Such
quotas are intended to ensure sufficient escapement of Loligo squid
from the offshore winter fishery to allow for catches in traditional
inshore fisheries.
Moratorium on Vessel Permits for Butterfish and Squids
The Council would establish a moratorium on new vessel permits for
the directed fisheries for butterfish and the squids. The Council would
also establish a vessel permit category open to all vessels, which
would allow a vessel to retain up to 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of each species
per trip. This incidental catch level could be adjusted annually.
Moratorium permits would be issued for Loligo squid and butterfish
jointly and Illex squid separately. In the November, 1994, public
hearing draft, the time horizon that served as a basis for qualifying
for the moratoria permits was August 13, 1988, to August 13, 1993.
Landings requirements proposed at that time were 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) in
one week for Loligo squid or butterfish and five separate trips of at
least 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) each for Illex. Furthermore, it was proposed
that vessels would qualify for the Illex permit if owners had purchased
refrigerated sea water equipment or an on-board freezer by May 31,
1994, and had landed five trips of at least 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) prior to
the promulgation of the final regulations implementing Amendment 5.
Under both moratoria, vessel replacement would be allowed if a
qualifying vessel leaves the fishery involuntarily; for example, if it
sinks.
Comments during the public hearings held in December, 1994,
indicated that the industry believed the qualification period for the
Illex squid permit should be extended back to August 13, 1981. This
revision would allow the catch history of vessels that participated in
the foreign joint venture fishery prior to 1988 to qualify them for a
moratorium permit. At the February 23, 1995, SMB Committee meeting,
industry representatives argued that it would not be fair to limit the
extension of the qualification period to the Illex fishery only,
convincing the Committee to recommend that the Council extend the
qualification period back to 1981, for both the Illex and Loligo/
butterfish moratoria permits. Furthermore, the SMB Committee believed
that the Loligo/butterfish landing criterion was not in line with
active participation in these fisheries. It recommended requiring
20,000 lb (9.07 mt) to have been landed in any 30-consecutive-day
period during the qualification period. The Council accepted the SMB
Committee's recommendations at its March, 1995, meeting. However, since
these changes to the Public Hearing Draft regarding qualifying
conditions were viewed as substantive, a Supplemental Public Hearing
Draft was developed and presented at public hearings in April, 1995.
After taking into account public comment, the Council adopted the
revised qualifying criteria in May, 1995.
Party or Charter Boat Permit
The owner of a party or charter boat (vessel for hire) would be
required to obtain an SMB party or charterboat permit. A party or
charter vessel obtaining this permit could also have a commercial
permit for Atlantic mackerel or a commercial moratorium permit for
Illex squid and/or Loligo/butterfish if the vessel meets the qualifying
criteria. However, such a vessel would be prohibited from fishing
commercially when carrying passengers for a fee.
Atlantic Mackerel Permit
Although a moratorium would not exist on entry into the Atlantic
mackerel fishery, an Atlantic mackerel permit would be required to
harvest and sell Atlantic mackerel. Vessels receiving permits for the
Atlantic mackerel fishery would be required to comply with the
requirements implemented under the FMP, including recordkeeping and
reporting.
Operator Permit
An operator of a vessel with a permit issued under this FMP would
be required to have an operator permit issued by the Northeast Region,
NMFS. The operator permits issued to operators in the fisheries for
Northeast multispecies, American lobster, and Atlantic sea scallops
would satisfy this requirement. The operator would be held accountable
for violations of the fishing regulations and would be subject to a
permit sanction. During the permit sanction period, the operator could
not work in any capacity aboard a federally permitted fishing vessel.
Transfers at Sea
Only vessels issued a moratorium permit would be allowed to
transfer Loligo squid, Illex squid, or butterfish at sea. This
provision is intended to enhance enforcement of the incidental catch
allowance for vessels without moratorium permits, which is currently
specified as 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of Illex, Loligo, or butterfish per
trip.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
The Council intends to institute recordkeeping and reporting
[[Page 65621]]
requirements in the FMP that are identical to those required by the
Summer Flounder, Northeast Multispecies, and Atlantic Sea Scallop
Fishery Management Plans.
Commercial logbooks would be submitted on a monthly basis by vessel
owners in order to monitor the fishery. Real-time assessment and
management of the Loligo and Illex resources may be necessary due to
the risk of overfishing stocks comprised of only a single cohort. The
Council proposes that the Regional Director specify, during the first
year of implementation, the data elements and reporting mechanism
required to establish a real-time assessment and management program for
the annual squid species. The Council would investigate the feasibility
of such a management system in year 2 of the management program.
Operators of party and charter boats with Federal permits would also be
required to provide catch information on logbooks submitted monthly.
Dealers with permits issued pursuant to the FMP would submit weekly
reports showing species purchased in pounds, and the name and permit
number of the vessels from which the aforementioned species were
purchased. Buyers that do not purchase directly from vessels would not
be required to submit reports under this provision.
Minimum Mesh Size Requirement for Loligo Squid
The minimum mesh size requirement for the Loligo squid fishery and
exemptions from that requirement would be established on a framework
basis. These provisions could be changed by the Regional Director based
upon the recommendation of the Council. This amendment proposes that
initially, otter trawl vessels possessing one pound (0.45 kg) or more
of Loligo squid be required to fish with nets having a minimum mesh
size of 1-7/8 inch (48-mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure,
applied throughout the net including the body and codend. A liner would
be allowed to close the opening created by the rings in the rearmost
portion of the codend, provided that it does not extend more than ten
meshes forward from the rearmost portion of the codend. Net
strengtheners, ropes, lines, or chafing gear on the outer portion of
the trawl net would be required to have a mesh opening of at least 4.5
inches (115 mm), inside stretch measure. This provision would be
implemented as a fishery measure that could be adjusted annually by the
Regional Director, based upon a recommendation by the Council.
There are two proposed exemptions from the minimum mesh size
requirement for Loligo. The first would exempt vessels fishing for
Illex during the months of June, July, August, and September seaward of
the 50-fathom curve. The second would exempt vessels participating in
the directed fishery for sea herring, provided that 75 percent or more
of their catch, by weight, is comprised of sea herring.
NMFS Office of Enforcement and the Coast Guard have expressed
concern about the enforceability of an exemption area defined by a
fathom curve, so NMFS proposes a set of latitude-longitude coordinates
intended to follow closely the 50-fathom curve and achieve the
Council's intent in an enforceable manner. These law enforcement
agencies are also concerned with the feasibility of the proposed sea
herring exemption because of the difficulties in ascertaining relative
percentages of the catch. After receiving public comment on these
exemptions, NMFS will determine how best to administer these
provisions, should they be approved.
Classification
Section 304(a)(1)(D)(ii) of the Magnuson Act, as amended, requires
NMFS to publish regulations proposed by a Council within 15 days of
receipt of the amendment and proposed regulations. At this time, NMFS
has not determined that the amendment these rules would implement is
consistent with the national standards, other provisions of the
Magnuson Act, and other applicable law. NMFS, in making that
determination, will take into account the information, views, and
comments received during the comment period.
The General Counsel of the Department of Commerce certified to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The provisions that would be
implemented by Amendment 5 would prevent overcapitalization of these
fisheries relative to abundance and availability of the stocks of
Loligo, Illex, and butterfish. Amendment 5, as indicated in the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis prepared by the Council, would
essentially maintain the status quo, in terms of revenues for
participants in the fishery, since the proposed limited entry measures
would include historical participants in the fisheries. Proposed
measures would not substantially affect more than 20 percent of the
present participants in these fisheries and would not directly increase
or decrease utilization or production of the affected species resulting
in a change in expected revenues of greater than 5 percent.
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Mandatory dealer
reporting and annual employment data reporting have been approved by
OMB under control numbers 0648-0229 and 0648-0018, respectively. Dealer
reporting responses are estimated to take 2 minutes and employment data
responses 6 minutes. The proposed rule also contains new requirements
that have been submitted to OMB for approval. These requirements and
their estimated response times are: vessel permits and vessel permit
appeals at 30 minutes per response, operator permits at one hour per
response, dealer permits at 5 minutes per response, and an observer
notification requirement at 2 minutes per response.
The response estimates shown include the time for reviewing
instructions, searching exiting data sources, gathering and maintaining
the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding any of these burden estimates or
any other aspect of the collection of information to NMFS or OMB at the
ADDRESSES above. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no
person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 611
Fisheries, Foreign relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
50 CFR Part 655
Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 14, 1995.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 611 and 655
are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 611--FOREIGN FISHING
1. The authority citation for part 611 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 65622]]
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq., 22
U.S.C. 1971 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. In Sec. 611.50, paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii)
are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 611.50 Northwest Atlantic Ocean fishery.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) TALFF. The TALFFs for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean fishery are
published in the Federal Register. Current TALFFs are also available
from the Regional Director. The procedures for determining and
adjusting the Atlantic mackerel TALFF is set forth in 50 CFR part 655.
(4) * * *
(i) The other allocated species, namely: Atlantic herring, Atlantic
mackerel, butterfish (as a bycatch of Atlantic mackerel), and river
herring (including alewife, blueback herring, and hickory shad); and
(ii) The prohibited species, namely: American plaice, American
shad, Atlantic cod, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic redfish, Atlantic
salmon, all marlin, all spearfish, sailfish, swordfish, black sea bass,
bluefish, croaker, haddock, ocean pout, pollock, red hake, scup, sea
turtles, sharks (except dogfish), silver hake, spot, striped bass,
summer flounder, tilefish, yellowtail flounder, weakfish, white hake,
short-finned squid, long-finned squid, windowpane flounder, winter
flounder, witch flounder, Continental Shelf fishery resources, and
other invertebrates (except non-allocated squids).
* * * * *
3. Part 655 is revised to read as follows:
PART 655--ATLANTIC MACKEREL, SQUID, AND BUTTERFISH FISHERIES
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
655.1 Purpose and scope.
655.2 Definitions.
655.3 Relation to other laws.
655.4 Vessel permits.
655.5 Operator permit.
655.6 Dealer permit.
655.7 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
655.8 Vessel identification.
655.9 Prohibitions.
655.10 Facilitation of enforcement.
655.11 Penalties.
Subpart B--Management Measures
655.20 Fishing year.
655.21 Maximum optimum yields.
655.22 Procedures for determining initial amounts.
655.23 Closure of the fishery.
655.24 Time and area restrictions for directed foreign fishing.
655.25 Gear restrictions.
655.26 Minimum fish sizes. [Reserved]
655.27 Possession limits. [Reserved]
655.28 At-sea observer coverage.
655.29 Transfer-at-sea.
655.30 Experimental fishery.
Figure 1 to Part 655--Exemption line to minimum net mesh-size
requirement for Loiigo squid.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 655.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) The regulations in this part govern the conservation and
management of Atlantic mackerel, Illex squid, Loligo squid, and
butterfish.
(b) The regulations governing fishing for Atlantic mackerel, Illex
squid, Loligo squid, and butterfish by vessels other than vessels of
the United States are contained in 50 CFR part 611.
(c) This part implements the Fishery Management Plan for the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries of the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean.
Sec. 655.2 Definitions.
In addition to the definitions in the Magnuson Act and in
Sec. 620.2 of this chapter, the terms used in this part have the
following meanings:
Atlantic butterfish or butterfish means the species Peprilus
triacanthus.
Atlantic mackerel or mackerel means the species Scomber scombrus.
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee or
Monitoring Committee means a committee made up of staff representatives
of the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, and
the Northeast Regional Office and Northeast Fisheries Science Center of
NMFS. The Council Executive Director or a designee chairs the
Committee.
Being rerigged means physical alteration of the vessel or its gear
had begun to transform the vessel into one capable of fishing
commercially for squid or butterfish.
Blast freezer means a freezing system in which fish are frozen by
being exposed to cold air being blown over them. The freezer must be
designed for use on a fishing vessel rather than designed for
residential or similar use.
Charter or party boat means any vessel that carries passengers for
hire to engage in fishing.
Council means the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
Dealer means any person who receives squid, mackerel, or butterfish
for a commercial purpose, other than solely for transport on land, from
the owner or operator of a vessel issued a permit under Sec. 655.4.
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) means the Fishery Management Plan for
the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries of the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean, as revised by subsequent amendments.
Fishing for commercial purposes means any fishing or fishing
activity that results in the harvest of Atlantic mackerel, squid, or
butterfish, one or more of which (or parts thereof) is sold, traded, or
bartered.
Fishing trip or trip means a period of time during which fishing is
conducted, beginning when the vessel leaves port and ending when the
vessel returns to port.
Gross registered tonnage (GRT) means the gross tonnage specified on
the U.S. Coast Guard documentation.
Illex means the species Illex illecebrosus (short-finned or summer
squid).
Joint venture harvest means U.S.-harvested Atlantic mackerel
transferred to foreign vessels in the EEZ.
Land means to begin offloading fish or to offload fish at sea or on
land, or to enter port with fish.
Liner means a piece of mesh rigged inside the main or outer net.
Loligo means the species Loligo pealei (long-finned or bone squid).
Metric ton (mt) means 1,000 kg or 2,204.6 lb.
Operator means the master, captain, or other individual on board a
fishing vessel and in charge of that vessel's operations.
Personal use means not for sale, barter, or trade.
Plate freezer means a freezing system in which fish are frozen by
contact with refrigerated plates. The freezer must be designed for use
on a fishing vessel rather than designed for residential or similar
use.
Postmark means independently verifiable evidence of date of
mailing, such as U.S. Postal Service postmark, United Parcel Service
(U.P.S.) or other private carrier postmark, certified mail receipt,
overnight mail receipt, or receipt received upon hand delivery to an
authorized representative of NMFS.
Recirculating sea water equipment means a refrigerated sea-water
system in which the seawater cooled by mechanical refrigeration is
circulated through tanks that contain fish.
Recreational fishing means fishing that is not intended to, nor
does result in, the barter, trade, or sale of fish.
Recreational fishing vessel means any vessel from which no fishing
other than recreational fishing is conducted. Charter and party boats
are not considered recreational fishing vessels.
Regional Director means the Regional Director, Northeast Region,
National
[[Page 65623]]
Marine Fisheries Service, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298,
or a designee.
Reporting month means the period of time beginning at 0001 hours
local time on the first day of each calendar month and ending at 2400
hours local time on the last day of each calendar month.
Reporting week means a period of time beginning at 0001 hours local
time on Sunday and ending at 2400 hours local time the following
Saturday.
Squid means Loligo pealei and Illex illecebrosus.
Substantially similar harvesting capacity means the same or less
GRT and vessel registered length for commercial vessels.
Total length (TL) means the distance from the tip of the snout to
the tip of the tail (caudal fin) while the fish is lying on its side
normally extended.
Transfer means to begin to remove, to pass over the rail, or
otherwise take away fish from any vessel and move them to another
conveyance.
Under construction means that the keel has been laid.
Vessel registered length means the registered length specified on
U.S. Coast Guard Documentation, or state registration if the state
registered length is verified by a NMFS authorized official.
Sec. 655.3 Relation to other laws.
(a) The relation of this part to other laws is set forth in
Sec. 620.3 of this chapter and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section.
(b) Additional regulations governing domestic fishing for Northeast
Multispecies, which affect this part, are found at 50 CFR part 651.
(c) Additional regulations governing domestic fishing for summer
flounder, which affect this part, are found at 50 CFR part 625.
(d) Nothing in these regulations supersedes more restrictive state
management measures.
Sec. 655.4 Vessel permits.
(a) General--(1) Requirement. Vessels, including party or charter
vessels, must obtain a permit issued under this part to fish for or
retain Atlantic mackerel, Loligo, Illex, or butterfish in or from the
EEZ. This requirement does not pertain to recreational fishing vessels.
(2) Condition. Vessel owners who apply for a fishing vessel permit
under this section must agree as a condition of the permit that the
vessel's fishing, catch and pertinent gear (without regard to whether
such fishing occurs in or from the EEZ or landward of the EEZ, and
without regard to where such fish or gear are possessed, taken or
landed) will be subject to all requirements of this part. All such
fishing, catch and gear will remain subject to all applicable state
requirements. If a requirement of this part and a management measure
required by state law differ, any vessel owner permitted to fish in the
EEZ must comply with the more restrictive requirement.
(b) Moratorium permits--(1) Loligo squid and butterfish. A vessel
is eligible for a moratorium permit to fish for and retain Loligo squid
or butterfish in excess of the incidental catch allowance specified in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, if it meets any of the following
criteria:
(i) The vessel landed and sold at least 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of
Loligo or butterfish in any 30-consecutive-day period between August
13, 1981, and August 13, 1993; or
(ii) The vessel is replacing a vessel of substantially similar
harvesting capacity that involuntarily left the Loligo or butterfish
fishery during the effective period of the moratorium, and both the
entering and replaced vessels are owned by the same person. Vessel
permits issued to vessels that involuntarily leave the fishery may not
be combined to create larger replacement vessels.
(iii) Vessels that are judged unseaworthy by the Coast Guard for
reasons other than lack of maintenance may be replaced by a vessel of
substantially similar harvesting capacity during the effective period
of the moratorium.
(2) Illex squid. A vessel is eligible for a moratorium permit to
fish for and retain Illex squid in excess of the incidental catch
allowance specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, if it meets
any of the following criteria:
(i) The vessel landed and sold at least 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of Illex
on each of five trips between August 13, 1981, and August 13, 1993; or
(ii) Recirculating sea water equipment or an on-board commercial
plate or blast freezer was purchased by May 31, 1994, and installed on
the vessel, and the vessel landed five trips of at least 5,000 lb (2.27
mt) each of Illex prior to the effective date of these regulations; or
(iii) The vessel is replacing a vessel of substantially similar
harvesting capacity that involuntarily left the Illex fishery during
the effective period of the moratorium, and both the entering and
replaced vessels are owned by the same person. Vessel permits issued to
vessels that involuntarily leave the fishery may not be combined to
create larger replacement vessels.
(iv) Vessels that are judged unseaworthy by the Coast Guard for
reasons other than lack of maintenance may be replaced by a vessel with
the same or less GRT and vessel registered length for commercial
vessels during the effective period of the moratorium.
(3) Restriction. No one may apply for the permits specified in
paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section more than 12 months after
the effective date of these regulations, or the event specified under
paragraph (i)(1) of this section. This section does not affect annual
permit renewals.
(4) Appeal of denial of permit. (i) Any applicant denied a
moratorium permit may appeal to the Regional Director within 30 days of
the notice of denial. Any such appeal shall be in writing. The only
ground for appeal is that the Regional Director erred in concluding
that the vessel did not meet the criteria in paragraph (b) of this
section. The appeal shall set forth the basis for the applicant's
belief that the Regional Director's decision was made in error.
(ii) The appeal may be presented, at the option of the applicant,
at a hearing before an officer appointed by the Regional Director.
(iii) The hearing officer shall make a recommendation to Regional
Director.
(iv) The decision on the appeal by the Regional Director is the
final decision of the Department of Commerce.
(c) Incidental catch permit. (1) Any vessel of the United States
may obtain a permit to fish for or retain up to 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of
Loligo squid, Illex squid, or butterfish as an incidental catch in
another directed fishery.
(2) Adjustments to the incidental catch. The incidental catch
allowance may be revised by the Regional Director after recommendation
by the Council following the procedure set forth in Sec. 655.22. NMFS
will publish a notification of any proposed adjustment in the Federal
Register. The public may comment on the adjustment for 30 days after
the date of publication. After consideration of public comments, NMFS
may publish a notification of adjustment to the incidental catch
allowance in the Federal Register.
(d) Atlantic mackerel permit. Any vessel of the United States may
obtain a permit to fish for or retain Atlantic mackerel in or from the
EEZ.
(e) Party and charter boat permit. Any party or charter boat may
obtain a permit to fish for or retain Atlantic mackerel, squid or
butterfish while carrying passengers for hire.
(f) Vessel permit application. (1) An application for a permit
under this section must be submitted and signed by the owner of the
vessel on an appropriate form obtained from the Regional Director at
least 30 days prior to the date on which the applicant
[[Page 65624]]
desires to have the permit made effective. The Regional Director will
notify the applicant of any deficiency in the application pursuant to
this section. Applicants for moratorium permits shall provide
information with the application sufficient for the Regional Director
to determine if the vessel meets any eligibility requirements. Dealer
weighout forms, joint venture receipts, and notarized statements from
marine architects or surveyors or shipyard officials will be considered
acceptable forms of proof.
(2) Information requirements. In addition to applicable information
required to be provided by paragraph (f)(1) of this section, an
application for a permit under this section must contain at least the
following information, and any other information required by the
Regional Director: Vessel name; owner name, mailing address, and
telephone number; U.S. Coast Guard documentation number and a valid
copy of the vessel's U.S. Coast Guard documentation or, if
undocumented, the state registration number and a copy of the current
state registration; home port and principal port of landing; overall
length; gross tonnage; net tonnage; engine horsepower; year the vessel
was built; type of construction; type of propulsion; approximate fish
hold capacity; type of fishing gear used by the vessel; number of crew;
permit category; if the owner is a corporation, a copy of the
Certificate of Incorporation showing the principals in the corporation,
and the names and addresses of all shareholders owning 25 percent or
more of the corporation's shares; if the owner is a partnership, a copy
of the Partnership Agreement and the names and addresses of all
partners; if there is more than one owner, names of all owners that
have acquired more than a 25-percent interest; the name and signature
of the owner or the owner's authorized representative; permit number of
any current or, if expired, previous Federal fishery permit issued to
the vessel; and a copy of the charter/party boat license and number of
passengers the vessel is licensed to carry (charter and party boats);
and any other information required by the Regional Director to manage
the fishery.
(g) Fees. The Regional Director may charge a fee to recover
administrative expenses of issuing a permit required under this
section. The amount of the fee is calculated in accordance with the
procedures of the NOAA Finance Handbook for determining administrative
costs of each special product or service. The fee may not exceed such
costs and is specified on each application form. The appropriate fee
must accompany each application; if it does not, the application will
be considered incomplete for purposes of paragraph (h) of this section.
Any fee paid by an insufficient bank draft shall render any permit
issued on the basis thereof null and void.
(h) Issuance. (1) Except as provided in Subpart D of 15 CFR Part
904, the Regional Director will issue a permit under this section
within 30 days of receipt of the application unless:
(i) The applicant has failed to submit a complete application as
described in paragraph (f) of this section. An application is complete
when all requested forms, information, documentation, and fees, if
applicable, have been received; or
(ii) The application was not received by the Regional Director by
the deadlines set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section; or
(iii) The applicant has failed to comply with all applicable
reporting requirements of Sec. 655.7 during the 12 months immediately
preceding the application.
(2) Upon receipt of an incomplete application, or an application
from a person who has not complied with all applicable reporting
requirements of Sec. 655.7 during the 12 months immediately preceding
the application, the Regional Director will notify the applicant of the
deficiency. If the applicant fails to correct the deficiency within 30
days of the Regional Director's notification, the application will be
considered abandoned.
(i) Expiration. Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and
(b)(2)(iii) of this section, a permit expires:
(1) When the owner retires the vessel from the fishery;
(2) Upon the renewal date specified on the permit; or
(3) When the ownership of the vessel changes; however, the Regional
Director may authorize the continuation of a moratorium permit for the
squid and butterfish fisheries if the new owner requests. Applications
for permit continuations must be addressed to the Regional Director.
(j) Duration. A permit is valid until it is revoked, suspended, or
modified under 15 CFR part 904, or until it otherwise expires, or
ownership changes, or the applicant has failed to report any change in
the information on the permit application to the Regional Director as
specified in paragraph (m) of this section.
(k) Replacement. Replacement permits for an otherwise valid permit
may be issued by the Regional Director when requested in writing by the
owner or authorized representative, stating the need for replacement,
the name of the vessel, and the federal fisheries permit number
assigned. An application for a replacement permit will not be
considered a new application. An appropriate fee may be charged for
issuance of the replacement permit.
(l) Transfer. Permits issued under this part are not transferable
or assignable. A permit is valid only for the fishing vessel and owner
for which it is issued.
(m) Change in application information. Any change in the
information specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section must be
submitted by the applicant in writing to the Regional Director within
15 days of the change. If the written notice of the change in
information is not received by the Regional Director within 15 days,
the permit is void.
(n) Alteration. Any permit that has been altered, erased, or
mutilated is invalid.
(o) Display. The permit must be maintained in legible condition and
displayed for inspection upon request by any authorized officer.
(p) Sanctions. Procedures governing enforcement-related permit
sanctions and denials are found at subpart D of 15 CFR part 904.
Sec. 655.5 Operator permit.
(a) General. Any operator of a vessel holding a valid Federal
Atlantic mackerel, Loligo, Illex, or butterfish permit under this part,
or any operator of a vessel fishing for Atlantic mackerel, Loligo,
Illex, or butterfish in the EEZ or in possession of Atlantic mackerel,
Loligo, Illex, or butterfish in or harvested from the EEZ, must have
and carry on board a valid operator's permit issued under this part. An
operator permit issued pursuant to Parts 649, 650, or 651 shall satisfy
the permitting requirement of this paragraph.
(b) Operator application. Applicants for a permit under this
section must submit a completed permit application on an appropriate
form obtained from the Regional Director. The application must be
signed by the applicant and submitted to the Regional Director at least
30 days prior to the date on which the applicant desires to have the
permit made effective. The Regional Director will notify the applicant
of any deficiency in the application pursuant to this section.
(c) Condition. Vessel operators who apply for an operator's permit
under this section must agree as a condition of this permit that the
operator and vessel's fishing, catch, and pertinent gear (without
regard to whether such fishing occurs in the EEZ or landward of the
EEZ, and without regard to where
[[Page 65625]]
such fish or gear are possessed, taken, or landed), are subject to all
requirements of this part while fishing in the EEZ or on board a vessel
permitted under Sec. 655.4. The vessel and all such fishing, catch, and
gear will remain subject to all applicable state or local requirements.
Further, such operators must agree as a condition of this permit that,
if the permit is suspended or revoked pursuant to 15 CFR part 904, the
operator cannot be on board any fishing vessel issued a Federal
Fisheries Permit or any vessel subject to Federal fishing regulations
while the vessel is at sea or engaged in offloading. If a requirement
of this part and a management measure required by state or local law
differ, any operator issued a permit under this part must comply with
the more restrictive requirement.
(d) Information requirements. An applicant must provide at least
all the following information and any other information required by the
Regional Director: Name, mailing address, and telephone number; date of
birth; hair color; eye color; height; weight; social security number
(optional); and signature of the applicant. The applicant must also
provide two recent (no more than 1 year old) color passport-size
photographs.
(e) Fees. The Regional Director may charge a fee to recover the
administrative expense of issuing a permit required under this section.
The amount of the fee is calculated in accordance with the procedures
of the NOAA Finance Handbook for determining the administrative costs
of each special product or service. The fee may not exceed such costs
and is specified on each application form. The appropriate fee must
accompany each application; if it does not, the application will be
considered incomplete for purposes of paragraph (f) of this section.
Any fee paid by an insufficiently funded commercial instrument shall
render any permit issued on the basis thereof null and void.
(f) Issuance. Except as provided in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904,
the Regional Director shall issue an operator's permit within 30 days
of receipt of a completed application if the criteria specified herein
are met. Upon receipt of an incomplete or improperly executed
application, the Regional Director will notify the applicant of the
deficiency in the application. If the applicant fails to correct the
deficiency within 30 days following the date of notification, the
application will be deemed abandoned.
(g) Expiration. A Federal operator permit will expire upon the
renewal date specified in the permit.
(h) Duration. A permit is valid until it is revoked, suspended or
modified under 15 CFR part 904, or otherwise expires, or the applicant
has failed to report a change in the information on the permit
application to the Regional Director as specified in paragraph (k) of
this section.
(i) Replacement. Replacement permits, for otherwise valid permits,
may be issued by the Regional Director when requested in writing by the
applicant, stating the need for replacement and the Federal operator
permit number assigned. An applicant for a replacement permit must also
provide two recent color passport-size photos of the applicant. An
application for a replacement permit will not be considered a new
application. An appropriate fee may be charged.
(j) Transfer. Permits issued under this section are not
transferable or assignable. A permit is valid only for the person to
whom it is issued.
(k) Change in application information. Notice of a change in the
permit holder's name, address, or telephone number must be submitted in
writing to, and received by, the Regional Director within 15 days of
the change in information. If written notice of the change in
information is not received by the Regional Director within 15 days,
the permit is void.
(l) Alteration. Any permit that has been altered, erased, or
mutilated is invalid.
(m) Display. Any permit issued under this part must be maintained
in legible condition and displayed for inspection upon request by any
authorized officer.
(n) Sanctions. Vessel operators with suspended or revoked permits
may not be on board a federally permitted fishing vessel in any
capacity while the vessel is at sea or engaged in offloading.
Procedures governing enforcement related permit sanctions and denials
are found at subpart D of 15 CFR part 904.
(o) Vessel owner responsibility. Vessel owners are responsible for
ensuring that their vessels are operated by an individual with a valid
operator's permit issued under this section.
Sec. 655.6 Dealer permit.
(a) General. All dealers must have a valid permit issued under this
part in their possession.
(b) Dealer application. Applicants for a permit under this section
must submit a completed application on an appropriate form provided by
the Regional Director. The application must be signed by the applicant
and submitted to the Regional Director at least 30 days before the date
upon which the applicant desires to have the permit made effective. The
Regional Director will notify the applicant of any deficiency in the
application pursuant to this section.
(c) Information requirements. Applications must contain at least
the following information and any other information required by the
Regional Director: Company name, place(s) of business, mailing
address(es) and telephone number(s), owner's name; dealer permit number
(if a renewal); and name and signature of the person responsible for
the truth and accuracy of the report. If the dealer is a corporation, a
copy of the Certificate of Incorporation must be included with the
application. If the dealer is a partnership, a copy of the Partnership
Agreement and the names and addresses of all partners must be included
with the application.
(d) Fees. The Regional Director may charge a fee to recover the
administrative expense of issuing a permit required under this section.
The amount of the fee is calculated in accordance with the procedures
of the NOAA Finance Handbook for determining the administrative costs
of each special product or service. The fee may not exceed such costs
and is specified with each application form. The appropriate fee must
accompany each application; if it does not, the application will be
considered incomplete for purposes of paragraph (e) of this section.
Any fee paid by an insufficiently funded commercial instrument shall
render any permit issued on the basis thereof null and void.
(e) Issuance. Except as provided in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904,
the Regional Director will issue a permit at any time during the
fishing year to an applicant unless the applicant has failed to submit
a completed application. An application is complete when all requested
forms, information, and documentation have been received and the
applicant has submitted all applicable reports specified in
Sec. 655.7(a). Upon receipt of an incomplete or improperly executed
application, the Regional Director will notify the applicant of the
deficiency in the application. If the applicant fails to correct the
deficiency within 30 days following the date of notification, the
application will be considered abandoned.
(f) Expiration. A permit will expire upon the renewal date
specified in the permit.
(g) Duration. A permit is valid until it is revoked, suspended, or
modified
[[Page 65626]]
under 15 CFR part 904, or otherwise expires, or ownership changes, or
the applicant has failed to report any change in the information on the
permit application to the Regional Director as required by paragraph
(j) of this section.
(h) Replacement. Replacement permits, for otherwise valid permits,
may be issued by the Regional Director when requested in writing by the
applicant, stating the need for replacement and the Federal dealer
permit number assigned. An application for a replacement permit will
not be considered a new application. An appropriate fee may be charged.
(i) Transfer. Permits issued under this part are not transferable
or assignable. A permit is valid only for the person to whom, or other
business entity to which, it is issued.
(j) Change in application information. Within 15 days after a
change in the information contained in an application submitted under
this section, a written report of the change must be submitted to, and
received by, the Regional Director. If written notice of the change in
information is not received by the Regional Director within 15 days,
the permit is void.
(k) Alteration. Any permit that has been altered, erased, or
mutilated is invalid.
(l) Display. Any permit, or a valid duplicate thereof, issued under
this part must be maintained in legible condition and displayed for
inspection upon request by any authorized officer.
(m) Federal versus state requirements. If a requirement of this
part differs from a fisheries management measure required by state law,
any dealer issued a Federal dealer permit must comply with the more
restrictive requirement.
(n) Sanctions. Procedures governing enforcement-related permit
sanctions and denials are found at subpart D of 15 CFR part 904.
Sec. 655.7 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(a) Dealers--(1) Weekly report. Dealers must send by mail, to the
Regional Director or official designee, on a weekly basis, on forms
supplied by or approved by the Regional Director, a report of fish
purchases. If authorized in writing by the Regional Director, dealers
may submit reports electronically or through other media. The following
information and any other information required by the Regional Director
must be provided in the report: Name and mailing address of dealer;
dealer number; name and permit number of the vessels from which fish
are landed or received; dates of purchases; pounds by species; price by
species; and port landed. If no fish are purchased during the week, a
report so stating must be submitted. All report forms must be signed by
the dealer or other authorized individual.
(2) Annual report. All persons required to submit reports under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section are required to complete the
``Employment Data'' section of the Annual Processed Products Reports;
completion of the other sections on that form is voluntary. Reports
must be submitted to the address supplied by the Regional Director.
(3) Inspection. Upon the request of an authorized officer, or by an
employee of NMFS designated by the Regional Director to make such
inspections, the dealer must make immediately available for inspection
copies of the required reports that have been submitted, or should have
been submitted, and the records upon which the reports were based.
(4) Record retention. Copies of reports, and records upon which the
reports were based, must be retained and be available for review for 1
year after the date of the last entry on the report. The dealer must
retain such reports and records at its principal place of business.
(5) Submitting reports. Reports must be received, or postmarked if
mailed, within 3 days after the end of each reporting week. Each dealer
will be sent forms and instructions, including the address to which to
submit reports, shortly after receipt of a dealer permit.
(6) At-sea activities. All persons purchasing, receiving, or
processing any mackerel, squid, or butterfish at sea for landing at any
port of the United States must submit information identical to that
required by paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section and provide
those reports to the Regional Director or designee on the same
frequency basis.
(b) Vessel owners--(1) Fishing log reports. The owner of any vessel
issued a Federal Atlantic mackerel, Loligo squid, butterfish or Illex
squid permit under Sec. 655.4 must maintain on board the vessel, and
submit, an accurate daily fishing log report for all fishing trips,
regardless of species fished for or taken, on forms supplied by or
approved by the Regional Director. If authorized in writing by the
Regional Director, vessel owners may submit reports electronically. At
least the following information, and any other information required by
the Regional Director, must be provided: Vessel name, U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) documentation number (or state registration number if
undocumented); permit number; date/time sailed; date/time landed; trip
type; number of crew; number of anglers (if a charter or party boat);
gear fished; quantity and size of gear; mesh/ring size; chart area
fished; average depth; latitude/longitude (or loran station and
bearings); total hauls per area fished; average tow time duration;
pounds by species of all species landed or discarded; dealer permit
number; dealer name; date sold; port and state landed; and vessel
operator's name, signature, and operator permit number.
(2) When to fill in the log. Fishing log reports must be filled in,
except for information required but not yet ascertainable, before
offloading has begun. All information in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section must be filled in for each fishing trip before starting the
next fishing trip.
(3) Inspection. Upon the request of an authorized officer, or an
employee of NMFS designated by the Regional Director to make such
inspections, at any time during or after a trip, owners and operators
must make immediately available for inspection the fishing log reports
currently in use, or to be submitted.
(4) Record retention. Copies of the fishing log reports must be
retained and available for review for 1 year after the date of the last
entry on the report.
(5) Submitting reports. Fishing log reports must be received or
postmarked, if mailed, within 15 days after the end of the reporting
month. Each owner will be sent forms and instructions, including the
address to which to submit reports, shortly after receipt of a Federal
Fisheries Permit. If no fishing trip is made during a month, a report
so stating must be submitted.
Sec. 655.8 Vessel identification.
(a) Vessel name. Each fishing vessel owner subject to this part and
over 25 ft (7.6 m) in length must affix permanently its name on the
port and starboard sides of the bow and, if possible, on its stern.
(b) Official number. Each fishing vessel owner subject to this
section and over 25 ft (7.6 m) in length must display its official
number on the port and starboard sides of its deckhouse or hull, and on
an appropriate weather deck, so as to be visible from above by
enforcement vessels and aircraft. The official number is the U.S. Coast
Guard documentation number, or the vessel's state registration number
for vessels not required to be documented under title 46 of U.S.C.
(c) Numerals. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section,
the official number must be permanently affixed in block arabic
numerals in contrasting color at least 18 inches (45.7 cm) in
[[Page 65627]]
height for vessels over 65 ft (19.8 m) in length, and at least 10
inches (25.4 cm) in height for all other vessels over 25 ft (7.6 m) in
length.
(d) Duties of owner. Any vessel owner subject to this part will:
(1) Keep the vessel's name and official number clearly legible and
in good repair; and
(2) Ensure that no part of the vessel, its rigging, its fishing
gear, or any other object obstructs the view of the official number
from any enforcement vessel or aircraft.
(e) Nonpermanent marking. Vessels carrying recreational fishing
parties on a per capita basis or by charter must use markings that meet
the above requirements, except for the requirement that they be affixed
permanently to the vessel. The nonpermanent markings must be displayed
in conformity with the above requirements when the vessel is fishing
for Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish.
Sec. 655.9 Prohibitions.
(a) In addition to the general prohibitions specified in Sec. 620.7
of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person owning or operating a
vessel issued a valid Federal Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish
permit under Sec. 655.4, or issued an operator permit under Sec. 655.5,
to do any of the following:
(1) Possess more than the incidental catch allowance of squid, or
butterfish unless issued a moratorium permit pursuant to Sec. 655.4(b).
(2) Use any vessel for taking, catching, harvesting, or landing of
any Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish, except as provided in
Sec. 655.4(a), unless the vessel has on board a valid permit issued
under Sec. 655.4.
(3) Fail to report to the Regional Director within 15 days any
change in the information contained in the permit application for a
vessel, as specified in Sec. 655.4(m).
(4) Falsify or fail to affix and maintain vessel markings as
required by Sec. 655.8.
(5) Take, retain, or land Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish
in excess of the trip allowance specified under Sec. 655.23.
(6) Take, retain, or land Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish
after a total closure specified under Sec. 655.23.
(7) Make any false statement, written or oral, to an authorized
officer, concerning the taking, catching, landing, purchase, sale, or
transfer of any mackerel, squid, or butterfish.
(8) Fish with or possess nets or netting that do not meet the
minimum mesh requirement for Loligo specified in Sec. 655.25(a) or that
are modified, obstructed, or constricted, if subject to the minimum
mesh requirement, unless the nets or netting are stowed in accordance
with Sec. 655.25(b) or the vessel is fishing under an exemption
specified in Sec. 655.25(a).
(9) Sell or transfer Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish to
another person for a commercial purpose, other than transport, unless
that person has a dealer permit issued under Sec. 655.6.
(10) Falsify information in order to qualify a vessel for a
moratorium permit pursuant to Sec. 655.4(b).
(11) Transfer squid, or butterfish at sea to another vessel unless
that other vessel is issued a valid moratorium permit issued pursuant
to Sec. 655.4(b) or a letter of authorization issued by the Regional
Director.
(12) Fail to comply with any measures implemented pursuant to
Sec. 655.22.
(13) Refuse to embark a sea sampler if requested by the Regional
Director.
(14) Assault, resist, oppose, impede, harass, intimidate, or
interfere with or bar by command, impediment, threat, coercion or
refusal of reasonable assistance an observer or sea sampler conducting
his or her duties aboard a vessel.
(15) Fail to affix and maintain markings as required by Sec. 655.8.
(16) Carry passengers for hire while fishing commercially under a
permit issued pursuant to Sec. 655.4 (b), (c), or (d).
(17) Fail to carry on board a letter of authorization if fishing in
an experimental fishery pursuant to Sec. 655.30.
(18) Employ an operator on board a vessel who has not been issued
an operator permit that meets the requirements of Sec. 655.5.
(b) It is unlawful for the owner and operator of a party or charter
boat issued a permit (including a moratorium permit) pursuant to
Sec. 655.4, when the boat is carrying passengers for hire, to do any of
the following:
(1) Violate any recreational fishing measures established pursuant
to Sec. 655.22(d)
(2) Sell or transfer Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish to
another person for a commercial purpose.
(3) Refuse to embark a sea sampler if requested by the Regional
Director.
(c) It is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
(1) Possess in or harvest from the EEZ Atlantic mackerel, squid, or
butterfish, except as provided in Sec. 655.4(a), unless the person is
operating a vessel issued a permit pursuant to Sec. 655.4, and the
permit is on board the vessel, and has not been surrendered, revoked,
or suspended.
(2) Possess nets or netting with mesh not meeting the minimum size
requirement of Sec. 655.25 that does not meet the net stowage
provisions of Sec. 655.25, if the person possesses Loligo squid
harvested in or from the EEZ.
(3) If subject to the permitting requirements in Sec. 655.4,
Sec. 655.5, or Sec. 655.6, to offload, to cause to be offloaded, sell
or buy, whether on land or at sea, as an owner, operator, dealer,
buyer, or receiver, without accurately and completely preparing and
submitting in a timely fashion the documents required by Sec. 655.7.
(4) Transfer squid or butterfish within the EEZ, unless the vessels
participating in the transfer are issued valid moratorium permits
pursuant to Sec. 655.4(b) or valid letters of authorization pursuant to
Sec. 655.29.
(5) Purchase or otherwise receive, except for transport, Atlantic
mackerel, squid, or butterfish from the owner or operator of a vessel
issued a permit pursuant to Sec. 655.4, unless in possession of a valid
permit issued under Sec. 655.6.
(6) Purchase or otherwise receive for a commercial purpose,
Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish caught by other than a vessel
issued a permit pursuant to Sec. 655.4, unless the vessel has not been
issued a permit under this part and is fishing exclusively within the
waters under the jurisdiction of any state.
(7) Make any false statements, oral or written, to an authorized
officer concerning the catching, taking, harvesting, landing, purchase,
sale, possession, or transfer of any Atlantic mackerel, squid, or
butterfish.
(8) Fail to report to the Regional Director within 15 days any
change in information contained in the permit application.
(9) Assault, resist, impede, oppose, harass, intimidate, or
interfere with or bar by command, impediment, threat, coercion, or
refusal of reasonable assistance to an observer or sea sampler
conducting his or her duties aboard a vessel.
(10) Operate a vessel fishing for Atlantic mackerel, squid, or
butterfish within the EEZ, unless issued an operator permit that meets
the requirements of Sec. 655.5.
(11) Violate any other provisions of this part, the Magnuson Act,
or any regulation or permit issued under the Magnuson Act.
(d) All Atlantic mackerel and butterfish possessed on board a party
or charter boat issued a permit under Sec. 655.4 are deemed to have
been harvested from the EEZ.
(e) It is unlawful for any person to violate any terms of a letter
authorizing experimental fishing pursuant to
[[Page 65628]]
Sec. 655.30 or to fail to keep such letter on board the vessel during
the period of the experiment.
Sec. 655.10 Facilitation of enforcement.
See Sec. 620.8 of this chapter.
Sec. 655.11 Penalties.
See Sec. 620.9 of this chapter.
Subpart B--Management Measures
Sec. 655.20 Fishing year.
The fishing year is the 12-month period beginning on January 1 and
ending on December 31.
Sec. 655.21 Maximum optimum yields.
The optimum yields (OYs) specified pursuant to Sec. 655.22 during a
fishing year may not exceed the following amounts:
(a) Atlantic mackerel: That quantity of mackerel that is less than
or equal to ABC specified pursuant to Sec. 655.22;
(b) Loligo squid: 36,000 mt (79,362,000 lb);
(c) Illex squid: 30,000 mt (66,135,000 lb); and
(d) Butterfish: 16,000 mt (35,272,000 lb).
Sec. 655.22 Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.
(a) Initial annual specifications. The Atlantic Mackerel, Squid,
and Butterfish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) will meet
annually to develop specifications regarding:
(1) The initial optimum yield (IOY), domestic annual harvest (DAH),
and domestic annual processing (DAP) for the squids;
(2) The IOY, DAH, DAP and bycatch level of the total allowable
level of foreign fishing (TALFF), if any, for butterfish; and
(3) The IOY, DAH, DAP, joint venture processing (JVP), if any, and
TALFF, if any, for Atlantic mackerel.
(4) The Monitoring Committee will recommend these specifications to
the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee (Committee) of the
Council. As a basis for establishing these specifications and
restrictions, the Monitoring Committee will review available data
pertaining to the following:
(i) Commercial and recreational landings;
(ii) Current estimates of fishing mortality;
(iii) Stock status;
(iv) The most recent estimates of recruitment;
(v) Virtual population analysis results;
(vi) Levels of noncompliance by harvesters or individual states;
(vii) Impact of size/mesh regulations;
(viii) The results of a survey of domestic processors and joint
venture operators of estimated Atlantic mackerel processing capacity
and intent to use that capacity (approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under OMB control number 0648-0114);
(ix) The results of a survey of fishermen's trade associations of
estimated Atlantic mackerel harvesting capacity and intent to use that
capacity (approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB
control number 0648-0114);
(x) Any other relevant information.
(b) Guidelines. The specifications determined pursuant to paragraph
(a) by the Monitoring Committee will be consistent with the following
guidelines:
(1) Squid. (i) The most recent biological data, including data on
discards, will be reviewed annually under the procedures specified in
paragraph (a) of this section. ABC for any fishing year is either the
maximum OY specified in Sec. 655.21, or a lower amount if stock
assessments indicate that the potential yield is less than the maximum
OY.
(ii) IOY is a modification of ABC based on social and economic
factors.
(2) Atlantic mackerel. (i) Atlantic mackerel ABC is derived using
the following terms: C = Estimated mackerel catch in Canadian waters
for the upcoming fishing year; S = Mackerel spawning-stock size at the
beginning of the upcoming fishing year for which catch estimates and
quotas are being specified; and LTPC = Long term potential catch as
estimated by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC).
(ii) ABC for the upcoming fishing year must be set at a level to
maintain a minimum value for S of 900,000 mt (1,984,050,000 lb) and
cannot exceed LTPC minus C.
(iii) IOY is less than or equal to ABC and represents a
modification of ABC, based on social and economic factors.
(iv) IOY is composed of DAH and TALFF. DAH, DAP and JVP are
projected by reviewing data from sources specified in this paragraph
(a) and other relevant data including past domestic landings, projected
amounts of mackerel necessary for domestic processing and for joint
ventures during the fishing year, projected recreational landings, and
other data pertinent for such a projection. The JVP component of DAH is
the portion of DAH that domestic processors either cannot or will not
use. In addition, IOY is based on such criteria as contained in the
Magnuson Act, specifically section 201(e), and the application of the
following economic factors:
(A) Total world export potential by mackerel producing countries;
(B) Total world import demand by mackerel consuming countries;
(C) U.S. export potential based on expected U.S. harvests, expected
U.S. consumption, relative prices, exchange rates, and foreign trade
barriers;
(D) Increased/decreased revenues to the U.S. from foreign fees;
(E) Increased/decreased revenues to U.S. harvesters (with/without
joint ventures);
(F) Increased/decreased revenues to U.S. processors and exporters;
(G) Increases/decreases in U.S. harvesting productivity due to
decreases/increases in foreign harvest;
(H) Increases/decreases in U.S. processing productivity; and
(I) Potential impact of increased/decreased TALFF on foreign
purchases of U.S. products and services and U.S.-caught fish, changes
in trade barriers, technology transfer, and other considerations.
(v) The Council may also recommend that certain ratios of TALFF to
purchases of domestic harvested fish and/or domestic processed fish be
established in relation to the initial annual amounts.
(3) Butterfish. (i) The most recent biological data, including data
on discards, will be reviewed annually under the procedures specified
in paragraph (a) of this section. If this review indicates that the
stock cannot support a level of harvest equal to the maximum OY, the
Council will recommend establishing an ABC less than the maximum OY for
the fishing year. This level represents the modification of maximum OY
to reflect
FR Doc. 95-30821 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 5
biological and ecological factors. If the stock is able to
support a harvest level equivalent to the maximum OY, the ABC is to be
set at that level.
(ii) IOY is a modification of ABC based on social and economic
factors. The IOY is composed of a DAH and bycatch TALFF which is equal
to 0.08 percent of the allocated portion of the Atlantic mackerel
TALFF.
(c) Adjustments. The specifications established pursuant to this
section may be adjusted by the Regional Director, in consultation with
the Council, during the fishing year by publishing a notification in
the Federal Register stating the reasons for such an action with a 30-
day comment period.
(d) Recommended measures. Based on the review of the data described
in paragraph (a) of this section, the Monitoring Committee will
recommend to the Committee the following
[[Page 65629]]
measures it determines are necessary to assure that the specifications
are not exceeded:
(1) Commercial quotas;
(2) The amount of Loligo squid, Illex squid, and butterfish which
may be retained, possessed and landed by vessels issued the incidental
catch permit specified in Sec. 655.4(c);
(3) Commercial minimum fish sizes;
(4) Commercial trip limits;
(5) Commercial seasonal quotas;
(6) Minimum mesh sizes;
(7) Commercial gear restrictions;
(8) Recreational harvest limit;
(9) Recreational minimum fish size;
(10) Recreational possession limits;
(11) Recreational season.
(e) Annual fishing measures. (1) The Committee shall review the
recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on these
recommendations and any public comment, the Committee shall make its
recommendations to the Council with respect to the specifications and
any other measures necessary to assure that the specifications are not
exceeded. The Council shall review these recommendations. Based on
these recommendations, and any public comment, the Council shall make
recommendations to the Regional Director. Included in the
recommendation will be supporting documents, as appropriate, concerning
the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the proposed action.
The Regional Director will review these recommendations, and on or
about November 1 of each year, will publish a notification in the
Federal Register of proposed specifications and any other measures
necessary to assure that the specifications are not exceeded. If the
specifications differ from those recommended by the Council, the
reasons for any differences must be clearly stated and the revised
specifications must satisfy the criteria set forth in this section. The
Federal Register notification of proposed specifications will provide
for a 30-day public comment period.
(2) The Council's recommendations will be available in aggregate
form for inspection at the office of the Regional Director during the
public comment period.
(3) On or about December 15 of each year, the Secretary will make a
final determination concerning the specifications for each species and
the other measures contained in the notification of proposed
specifications. After the Secretary considers all relevant data and any
public comments, a notification of final specifications and response to
public comments will be published in the Federal Register. If the final
amounts differ from those recommended by the Council, the reason(s) for
the difference(s) must clearly be stated and the revised specifications
must be consistent with the guidelines set forth in paragraph (b) of
this section.
Sec. 655.23 Closure of the fishery.
(a) General. The Secretary shall close the directed Atlantic
mackerel, Illex squid, Loligo squid, or butterfish fishery in the EEZ
when U.S. fishermen have harvested 80 percent of the DAH, if such
closure is necessary to prevent the DAH from being exceeded. The
closure will be in effect for the remainder of the fishing year, with
incidental catches allowed as specified in paragraph (c) of this
section, until the entire DAH is attained. When the Regional Director
projects that DAH will be attained for any of the species, the
Secretary shall close the fishery in the EEZ to all fishing for that
species, and the incidental catches specified in paragraph (c) of this
section will be prohibited.
(b) Notification. The Secretary will take the following actions if
it is determined that a closure is necessary:
(1) Notify, in advance, the Executive Directors of the Mid-
Atlantic, New England, and South Atlantic Councils;
(2) Mail notifications of the closure to all holders of permits
issued under Secs. 655.4, 655.5 and 655.6 at least 72 hours before the
effective date of the closure;
(3) Provide for adequate notification of the closure to
recreational participants in the fishery; and
(4) Publish a notification of closure in the Federal Register.
(c) Incidental catches. During a period of closure of the directed
fishery, the trip limit for the species for which the fishery is closed
is 10 percent by weight of the total amount of fish on board for
vessels with Loligo/butterfish moratorium permits, Illex moratorium
permits or mackerel commercial permits. During a period of closure of
the directed fishery, the trip limit for the species for which the
fishery is closed is either 10 percent by weight of the total amount of
fish on board, or the allowed level of incidental catch specified in
Sec. 655.4(c)(1), whichever is less.
Sec. 655.24 0Time and area restrictions for directed foreign fishing.
Foreign fishing is regulated under the provisions specified in
Sec. 611.50(b)(2).
Sec. 655.25 Gear restrictions.
(a) Mesh restriction and exemptions. Owners or operators of otter
trawl vessels possessing Loligo squid harvested in or from the EEZ may
only fish with nets having a minimum mesh size of 1\7/8\ inches (48 mm)
diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the entire
net. There are two exemptions to this requirement:
(1) During the months of June, July, August, and September, otter
trawl vessels fishing for Illex seaward of the following coordinates
(see Figure 1 to part 655):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point M1........................ 43 deg.58.0' N. 67 deg.22.0' W.
Point M2........................ 43 deg.50.0' N. 68 deg.35.0' W.
Point M3........................ 43 deg.30.0' N. 69 deg.40.0' W.
Point M4........................ 43 deg.20.0' N. 70 deg.00.0' W.
Point M5........................ 42 deg.45.0' N. 70 deg.10.0' W.
Point M6........................ 42 deg.13.0' N. 69 deg.55.0' W.
Point M7........................ 41 deg.00.0' N. 69 deg.00.0' W.
Point M8........................ 41 deg.45.0' N. 68 deg.15.0' W.
Point M9........................ 42 deg.10.0' N. 67 deg.10.0' W.
Point M10....................... 41 deg.18.6' N. 66 deg.24.8' W.
Point M11....................... 40 deg.55.5' N. 66 deg.38.0' W.
Point M12....................... 40 deg.45.5' N. 68 deg.00.0' W.
Point M13....................... 40 deg.37.0' N. 68 deg.00.0' W.
Point M14....................... 40 deg.30.0' N. 69 deg.00.0' W.
Point M15....................... 40 deg.22.7' N. 69 deg.00.0' W.
Point M16....................... 40 deg.18.7' N. 69 deg.40.0' W.
Point M17....................... 40 deg.21.0' N. 71 deg.03.0' W.
Point M18....................... 39 deg.41.0' N. 72 deg.32.0' W.
Point M19....................... 38 deg.47.0' N. 73 deg.11.0' W.
Point M20....................... 38 deg.04.0' N. 74 deg.06.0' W.
Point M21....................... 37 deg.08.0' N. 74 deg.46.0' W.
Point M22....................... 36 deg.00.0' N. 74 deg.52.0' W.
Point M23....................... 35 deg.45.0' N. 74 deg.53.0' W.
Point M24....................... 35 deg.28.0' N. 74 deg.52.0' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels fishing under this exemption may not have available for
immediate use, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, any net
with mesh size less than 1\7/8\ inches (48 mm) diamond mesh when the
vessel is landward of the specified coordinates.
(2) Vessels participating in the directed fishery for sea herring,
provided that their catch comprises 75 percent or more by weight of sea
herring.
(b) Net stowage requirements. Otter trawl vessels possessing Loligo
squid that are subject to the minimum mesh size may not have
``available for immediate use'' any net, or any piece of net, not
meeting the minimum mesh size requirement, or any net, or any piece of
net, with mesh that is rigged in a manner that is inconsistent with the
minimum mesh size. A net that conforms to one of the following
specifications and that can be shown not to have been in recent use, is
considered not to be ``available for immediate use'':
(1) A net stowed below deck, provided:
[[Page 65630]]
(i) it is located below the main working deck from which the net is
deployed and retrieved;
(ii) the towing wires, including the leg wires, are detached from
the net; and
(iii) it is fan-folded (flaked) and bound around its circumference;
or
(2) A net stowed and lashed down on deck, provided:
(i) it is fan-folded (flaked) and bound around its circumference;
(ii) it is securely fastened to the deck or rail of the vessel; and
(iii) the towing wires, including the leg wires, are detached from
the net; or
(3) A net that is on a reel and is covered and secured, provided:
(i) the entire surface of the net is covered with canvas or other
similar material that is securely bound;
(ii) the towing wires, including the leg wires, are detached from
the net; and
(iii) the codend is removed from the net and stored below deck; or
(4) Nets that are secured in a manner authorized in writing by the
Regional Director and published in the Federal Register.
(c) Mesh obstruction or constriction. Any combination of mesh or
liners that effectively decreases the mesh below the minimum size is
prohibited, except that a liner may be used to close the opening
created by the rings in the rearmost portion of the net, provided the
liner extends no more than 10 meshes forward of the rearmost portion of
the net.
(d) Net obstruction or constriction. The owner or operator of a
fishing vessel shall not use any device, gear, or material, including,
but not limited to, nets, net strengtheners, ropes, lines, or chafing
gear, on the top of the regulated portion of a trawl net that results
in an effective mesh opening of less than 1\7/8\ inches (48 mm) mesh
(inside stretch measure); net strengtheners (covers), splitting straps
and/or bull ropes or wire may be used, provided they do not constrict
the top of the regulated portion of the net to less than effective 1\7/
8\ inches (48 mm) mesh (inside stretch measure). ``Top of the regulated
portion of the net'' means the 50 percent of the entire regulated
portion of the net which (in a hypothetical situation) would not be in
contact with the ocean bottom during a tow if the regulated portion of
the net were laid flat on the ocean floor. For the purpose of this
paragraph, head ropes shall not be considered part of the top of the
regulated portion of a trawl net. Net strengtheners (covers) may not
have a mesh less than effective 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) mesh (inside
stretch measure).
Sec. 655.26 Minimum fish sizes. [Reserved]
Sec. 655.27 Possession limits. [Reserved]
Sec. 655.28 At-sea observer coverage.
(a) The Regional Director may require observers for any vessel
holding a permit issued under Sec. 655.4.
(b) Owners of vessels selected for observer coverage must notify
the appropriate Regional or Center Director, as specified by the
Regional Director, before commencing any fishing trip that may result
in the harvest of Atlantic mackerel, Loligo squid, Illex squid, or
butterfish. Notification procedures will be specified in selection
letters to vessel owners.
(c) An owner or operator of a vessel on which a NMFS-approved
observer is embarked must:
(1) Provide accommodations and food that are equivalent to those
provided to the crew;
(2) Allow the observer access to and use of the vessel's
communications equipment and personnel upon request for the
transmission and receipt of messages related to the observer's duties;
(3) Allow the observer access to and use of the vessel's navigation
equipment and personnel upon request to determine the vessel's
position;
(4) Allow the observer free and unobstructed access to the vessel's
bridge, working decks, holding bins, weight scales, holds, and any
other space used to hold, process, weigh, or store fish; and
(5) Allow the observer to inspect and copy any records associated
with the catch and distribution of fish for that trip.
Sec. 655.29 Transfer-at-sea.
Only vessels issued a moratorium permit under Sec. 655.4(b) may
transfer Loligo, Illex, or butterfish at sea. Unless authorized in
writing by the Regional Director, vessels issued an incidental catch
permit under 655.4(c) are prohibited from transferring or attempting to
transfer Illex, Loligo, or butterfish from one vessel to another
vessel.
Sec. 655.30 Experimental fishery.
(a) The Regional Director, in consultation with the Executive
Director of the Council, may exempt any person or vessel from the
requirements of this part for the conduct of experimental fishing
beneficial to the management of the Atlantic mackerel, squid, or
butterfish resource or fishery.
(b) The Regional Director may not grant such exemption unless he/
she determines that the purpose, design, and administration of the
exemption is consistent with the objectives of the FMP, the provisions
of the Magnuson Act, and other applicable law, and that granting the
exemption will not:
(1) Have a detrimental effect on the Atlantic mackerel, squid, or
butterfish resource and fishery; or
(2) Cause any quota to be exceeded; or
(3) Create significant enforcement problems.
(c) Each vessel participating in any exempted experimental fishing
activity is subject to all provisions of this FMP except those
necessarily relating to the purpose and nature of the exemption. The
exemption will be specified in a letter issued by the Regional Director
to each vessel participating in the exempted activity. This letter must
be carried on board the vessel seeking the benefit of such exemption.
4. Figure 1 to part 655 is added to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 65631]]
Figure 1 to Part 655--Exemption line to minimum net mesh-size
requirement for Loligo squid
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP20DE95.000
[FR Doc. 95-30821 Filed 12-15-95; 11:27 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30798 Lewisburg Dump Superfund Site, Lewisburg, TN
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65616-65618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30798]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR PART 300
[FRL-5346-9]
Lewisburg Dump Superfund Site, Lewisburg, TN
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IV,
announces its intent to delete the Lewisburg Dump site from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), promulgated by EPA, pursuant to Section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of Tennessee
Department of the Environment & Conservation have determined that the
site no longer poses a significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, further CERCLA remedial measures are not
appropriate.
DATES: A 30-Day Public Comment Period (December 11, 1995 to January 11,
1996) has been established for the Lewisburg Dump site deletion
proposal. Comments concerning the proposal may be submitted by January
11, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Femi Akindele, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, Atlanta, Georgia, 30365.
Comprehensive information on this site is available for review at
the following site information repositories.
Marshall County Memorial Library, 310 Farmington Pike, Lewisburg, TN
37091.
U.S. EPA Record Center, 345 Courtland St., Atlanta, GA 30365.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Femi Akindele, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, Atlanta, Georgia, 30365, 404-
347-3555 EXT. 2042 or 1-800-435-9233 EXT 2042.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
This notice is to announce EPA's intent to delete the Lewisburg
Dump site from the NPL. It also serves to request public comments on
the deletion proposal.
EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to
public health, welfare, or environment and maintains the NPL as the
list of these sites. Sites on the NPL qualify for remedial responses
financed by the Hazardous Substances Response Trust Fund (Fund). As
described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL
remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions in the unlikely
event that conditions at the site warrant such actions. EPA accepts
comments on the proposal to delete a site from the NPL for thirty days
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with Sec. 300.425(e) of the NCP, sites may be
deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In
making this determination, EPA, in consultation with the State,
considers whether the site has met any of the following criteria for
site deletion:
(i) Responsible or other parties have implemented all appropriate
response actions required.
(ii) All appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been
implemented and no further response actions are deemed necessary.
(iii) Remedial investigation has determined that the release poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, no remedial action is appropriate.
Deletion Procedures
The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of
this site:
(1) EPA Region IV issued a Final Close Out Report in September
1993, which addressed the site conditions, quality assurance and
control during construction, and technical criteria for satisfying the
completion requirements.
(2) Concurrent with this announcement, a notice has been published
in the local newspaper and has been distributed to appropriate federal,
state, and local officials announcing the commencement of a 30-day
public comment period on the Notice of Intent to Delete.
(3) EPA has made all relevant documents available for public review
at the information repositories.
Deletion of the site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for information purposes and to assist EPA management. As
mentioned earlier, Section 300.425(e)(30) of the NCP states that
deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility of the
site for future Fund-financed response actions.
For the deletion of this site, EPA will accept and evaluate public
comments on this Notice of Intent to Delete before finalizing the
decision. If necessary, the Agency will prepare a Responsiveness
Summary to address any significant public comments received during the
comment period. The deletion is finalized after the Regional
Administrator places a Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register.
[[Page 65617]]
Basis for Intended Lewisburg Dump Site Deletion
The following is a summary of activities on the Lewisburg Dump
Site. It provides EPA's rationale for the proposed deletion.
The site is a 20-acre tract of farmland located less than one mile
north of Lewisburg, Tennessee. It contains an abandoned six acre
limestone quarry and a pond. The City of Lewisburg owned and operated
the dump which used about four acres at the western portion of the
quarry for landfill operations from the late 1950s to 1979. The
landfill was open to all residential and industrial dumpers. City
records have indicated that several surrounding communities hauled
wastes to the dump.
In 1973, a study was conducted by the Tennessee Department of
Public Health (TDPH) which indicated that the old quarry was unfit for
a sanitary landfill. Also, in the early 1970s, the City submitted plans
to TDPH for an on-site incinerator, interim maintenance, and final
closure of the dump. In 1977, preliminary closure of the landfill began
as soil was applied to cover the wastes. In 1979, final closure of the
landfill was conducted.
EPA initially inspected and assessed the conditions of the site in
1982. Among the wastes observed during the inspection were adhesives,
paint stripper, empty pails coated with yellow lacquer, metal cuttings,
sawdust, pencil cores, cosmetic powders and shoe linings. Results of
the assessment indicated the presence of organic and inorganic
compounds including lead, toluene, PCB, chlordane, and phenol. After
evaluating the conditions of the landfill, EPA added Lewisburg Dump to
the NPL in December 1982.
In 1985, EPA contacted a group of companies, agencies, and
individuals who were identified as potentially responsible for the
wastes at the dump to address the problem. The City of Lewisburg and
other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) formed the Lewisburg
Environmental Response Committee (LERC) to conduct a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) on the site. The study was
conducted under the terms of an Administrative Order on Consent which
the PRPs entered into with EPA.
The RI/FS, which was completed in 1990, confirmed the presence of
contaminants at the site. Organic and inorganic compounds were detected
in the landfill soil, shallow aquifers beneath the site, and in the
abandoned quarry pond.
The most prevalent organic contaminants at the site were bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, (DEHP), methylene chloride, xylene, ethylbenzene,
4-methyl-2-pentanone, 2-butanone, carbon disulfide, and toluene. The
most common inorganic contaminants were copper, chromium, aluminum,
arsenic, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, barium, and zinc. Of these
contaminants, only DEHP and copper were detected at levels of
significant concern. No contaminants were detected at appreciable
concentrations outside the site.
The RI/FS results indicated that, although contaminant
concentrations were generally insignificant, the wide variety of the
compounds was of concern. Other concerns noted were that the compounds
had the potential to become exposed by landfill cap deterioration, the
open access to the site and possible disturbance of landfill
constituents. In addition, there was potential for increased
groundwater contamination and leachate generation if site conditions
were not improved.
Special studies, including well surveys and dye trace analyses were
conducted in the area of the site to evaluate groundwater conditions
since most residences had water wells. The well survey identified 123
households within a 2 mile radius of the site with a minimum of one
well on each property. Approximately 70 of these households were
utilizing groundwater from wells for domestic or livestock purposes.
However, most residences near the site were connected to the municipal
water supply. No industrial or municipal wells were found in the survey
area. The dye trace studies did not indicate an immediate effect of the
site on the domestic wells.
In order to alleviate potential adverse effects of the site on
human health and the environment, the RI/FS evaluated several possible
remedial measures. Based on the results, EPA issued a Record of
Decision (ROD) in September 1990, which described the remedy selected
for the site. The major components of the selected remedy were: (1)
removal and disposal of all site surface debris, (2) removal and
disposal of all debris in the quarry pond, (3) replacement of plastic
test-pit caps with landfill cap material, (4) regrading of the landfill
cap, (5) implementation of institutional controls, and (6) long-term
monitoring and analysis.
Soon after the ROD was issued, EPA requested the PRPS to implement
and fund the selected remedy. The PRPs agreed and signed a Consent
Decree in 1991 to perform the work. All remedial activities were
completed between September 4, 1992, and September 20, 1993. The
Remedial Action Report submitted by the PRPs indicated that 382 cubic
yards of debris/soil, 172 tires, 50 empty drums and 2 drums containing
lead paint and sludge were removed from the site. These were disposed
of at properly permitted facilities. EPA and TDEC performed a final
site work inspection in September 1993, and determined that the
Remedial Action (RA) had been successfully executed.
Following the RA completion, the PRPs initiated site maintenance
and monitoring activities, including regular site inspection and
groundwater sampling. Laboratory results and other reports on these
activities have confirmed that the cleanup work at Lewisburg Dump was
successful and that the site no longer poses a threat to human health
or the environment.
The PRPs will continue to monitor the groundwater periodically and
report results to EPA as stipulated in the 1991 Consent Decree. TDEC
will provide necessary oversight.
The Consent Decree required the PRPs to place deed restrictions on
the property. The deed restrictions were recorded with the Office of
the Hamilton County Register on August 19, 1993.
Throughout this project, EPA conducted active community relations
activities to ensure that the local residents were well informed about
the different activities occurring at the site. These included the
development of Community Relations Plans, public meetings, and routine
publications of progress report fact sheets. A public meeting
presenting the Proposed Plan was held on July 25, 1990 in Lewisburg,
Tennessee. Public comments on the selected remedy were addressed in the
1990 ROD, and site information was placed at the repository in a local
library. A Pre-Construction meeting was held on August 17, 1992 in
Lewisburg to discuss the start of cleanup activities with the
community. In December 1993, EPA announced the end of site cleanup
activities in the local newspaper after the final RA inspection.
EPA provided oversight and involved the State in the evaluation and
approval of work conducted by the PRPs at the site. The Remedial Design
(RD), RA contract, and RA Work Plan were carefully reviewed by EPA and
TDEC for compliance with all quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
procedures. EPA reviewed or developed site evaluations, project plans,
technical and material specifications, construction, installation,
testing, and sampling requirements and procedures
[[Page 65618]]
for all laboratory analyses. Work Plans were developed as necessary by
contractors which specified appropriate QA/QC measures for all cleanup
activities. EPA reviewed and approved the QA/QC plans which, in
general, were based on the protocols in the U.S. EPA, Region IV.
Consistent with EPA guidance, a five year review of this project is
necessary to ensure continued protection of human health and the
environment. The statutory review will be conducted according to the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9355.7-02,
``Structure and Components of the Five year Reviews''.
The five-year period begins with the date of RA contract award
which, for this project, is September 8, 1992. Therefore, the review
should be completed prior to September 8, 1997.
In conclusion, EPA, with the concurrence of the State, has
determined that all appropriate remedial actions at the Lewisburg Dump
site under CERCLA have been completed. The site no longer poses a
threat to human health or the environment. Therefore, EPA proposes to
delete the site from the NPL and requests public comments on the
proposal.
Dated: November 27, 1995.
Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting Regional Administrator, USEPA, Region IV.
[FR Doc. 95-30798 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30782 Proposed Regulation Relating to Definition of Plan Assets; Participant Contributions
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66036-66040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30782]
[[Page 66035]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Part 2510
Proposed Regulation Relating to Definition of Plan Assets; Participant
Contributions; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 66036]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
29 CFR Part 2510
RIN 1210-AA53
Proposed Regulation Relating to Definition of Plan Assets;
Participant Contributions
AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department of
Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a proposed regulation revising the
definition of when certain monies which a participant pays to, or has
withheld by, an employer for contribution to an employee benefit plan
are ``plan assets'' for purposes of Title I of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the related prohibited
transaction provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code). This
regulation will provide guidance to employers that sponsor contributory
plans, including plans complying with section 401(k) of the Internal
Revenue Code, as well as fiduciaries, participants, and beneficiaries
of such plans.
DATES: Written comments and requests to testify concerning the proposed
regulation must be received by February 5, 1996. The Department has
scheduled a public hearing on this proposal on January 24, 1995, and,
if necessary, on January 25, 1995. The hearing will begin at 10:00 am
on both days.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
and requests to testify concerning this proposed regulation to: Pension
and Welfare Benefits Administration, Room N-5669, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20210. Attention:
Proposed Participant Contribution Regulation. All submissions will be
open to public inspection at the Public Documents Room, Pension and
Welfare Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5638,
200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. Written comments may
also be sent by the Internet to the following address:
[email protected]. The hearing on this proposal will be held in
Room N-3437A, Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rudy Nuissl, Office of Regulations and
Interpretations, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, DC (202) 219-7461; or William W.
Taylor, Plan Benefits Security Division, Office of the Solicitor, U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, DC (202) 219-9141. These are not toll-
free numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1988, the Department of Labor (the
Department) published a final regulation defining when certain monies
that a participant pays to, or has withheld by, an employer for
contribution to a plan are ``plan assets'' for purposes of Title I of
ERISA and the related prohibited transaction provisions of the Code.\1\
53 FR 17628 (May 17, 1988). The final regulation provided that the
assets of the plan include amounts (other than union dues) that a
participant or beneficiary pays to an employer, or amounts that a
participant has withheld from his or her wages by an employer, for
contribution to the plan as of the earliest date on which such
contributions can reasonably be segregated from the employer's general
assets, but in no event to exceed 90 days from the date on which such
amounts are received by the employer (in the case of amounts that a
participant or beneficiary pays to an employer) or 90 days from the
date on which such amounts would otherwise have been payable to the
participant in cash (in the case of amounts withheld by an employer
from a participant's wages).\2\ This final rule was based on a record
developed with respect to a proposed regulation published in 1979. 44
FR 50363 (August 28, 1979).
\1\ The Secretary of Labor has authority to issue regulations
relating to section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code pursuant to
section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978. 5 U.S.C. App. 165.
For the sake of clarity, the remainder of the preamble refers only
to Title I of ERISA. However, these references apply to the
corresponding provisions of section 4975 of the Code as well.
\2\ The Department has taken the position that elective
contributions to an employee benefit plan, whether made pursuant to
a salary reduction agreement or otherwise, constitute amounts paid
to or withheld by an employer (i.e., participant contributions)
within the scope of Sec. 2510.3-102, without regard to the treatment
of such contributions under the Internal Revenue Code. See 53 FR
29660 (Aug. 8, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except as provided in ERISA Sec. 403(b), plan assets are required
to be held in trust by one or more trustees.\3\ ERISA Sec. 403(a), 29
U.S.C. 1103(a). In addition, ERISA's fiduciary responsibility
provisions apply to the management of plan assets. Among other things,
these provisions make clear that the assets of a plan may not inure to
the benefit of any employer and shall be held for the exclusive purpose
of providing benefits to participants in the plan and their
beneficiaries, and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the
plan. ERISA Secs. 403-404, 29 U.S.C. 1103-1104. They also prohibit a
broad array of transactions involving plan assets. ERISA Secs. 406-408,
29 U.S.C. 1106-1108. Employers who fail to transmit promptly
participant contributions, and plan fiduciaries who fail to collect
those amounts in a timely manner, will violate the requirement that
plan assets be held in trust; in addition, such employers and
fiduciaries may be engaging in prohibited transactions.
\3\ ERISA Sec. 403(b) contains a number of exceptions to the
trust requirement for certain types of assets, including assets
which consist of insurance contracts, and for certain types of
plans. In addition, the Secretary has issued a technical release,
T.R. 92-01, which provides that, with respect to certain welfare
plans (e.g., cafeteria plans), the Department will not assert a
violation of the trust or certain reporting requirements in any
enforcement proceeding, or assess a civil penalty for certain
reporting violations, involving such plans solely because of a
failure to hold participant contributions in trust. 57 FR 23272
(June 2, 1992), 58 FR 45359 (Aug. 27, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As was noted in the preamble to the final regulation published in
1988, the Department of Justice takes the position that, under 18
U.S.C. 664, the embezzlement, conversion, abstraction, or stealing of
``any of the moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property, or
other assets of any employee welfare benefit plan or employee pension
benefit plan, or any fund connected therewith'' is a criminal offense,
and that under such language, criminal prosecution may go forward in
situations in which the participant contributions is not a plan asset
for purposes of Title I of ERISA. The final regulation defined when
participant contributions become ``plan assets'' only for the purposes
of Title I of ERISA and the related prohibited transaction excise tax
provisions of the Code. The Department reiterates that this regulation
may not be relied upon to bar criminal prosecutions pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 664.
Similarly, the Department wishes to reemphasize its view, expressed
in the preamble to the final regulation, that in circumstances in which
the employer clearly converts participant contributions to its own use,
such amounts are considered ``segregated,'' and thus will be ``plan
assets''.
The Need for a Proposed Regulation
Although the Department believes that, in the vast majority of
contributory employee benefit plans, participant contributions are
handled with integrity, recent investigations conducted by the
Department have revealed numerous violations related to employers'
delay in transmitting or failing to transmit to employee benefit plans
amounts that a participant or beneficiary pays to an employer, or
[[Page 66037]]
amounts that employers withhold from participants' wages, for
contribution to the plans. Evidence uncovered in ongoing investigations
indicates that such delays are not uncommon.\4\ The above described
recent enforcement activities focused on participant contribution
indicate a significantly higher frequency of violations for such
investigations than the Department encounters in general.\5\
\4\ In the Spring of 1995 PWBA began a project to investigate
misuse of employee contributions to employee benefit plans and in
particular in 401(k) plans. As of October 31, 1995 there were 417
employee contribution investigations open and 130 cases were closed
during the year. More than $3.7 million has been recovered through
voluntary compliance in situations where employee contributions were
not placed in trust for participants.
\5\ Of the 130 closed employee contribution cases, 44, or 33.8
percent of closed cases, resulted in findings of violations of
ERISA's fiduciary provisions. This compares to a finding of
fiduciary violations in 12 percent of all other closed cases in FY
95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Department, responding to requests for technical
assistance from employers and participants, has received information
that many employers who receive participant contributions are under the
misimpression that the current regulation permits a delay of up to 90
days in segregating such contributions, even if the participant
contributions can reasonably be segregated much sooner. The Department
has also received similar information from a variety of other sources.
Such delays deprive participants of earnings on their contributions and
increase the risk to participants and their beneficiaries that their
contributions will be lost due to the employer's insolvency or
misappropriation by the employer.
In order to better protect the security of participant
contributions to employee benefit plans, the Department believes that
the final regulation published in 1988 must be revised. It is important
to clarify that participant contributions become plan assets as soon as
they can reasonably be segregated from the employer's general assets.
In addition, the Department believes that the 90-day maximum period
under 1988 regulation is too long, given the abuses that have been
uncovered by the Department's investigations, and improvements in cash
management and payroll processing practices since the final regulation
was adopted.
The Proposed Regulation
This document contains a proposal to revise the regulation at 29
CFR 2510.3-102 by changing the maximum period during which participant
contributions to an employee benefit may be treated as other than
``plan assets''. Under the current regulation, the maximum period is 90
days from the date on which the participant contributions are received
by the employer (for amounts that participants or beneficiaries pay to
the employer) or would otherwise have been payable to the participants
in cash (for amounts that the employer withholds from the participants'
wages).
Under the proposed rule, the maximum period for an employer to
transmit participant contributions to the plan would be the same number
of days as the period in which the employer is required to deposit
withheld income taxes and employment taxes under rules promulgated by
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The currently applicable rules are
codified at 26 CFR 31.6302-1.\6\ In general, these rules require
employers who have reported more than $50,000 of withheld income taxes
and employment taxes for a prior 12-month ``lookback'' period (defined
as ``semi-weekly depositors'') to make tax deposits to a Federal
Reserve Bank or authorized financial institution within a few days of
withholding from wages. Employers who have reported $50,000 or less of
withheld income taxes and employment taxes in the lookback period are
defined as ``monthly depositors'' and must make such deposits on or
before the 15th day of the month following the month in which the
employees' wages are paid.
\6\ See also IRS Publication 15 (Cat. No. 10000W) Circular E,
Employer's Tax Guide (Rev. January 1995) and IRS Notice 931 (Rev.
October 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the IRS regulations reflect the statutory requirement
that an employer who has accumulated on any day $100,000 in withheld
income taxes and employment taxes must deposit such taxes by the next
banking day. 26 U.S.C. 6302(g). If an employer accumulates less than a
$500 tax liability during a calendar quarter, no deposits are required;
the tax is paid with the filing of the tax return for the quarter.\7\
The Department solicits comments on the appropriateness of including
these two special rules to the general tax deposit rules in the IRS
regulation.
\7\ The Department recognizes that mistakes may occur in the
processing of participant contributions. It is the Department's view
that ERISA does not prevent the return of any mistaken contributions
nor the ability to make correcting contributions after the mistakes
are discovered. See ERISA Sec. 403(c), 29 U.S.C. 11103(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would require employers who cannot reasonably
segregate participant contributions at an earlier date to treat such
amounts as plan assets within the same time frame that the employer is
required to segregate and deposit withheld income taxes and employment
taxes. The following table illustrates the basic time periods specified
in the IRS regulations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of depositor Date withheld Date deposit due
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Weekly Depositor (more Wednesday, Thursday, Following Wednesday.
than $50,000 of Federal and/or Friday. Following Friday.
Income, Social Security and Saturday, Sunday,
Medicare taxes Monday and/or
(collectively, employment Tuesday.
taxes) reported for 12-
month period ending last
June 30).
Monthly Depositor ($50,000 In any day during a By the 15th of the
or less of employment taxes calendar month. following calendar
reported for 12-month month.
period ending on the
previous June 30).
Either semi-weekly or Not relevant........ Next banking day
monthly depositor, if after the $100,000
$100,000 or more in in employment taxes
employment taxes are was accumulated.
accumulated on any date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, a semi-weekly depositor that pays its employees on
Wednesday, December 13, is required to deposit withheld income taxes
and employment taxes by the following Wednesday (December 20). Under
the proposed rule, any participant contributions withheld on December
13 would become plan assets as soon as they could reasonably be
segregated from the employer's general assets, but no later than
December 20. Participant contributions that are paid separately by
employees or former employees to the employer would be subject to the
same time frames. For example, if a semi-weekly depositor receives a
participant's payment on Monday,
[[Page 66038]]
December 18, the payment amount would become plan assets as soon as
they could reasonably be segregated from the employer's general assets,
but no later than the following Friday, December 22.
Because the IRS tax deposit rules are generally applicable to
employers, the Department expects that employers who sponsor
contributory employee benefit plans are familiar with and have systems
in place to comply with the IRS requirements.\8\ Thus, the Department
believes that applying these same rules in determining when the maximum
period beyond which participant contributions must be treated as plan
assets should not result in serious inconvenience or expense for such
employers. The Department believes that currently available cash
management and payroll processing technology allows the segregation of
participant contributions within the maximum period proposed in this
document. Furthermore, the final regulation published in 1988 requires
that participant contributions be treated as plan assets as soon as
they can reasonably be segregated from the employer's general assets.
As a result, this proposed change will not be material for many
employers who have complied with the final regulation published in
1988. The Department recognizes that some employers perceive
difficulties in the transfer of participant contributions to the plan
that they do not have in the deposit of federal employment taxes. The
Department solicits comments as to any specific burdens and associated
costs of this kind. The Department also requests comments on the
transition period needed for employers and service providers,
especially small businesses, to make changes in practices that may be
necessary to comply with the proposal if it is adopted.
\8\ The Department understands that most employers who sponsor
section 401(k) plans are ``semi-weekly depositors'' under the IRS
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the proposed rule would not change the requirement that
participant contributions be treated as plan assets at the earliest
date they can reasonably be segregated from the employer's general
assets, changing the regulations to provide for an outer limit that
conforms to IRS requirements will allow the Department and plan
participants to more quickly and easily determine that a violation has
occurred. This will assist the Department in its increased monitoring
and enforcement in this area, as it reduces the room for argument as to
how rapidly participant contributions must be segregated from the
employer's general assets. In addition, changing the ninety-day limit
for treating participant contributions as other than ``plan assets''
reduces the risk of loss that exists when employers improperly hold
participant contributions in their general assets for the maximum
period rather than segregating them from the employer's general assets
at the earliest reasonable date.
The proposed rule does not include an alternative proposal for a
maximum period based on a fixed period of days (such as 15 days), but
the Department may consider adopting such a rule in place of the rule
described above if adopting the IRS tax deposit rules as the maximum
period for segregating participant contributions would place an undue
burden on plan sponsors. Commenters may wish to address the advantages
or disadvantages of using a fixed period of days or some other
formulation for a maximum period when they provide comments on the
proposed rule.
The Department also welcomes comments on the advisability of other
measures that it might consider to address the problem of delays in
transmitting participant contributions to plans, such as, for example,
requirements for more frequent disclosure to participants of
participant contributions and account balances by the plan.
This document also modifies the language in section 2510.3-102 to
emphasize that the assets of a plan include participant contributions
as of the earliest date on which such contributions can reasonably be
segregated from the employer's general assets. Although this
modification would not change the effect of the existing regulation,
the Department expects that the proposed new language will reduce the
likelihood that employers will incorrectly believe that the maximum
period in the proposed rule is a safe harbor and that they may delay
the segregation of participant contributions up to the maximum period.
Effective Date of Regulation
Pursuant to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act at
5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Department is publishing this notice of proposed
rulemaking for notice and comment and will promulgate this rule in
final form subsequent to such comment period. The Department expects to
issue a final rule 45 days following the close of the comment period.
The Department has determined to propose that the final rule will be
effective 60 days after its publication, which the Department believes
will allow sufficient time for an appropriate transition to the new
maximum periods. The Department solicits comments regarding the
appropriate effective date for the final regulation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department has determined that this regulation would not have a
significant economic impact on small plans or other small entities. The
regulation would describe when contributions made by a participant of a
plan subject to ERISA or to the related prohibited transaction excise
tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code must be transmitted to the
plan by an employer withholding the contributions. The Department
solicits comments on whether the proposal is likely to have a
significant economic impact on small entities. The Department also
requests comments from small entities regarding what, if any, special
problems they anticipate they may encounter if the proposal were to be
adopted, and what changes, if any, could be made to minimize these
problems.
Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the
Department must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive
Order. Under section 3(f), the order defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action that is likely to result in, among other things,
a rule raising novel policy issues arising out of the President's
priorities.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, the Department has
determined that this regulatory action is a ``significant regulatory
action'' as that term is used in Executive Order 12866 because the
action would raise novel policy issues arising out of the President's
priorities. Thus, the Department believes this notice is
``significant,'' and subject to OMB review on that basis. The
Department also solicits comments on potential economic effects of this
proposed rule in the context of Executive Order 12866, and any evidence
with respect to whether or not this proposed rule may be ``economically
significant''.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The regulation being issued here is not subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because
it does not
[[Page 66039]]
contain an ``information collection request'' as defined in 44 U.S.C.
3502(11).
Statutory Authority
The proposed regulation would be adopted pursuant to the authority
contained in section 505 of ERISA (Pub. L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 894; 29
U.S.C. 1135) and section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (43
FR 47713, October 17, 1978), effective December 31, 1978 (44 FR 1065,
January 3, 1979), 3 CFR 1978 Comp. 332, and under Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 1-87, 52 FR 13139 (Apr. 21, 1987).
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2510
Employee benefit plans, Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
Pensions, Plan assets.
PART 2510--[AMENDED]
1. The authority for Part 2510 is revised to read:
Authority: Secs. 3(2), 111(c), 505, Pub. L. 93-406, 88 Stat.
852, 894 (29 U.S.C. 1002(2), 1031, 1135); Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 27-74, 1-86 (51 FR 3521, January 28, 1986), 1-87 (52 FR 13139,
April 21, 1987), and Labor Management Services Administration Order
No. 2-6.
Section 2510.3-40 is also issued under sec. 3(40), Pub. L. 97-
473, 96 Stat. 2611, 2612 (29 U.S.C. 1002(40)).
Section 2510.3-101 is also issued under sec. 102 of
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (43 FR 47713, October 17, 1978),
effective December 31, 1978 (44 FR 1065, January 3, 1978), 3 CFR
1978 Comp. 332 and sec. 11018(d) of Pub. L. 99-272, 100 Stat. 82.
Section 2510.3-102 is also issued under sec. 102 of
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (43 FR 47713, October 17, 1978),
effective December 31, 1978 (44 FR 1065, January 3, 1978), 3 CFR
1978 Comp. 332.
2. Section 2510.3-102 is revised to read as follows:
2510.3-102 Definition of ``plan assets''--participant contributions.
(a) General rule. For purposes of Subtitle A and Parts 1 and 4 of
Subtitle B of Title I of ERISA and section 4975 of the Internal Revenue
Code only (but without any implication for and may not be relied upon
to bar criminal prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. 664), the assets of the
plan include amounts (other than union dues) that a participant or
beneficiary pays to an employer, or amounts that a participant has
withheld from his wages by an employer, for contribution to the plan as
of the earliest date on which such contributions can reasonably be
segregated from the employer's general assets.
(b) Maximum time period. In no event shall the date determined
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section occur later than the end of
period of time during which the employer is required to make federal
tax deposits for withheld income taxes and taxes under the Federal
Insurance Contributions Act under regulations issued at 26 CFR 31.6302-
1, measured from the date on which such amounts are received by the
employer (in the case of amounts that a participant or beneficiary pays
to an employer) or the date on which such amounts would otherwise have
been payable to the participant in cash (in the case of amounts
withheld by an employer from a participant's wages).
(c) Examples. The requirements of this section are illustrated by
the following examples:
(1) Employer W is a small company with a small number of employees
at a single payroll location. W maintains a plan under section 401(k)
of the Internal Revenue Code in which all of its employees participate.
W's practice is to issue a single check to the trust that is maintained
under the plan in the amount of the total withheld employee
contributions within two days of the date on which the employees are
paid. Under applicable Internal Revenue Service federal tax deposit
rules, W is a ``monthly depositor'' as defined at 26 CFR 31.6302-
1(c)(1). Under these rules W must deposit withheld federal income taxes
and employment taxes no later than the 15th of the month following the
month in which the relevant wages are paid. In view of the relatively
small number of employees and the fact that they are paid from a single
location, W could reasonably be expected to transmit participant
contributions to a trust within two days after the employee's wages are
paid. Therefore, the assets of W's 401(k) plan include the participant
contributions attributable to any pay period as of the date two days
from the close of such period, even though IRS federal tax deposit
rules allow W substantially more time in which to make tax deposits.
(2) Employer X is a large national corporation which sponsors a
section 401(k) plan. X has several payroll centers and uses an outside
payroll processing service to pay employee wages and process
deductions. Each payroll center has a different pay period. Each center
maintains separate accounts on its books for purposes of accounting for
that center's payroll deductions and provides the outside payroll
processor the data necessary to prepare employee paychecks and process
deductions. The payroll processing service has adopted a procedure
under which it issues the employees' paychecks when due and deducts all
payroll taxes and elective employee deductions. It deposits withheld
income and employment payroll taxes within the time frame specified by
26 CFR 31.6302-1 and forwards a computer data tape representing the
total payroll deductions for each employee, for a month's worth of pay
periods, to a centralized location in X, where the data tape is checked
for accuracy. A single check representing the aggregate participant
contributions for the month is issued to the plan by the employer. X
believes that this procedure, which takes 7 days after receipt of the
date tape to complete, permits segregation of participant contributions
at the earliest practicable time and avoids mistakes in the allocation
of contribution amounts for each participant. X, however, is a ``semi-
weekly depositor'' under the Internal Revenue Service's Federal Deposit
Rules and makes Federal tax deposits within the time frames, set forth
in those IRS rules. Under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the
assets of the plan include the participant contributions as soon as X
could reasonably be expected to segregate the contributions from its
general assets, but in no event later than the date on which the
employer would be required to deposit withheld income taxes and
employment taxes under 26 CFR 31.6302-1. The participant contributions
become plan assets no later than end of the time period within which X
is required to deposit withheld income taxes and employment taxes.
(3) Employer Y is medium-sized company which maintains a self-
insured contributory group health plan. Several former employees have
elected, pursuant to the provisions of ERISA Sec. 602, 29 U.S.C. 1162,
to pay Y for continuation of their coverage under the plan. Y is a
semi-weekly depositor of withheld Federal income taxes and employment
taxes. Under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the assets of the
plan include the former employees' payments as soon as Y could
reasonably be expected to segregate the payments from its general
assets, but in no event later than the date on which Y would be
required to deposit the payment amounts if the payments were withheld
from Federal income taxes or employment taxes. A former employee's
payment received on a Monday would have become plan assets no later
than the following Friday.
(d) Effective date. This section is effective 60 days after date of
publication of final regulation.
[[Page 66040]]
Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of December 1995.
Alan D. Lebowitz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program Operations, Pension and Welfare
Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 95-30782 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30767 Valuation of Oil From Federal and Indian Leases
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65610-65611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30767]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 206
RIN 1010-AC09
Valuation of Oil From Federal and Indian Leases
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: In response to changes in the oil and gas industry and the
marketplace, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) is considering
amending its regulations regarding the valuation of crude oil produced
from or allocated to Federal and Indian leases.
Most Federal and Indian leases provide that the value of production
for royalty purposes be determined by the Secretary. This notice is
intended to solicit comments on new methodologies to establish the
royalty value of oil produced from Federal and Indian leases. MMS
specifically seeks comments on the use of crude oil posted prices as a
means to value oil not sold under arm's-length conditions, and the
meaning and application of the term ``significant quantities''.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments, suggestions, or objections regarding
valuation issues should be mailed to the Minerals Management Service,
Royalty Management Program, Rules and Procedures Staff, Denver Federal
Center, Building 85, P.O. Box 25165, Mail Stop 3101, Denver, Colorado
80225-0165, Attention: David S. Guzy, telephone (303) 231-3432, fax
(303) 231-3194.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and
Procedures Staff, MMS Royalty Management Program, at telephone (303)
231-3432, fax (303) 231-3491, e-mail David__G[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
All Federal and Indian oil and gas leases contain provisions for
the determination of royalty obligations.
Most of these Federal and Indian leases reserve to the Secretary
considerable discretion in determining value for royalty purposes. This
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is intended to solicit comments
on new methodologies to establish value for crude oil production from
Federal and Indian leases. Comments received in response to this
Advance Notice will be considered in the development of a proposed
rulemaking that MMS will publish in the Federal Register.
In conjunction with the lease terms, the valuation of oil
production from Federal and Indian leases is subject to the regulations
at 30 CFR Part 206, Subpart C--Federal and Indian Oil. The present
regulations govern the valuation of production from both Federal and
Indian (Tribal and allotted) leases (except leases on the Osage Indian
Reservation, Oklahoma). MMS believes it could provide an improved
regulatory framework in which lease terms could be strictly enforced
while requiring little or no extra information from lessees.
MMS may issue separate regulations to value oil from Indian leases
because of the Secretary's trust obligation in the administration of
Indian oil and gas leases. In view of this obligation, the Secretary
must ensure that Indians receive the maximum benefits from mineral
resources on their lands. Thus, the value of production for royalty
purposes from an Indian lease should be determined considering the
higher reasonable values provided by the terms of the standard lease.
MMS believes this goal is consistent with: the terms of these Indian
oil and gas leases, the statutes governing Indian oil and gas leases,
and court decisions providing judicial guidance in the interpretation
and administration of Indian oil and gas leases. Specific comments are
requested on issuing separate regulations for valuing oil from Indian
leases.
II. Discussion of Alternatives
The Secretary's responsibility to determine the royalty value of
oil produced from Federal and Indian lands has not changed, although
the industry and marketplace have changed dramatically over the years.
Specifically, oil posted prices may no longer represent the price a
purchaser is willing to pay for a particular crude oil. MMS plans to
develop a set of regulations to permit the Secretary to discharge the
Department's royalty valuation responsibility in an environment of
continuing and accelerating change in the industry and the marketplace.
Given the ever-changing marketplace, the Secretary's responsibilities
regarding oil production from Federal and Indian leases require
development of flexible valuation methodologies that lessees can comply
with accurately and timely. MMS specifically seeks to improve oil
valuation regarding the use of oil posted prices, including methods of
determining ``significant quantities.'' A discussion of these areas
follows:
(a) Oil Posted Prices, Including Effects on Existing Valuation
Benchmarks for Oil Not Sold Under Arm's-Length Contract
MMS is considering modifying or replacing the current benchmark
system at 30 CFR 206.102(c) used to value oil not sold under arm's-
length contracts. MMS believes that the current regulations may place
too much emphasis on posted prices--the lessee's and others'. The first
two of the five benchmarks rely on postings if a significant quantity
of like-quality crude is purchased or sold at such postings in a field
or area. Likewise, the third benchmark relies at least partly on
postings because it applies the average of arm's-length contract
prices, which often are tied to postings, for purchases or sales of
significant quantities of oil in the area. (The fourth benchmark relies
on spot sales and other relevant matters, and the fifth relies on a
net-back or any other reasonable method to determine value.)
MMS recently has received information indicating that oil posted
prices don't always reflect market value and in fact may often be no
more than a beginning point for negotiation.
MMS has found numerous examples where crude oil purchasers pay
premiums over the posted price. Further, consultation with private
consultants, various State government personnel, and other non-Federal
[[Page 65611]]
royalty-owners indicates a consistent belief that oil posted prices may
not represent market value. And, while posted prices historically were
presumed to represent actual prices offered for a particular crude oil,
postings no longer necessarily represent an offer to buy at that price.
Revising the benchmark system in the regulations could remove some
of the current heavy reliance on posted oil prices and provide MMS more
flexibility in determining proper royalty value.
MMS is soliciting comments on the continued applicability of oil
posted prices as a fair and reasonable indicator of royalty value.
Specifically, MMS seeks input on how oil marketing takes place today
and whether and how oil posted prices typically factor into oil sales/
purchases/exchanges.
MMS invites specific comments on various aspects of posted prices
as applied to crude oil sales and royalty value for Federal and Indian
leases, including the option of separate oil valuation regulations for
Indian leases. MMS would like examples demonstrating whether crude oil
price postings form the true basis for oil values in given fields or
areas--and, to the extent possible, nationwide. And, if the commenter
feels postings don't reflect market value for the field or area, MMS
would like specific suggested alternative royalty valuation
methodologies for oil not sold under arm's-length conditions. That is,
if postings don't reflect market value and because the existing
benchmarks for oil not sold under arm's-length conditions rely heavily
on posted prices, what are some suggested alternative valuation
benchmarks? For example:
Are there indices or other published prices that better
reflect actual market value than oil postings?
Where prices posted by individual companies differ
considerably within the same field or area, how are these differences
best reconciled?
Are there fixed ``reference'' prices against which
quality, transportation, and other adjustments can be made to develop
reasonable royalty values (e.g., West Texas Intermediate)?
Are spot prices of sufficient reliability and do they
cover wide enough geographic areas to use as value bases?
Do oil ``futures'' prices provide meaningful bases for
royalty valuation?
What alternative valuation method(s) best balance the
needs to (a) reflect the market value of the oil as sold, exchanged, or
otherwise disposed of; and (b) maximize administrative efficiency for
all concerned? (Please consider the amount of information needed by the
lessee and MMS, and the overall administrative costs of all parties.)
For royalty valuation involving arm's-length transactions, MMS
generally accepts the contractual terms, which may include postings.
MMS further requests comments on whether the use of alternative methods
for valuing oil not sold under arm's-length conditions would impact the
acceptability of posted prices for valuing oil sold at arm's-length.
(b) Quantifying ``Significant Quantities'' of Oil
The current MMS royalty valuation benchmarks for oil not sold under
arm's-length contract rely on ``significant quantity'' determinations.
Under the benchmarks, the lessee's or others' posted or contract prices
used in arm's-length purchases or sales of ``significant quantities''
of like-quality oil from the same field or area establish royalty
value. The first applicable of the five benchmarks is to be used, and
the first four rely on ``significant quantity'' determinations. For
example, if the lessee sells ``significant quantities'' of its field
production at arm's-length, the arm's-length contract sales price may
apply to the lessee's other, internally-transferred crude oil from the
same field. But the existing regulations contain no fixed definition of
``significant quantities,'' either on an absolute or relative basis.
Thus, MMS would like comments on the best ways to determine what
constitutes ``significant quantities.'' For example:
Is there an absolute volume measure (barrels per day/
month/year, etc.) that would allow MMS to determine whether specific
arm's-length sales involve ``significant quantities''? If so, should
this volume vary by field or area?
Is there a fixed percentage of field or area production
that MMS can use as a comparison basis to determine whether specific
arm's-length sales represent ``significant quantities''?
What should be the comparative basis for ``significant
quantity'' determinations? Should individual arm's-length transactions
be related to all field production, or should some volumes such as
internal company transfers of production or exchanges or buy/sell
exchanges with other oil companies first be excluded from field
production?
Are there measures other than ``significant quantities''
that may better apply given alternative valuation scenarios?
In providing comments on (a) and (b) above, please consider not
only current oil marketing practices, but also any changes that may be
foreseen. MMS intends for any oil valuation rule changes to be flexible
enough to accommodate future oil marketing changes as much as possible
to avoid ongoing rule modification.
In addition to comments on (a) and (b) above, MMS would like
comments on the process to use and make potential changes to the oil
valuation rules. Specifically, MMS would like comments on whether any
oil valuation regulatory changes should be subject to negotiated
rulemaking procedures or other consensual mechanisms for developing
regulations.
Dated: December 8, 1995.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 95-30767 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30725 Reimbursement for Providing Financial Records; Recordkeeping Requirements for Certain Financial Records
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65599-65601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30725]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 65599]]
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 219
[Regulation S; Docket No. R-0906]
Reimbursement for Providing Financial Records; Recordkeeping
Requirements for Certain Financial Records
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board)
is proposing amendments to Subpart A of Regulation S, which implements
the requirement under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) that
the Board establish the rates and conditions under which payment shall
be made by a government authority to a financial institution for
assembling or providing financial records pursuant to RFPA. These
proposed amendments update the fees to be charged and streamlines the
subpart generally.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. R-0906, and may be
mailed to William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20551. Comments also may be delivered to Room B-2222
of the Eccles Building between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. weekdays, or to
the guard station in the Eccles Building courtyard on 20th Street, N.W.
(between Constitution Avenue and C Street) at any time. Comments
received will be available for inspection in Room MP-500 of the Martin
Building between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays, except as provided
in 12 CFR 261.8 of the Board's rules regarding availability of
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Boutilier, Senior Counsel
(202/452-2418), Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. For users of the
Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), please contact Dorothea
Thompson (202/452-3544).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 1115 of the RFPA (12 U.S.C. 3415) requires the Board to
establish, by regulation, the rates and conditions under which payment
is made by a Government authority to a financial institution for
searching for, reproducing, or transporting data required or requested
under the RFPA. Shortly after the RFPA was adopted, the Board issued
Regulation S (12 CFR 219) to implement this provision (44 FR 55812,
September 28, 1979). No changes to the rates have been made since that
time. In January 1995, the Board adopted a new Subpart B of Regulation
S (to become effective on January 1, 1996 1) and designated this
part of Regulation S as Subpart A. 60 FR 231 (January 3, 1995) No
substantive changes were made to the newly designated Subpart A.
Pursuant to section 303 of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-325 (12 U.S.C. 4803),
the Board has reviewed Subpart A of Regulation S and proposes to update
it through these amendments. These amendments streamline the regulation
by eliminating unnecessary provisions, and they update the rates to be
paid and the exceptions to the provisions of this Subpart.
\1\ In a rulemaking issued on August 24, 1995 (60 FR 44144),
the effective date of Subpart B has been delayed until April 1,
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Definitions
The definitions in Subpart A reiterate the statutory definitions
from the RFPA for the applicable terms of this Subpart. The definition
for ``directly incurred costs'' has been removed and incorporated into
the section concerning cost reimbursement.
II. Cost Reimbursement
This section has been streamlined and reorganized to place the
rates in a separate Appendix A for clarity and ease of amendment when
updating the rates. The proposed amendments also recognize that courts
issuing orders or subpoenas in connection with grand jury proceedings
must pay the rates set by Subpart A.
III. Rates
The Board is particularly interested in receiving comments on the
rates proposed in Appendix A. It is difficult to establish rates to be
applied across all geographic regions and to all depository
institutions, regardless of size. While recognizing this difficulty,
the Board nevertheless proposes a uniform rate in the belief that
administration of a complex fee schedule would be difficult.
A. Reproduction
The rates proposed for reproduction are the same rates used by the
Board to charge requesters seeking documents under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). The Board establishes its FOIA fees based upon
the actual costs of making such reproductions and believes that these
costs are similar to those incurred by other entities. The Board
welcomes comments on the appropriateness of the proposed fees and any
suggested alternative methods of determining the fees.
B. Search and Processing
The proposed fees for search and processing are separated into two
categories--clerical/technical and manager/supervisory. Any search for
sensitive customer records is likely to involve both clerical staff and
managerial staff, who are paid at different levels. The rates set for
this reimbursement were calculated using the 1994 Bank Cash
Compensation Survey done by the Bank Administration Institute. Based
upon the job descriptions in the Cash Compensation Survey, the position
of Supervisor, Bookkeeping was used to calculate the managerial rate.
The calculation was made based upon the total compensation (with bonus)
for all banks on a national average ($27,600) divided by 2080 hours,
adjusted up by 25% to cover benefits, and further adjusted by 3% for
inflation since 1994. The clerical rate was calculated in the same way,
but using an average of the two job positions of Clerk II (Bookkeeping
and Operations @ $18,100) and Clerk I (Bookkeeping and Operations @
$15,100). The Board is very interested in receiving comments on the
rates and the method of calculation.
[[Page 65600]]
IV. Exceptions
This section has been updated to reflect changes in the exceptions
listed by the RFPA.
V. Conditions for Payment and Payment Procedures
No substantive changes have been made to these two sections.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605, the Board certifies that this proposed
rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule confers a
benefit on financial institutions, including small financial
institutions, by providing for reimbursement of certain costs incurred
in complying with a requirement to assemble and produce financial
records.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed
the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the
Office of Management and Budget. Comments on the collections of
information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (7100-0203), Washington, DC 20503, with
copies of such comments to be sent to Mary M. McLaughlin, Federal
Reserve Board Clearance Officer, Division of Research and Statistics,
Mail Stop 97, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Washington, DC 20551.
The Right to Financial Privacy Act mandates that each financial
institution maintain a record of instances in which it releases a
consumer's financial information to a government agency. Generally, the
institution may not release records until the government agency has
notified the consumer of its intent to request the record, together
with the reason for the request. Normally, the agency may not obtain
records unless it has a subpoena, a search warrant, or an authorization
from the consumer.
The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization
is not required to respond to, this information collection unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number
for the Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements in Connection with
the Right to Financial Privacy Act is 7100-0203.
Because the records would be maintained at banks, no issue of
confidentiality under the Freedom of Information Act arises.
This proposed regulation, 12 CFR 219, has no effect upon the
paperwork burden associated with the Recordkeeping and Disclosure
Requirements in Connection with the Right to Financial Privacy Act.
That hour burden is estimated to be 22 minutes per response. It is
estimated that the frequency of response at state member banks is 30
responses per year. Thus the annual hour burden across the 975 state
member banks is estimated to be 10,725 hours. Based on an hourly cost
of $20, the annual cost to the public is estimated to be $214,500.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 219
Banks, banking, Currency, Federal Reserve System, Foreign banking,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 12 CFR Part 219, as
amended at 60 FR 231 and 44144 effective April 1, 1996, is proposed to
be amended as set forth below.
PART 219--REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROVIDING FINANCIAL RECORDS;
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN FINANCIAL RECORDS
(REGULATION)
Subpart A--Reimbursement to Financial Institutions for Providing
Financial Records
1. The authority citation for Subpart A continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 3415
2. Subpart A is amended by revising Secs. 219.2 through 219.6 to
read as follows:
Sec. 219.2 Definitions.
For the purposes of this subpart, the following definitions shall
apply:
Customer means any person or authorized representative of that
person who uses any service of a financial institution, or for whom a
financial institution acts or has acted as a fiduciary in relation to
an account maintained in the person's name. Customer does not include
corporations or partnerships comprised of more than five persons.
Financial institution means any office of a bank, savings bank,
card issuer as defined in section 103 of the Consumers Credit
Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1602(n)), industrial loan company, trust
company, savings association, building and loan, or homestead
association (including cooperative banks), credit union, or consumer
finance institution, located in any State or territory of the United
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or
the Virgin Islands.
Financial record means an original or copy of, or information known
to have been derived from, any record held by a financial institution
pertaining to a customer's relationship with the financial institution.
Government authority means any agency or department of the United
States, or any officer, employee or agent thereof.
Person means an individual or a partnership of five or fewer
individuals.
Sec. 219.3 Cost reimbursement.
(a) Fees payable. Except as provided in Sec. 219.4, a government
authority, or a court issuing an order or subpoena in connection with
grand jury proceedings, seeking access to financial records pertaining
to a customer shall reimburse the financial institution for reasonably
necessary costs directly incurred in searching for, reproducing or
transporting books, papers, records, or other data as set forth in this
section. The reimbursement schedule for a financial institution is set
forth in Appendix A to this section. If a financial institution has
financial records that are stored at an independent storage facility
that charges a fee to search for, reproduce, or transport particular
records requested, these costs are considered to be directly incurred
by the financial institution and may be included in the reimbursement.
(b) Search and processing costs. (1) Reimbursement of search and
processing costs shall cover the total amount of personnel time spent
in locating, retrieving, reproducing, and preparing financial records
for shipment. Search and processing costs shall not cover analysis of
material or legal advice.
(2) If itemized separately, search and processing costs may include
the actual cost of extracting information stored by computer in the
format in which it is normally produced, based on computer time and
necessary supplies; however, personnel time for computer search may be
paid for only at the rates specified in Appendix A to this section.
(c) Reproduction costs. The reimbursement rates for reproduction
costs for requested documents are set forth in Appendix A to this
section. Copies of photographs, films, computer tapes, and other
materials not listed in Appendix A to this section are reimbursed at
actual cost.
(d) Transportation costs. Reimbursement for transportation costs
shall be for the reasonably necessary costs directly incurred to
transport personnel to locate and retrieve the
[[Page 65601]]
requested information, and to convey such material to the place of
examination.
Appendix A to Sec. 219.3--Reimbursement Schedule
Reproduction:
Photocopy, per page.......................................... .15
Paper copies of microfiche, per frame........................ .15
Duplicate microfiche, per microfiche......................... .30
Computer diskette............................................ 5.00
Search and Processing:
Clerical/Technical, hourly rate.............................. 11.00
Manager/Supervisory, hourly rate............................. 17.00
Sec. 219.4 Exceptions.
A financial institution is not entitled to reimbursement under this
subpart for costs incurred in assembling or providing financial records
or information related to:
(a) Security interests, bankruptcy claims, debt collection. Any
financial records provided as an incident to perfecting a security
interest, proving a claim in bankruptcy, or otherwise collecting on a
debt owing either to the financial institution itself or in its role as
a fiduciary.
(b) Government loan programs. Financial records that are necessary
to permit the appropriate government authority to carry out its
responsibilities under a government loan, loan guaranty or loan
insurance program.
(c) Nonidentifiable information. Financial records that are not
identified with or identifiable as being derived from the financial
records of a particular customer.
(d) Financial supervisory agencies. Financial records disclosed to
a financial supervisory agency in the exercise of its supervisory,
regulatory, or monetary functions with respect to a financial
institution.
(e) Internal Revenue summons. Financial records disclosed in
accordance with procedures authorized by the Internal Revenue Code.
(f) Federally required reports. Financial records required to be
reported in accordance with any federal statute or rule promulgated
thereunder.
(g) Government civil or criminal litigation. Financial records
sought by a government authority under the Federal Rules of Civil or
Criminal Procedure or comparable rules of other courts in connection
with litigation to which the government authority and the customer are
parties.
(h) Administrative agency subpoenas. Financial records sought by a
government authority pursuant to an administrative subpoena issued by
an administrative law judge in an adjudicatory proceeding subject to 5
U.S.C. 554, and to which the government authority and the customer are
parties.
(i) Investigation of financial institution or its noncustomer.
Financial records sought by a government authority in connection with a
lawful proceeding, investigation, examination, or inspection directed
at the financial institution in possession of such records, or at an
entity that is not a customer as defined in Sec. 219.2.
(j) General Accounting Office requests. Financial records sought by
the General Accounting Office pursuant to an authorized proceeding,
investigation, examination, or audit directed at a government
authority.
(k) Federal Housing Finance Board requests. Financial records or
information sought by the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB) or any
of the Federal home loan banks in the exercise of the FHFB's authority
to extend credit to financial institutions or others.
(l) Department of Veterans Affairs. The disclosure of the name and
address of any customer to the Department of Veterans Affairs where
such disclosure is necessary to, and used solely for, the proper
administration of benefits programs under laws administered by that
Department.
Sec. 219.5 Conditions for payment.
(a) Direct costs. Payment shall be made only for costs that are
both directly incurred and reasonably necessary to provide requested
material. Search and processing, reproduction, and transportation costs
shall be considered separately when determining whether the costs are
reasonably necessary.
(b) Compliance with legal process, request, or authorization. No
payment may be made to a financial institution until it satisfactorily
complies with the legal process, the formal written request, or the
customer authorization. When the legal process or formal written
request is withdrawn, or the customer authorization is revoked, or
where the customer successfully challenges disclosure to a grand jury
or government authority, the financial institution shall be reimbursed
for the reasonably necessary costs incurred in assembling the requested
financial records prior to the time the financial institution is
notified of such event.
(c) Itemized bill or invoice. No reimbursement is required unless a
financial institution submits an itemized bill or invoice specifically
detailing its search and processing, reproduction, and transportation
costs.
Sec. 219.6 Payment procedures.
(a) Notice to submit invoice. Promptly following a service of legal
process or request, the court or government authority shall notify the
financial institution that it must submit an itemized bill or invoice
in order to obtain payment and shall furnish an address for this
purpose.
(b) Special notice. If a grand jury or government authority
withdraws the legal process or formal written request, or if the
customer revokes the authorization, or if the legal process or request
has been successfully challenged by the customer, the grand jury or
government authority shall promptly notify the financial institution of
these facts, and shall also notify the financial institution that it
must submit an itemized bill or invoice in order to obtain payment of
costs incurred prior to the time of the notice to the financial
institution receives this notice.
3. Section 219.7 is removed.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, December 13, 1995.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-30725 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30625 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program; Administrative Provisions
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66014-66033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30625]
[[Page 66013]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Agriculture
_______________________________________________________________________
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
_______________________________________________________________________
7 CFR Part 3406
1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program; Administrative
Provisions; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 66014]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
7 CFR Part 3406
1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program; Administrative
Provisions
AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES) proposes to add a new part 3406 to Title 7, Subtitle
B, Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Federal Regulations, for the purpose of
administering the 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program
conducted under the authority of section 1472(c) of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 3318) and pursuant to annual appropriations made
available specifically for an 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants
Program. This action establishes and codifies the administrative
procedures to be followed annually in the solicitation of competitive
proposals, the evaluation of such proposals, and the award of grants
under this program.
DATES: Written comments are invited from interested individuals and
organizations. Comments must be received on or before January 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Dr. Jeffrey L. Gilmore, Grant
Programs Manager, Office of Higher Education Programs, Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Ag Box 2251, Washington, D.C. 20250-2251. Comments may
also be sent via electronic mail to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jeffrey L. Gilmore at 202-720-1973
(voice), 202-720-2030 (fax) or via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as
amended (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the collection of information
requirements contained in this proposed rule have been reviewed and
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and given the OMB
Document Nos. 0524-0022, 0524-0024, 0524-0030, and 0524-0033. The
public reporting burden for the information collections contained in
these regulations (Forms CSRS-662, CSRS-663, CSRS-708, CSRS-710, CSRS-
711, CSRS-712, CSRS-713, and CSRS-1234 as well as the Proposal Summary
and Proposal Narrative) is estimated to be 39\1/2\ hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Department of
Agriculture, Clearance Analyst, OIRM, Ag Box 7630, Washington, D.C.
20250-7630, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork
Reduction Project, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Classification
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order No.
12866, and it has been determined that it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' rule because it will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more or adversely and materially affect
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities. This rule will not create any serious
inconsistencies or otherwise interfere with actions taken or planned by
another agency. It will not materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof, and does not raise novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or principles set forth in Executive Order No. 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Administrator, CSREES, certifies that this proposed rule will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96-534, as
amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Executive Order No. 12612
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order No. 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
Executive Order No. 12778
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order No.
12778, Civil Justice Reform, and the required certification has been
made to OMB. All State and local laws and regulations that are in
conflict with this rule are preempted. No retroactive effect is to be
given to this rule. This rule does not require administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Regulatory Analysis
Not required for this proposed rulemaking.
Environmental Impact Statement
As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (CSREES's implementing regulations
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.)), environmental data for the proposed project are to be provided
to CSREES in order for a determination to be made as to the need of any
further action.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.216, 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants
Program. For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule related Notice to
7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V, 57 FR 15278, April 27, 1992, this program
is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372 which requires
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
Background and Purpose
Historically, the Department has had a close relationship with the
1890 colleges and universities, including Tuskegee University. Through
its role as administrator of the Second Morrill Act, the Department has
borne the responsibility for helping these institutions develop to
their fullest potential in order to meet the needs of students and the
needs of the Nation.
Accordingly, the Secretary recognized, on April 18, 1990, the
findings made by Congress in section 301(a) of Public Law 99-498,
October 17, 1986 (20 U.S.C. 1060), that the States and the Federal
government have discriminated in the allocation of land and financial
resources to support these institutions under the Morrill Act of 1862
and its progeny. In the above-referenced findings, Congress
acknowledged, and the Secretary recognized, that these institutions
were discriminated against in the award of Federal grants and
contracts, and in the distribution of Federal resources generally which
were intended to benefit institutions of higher education. The
Secretary found that the capacity of the 1890 colleges and
universities, including Tuskegee University, to develop programs to
assist the Nation and the Department in producing food and agricultural
science professionals
[[Page 66015]]
has suffered as a direct result of this discrimination.
The Secretary concluded that a capacity building grants program set
aside for the 1890 land-grant colleges and universities, including
Tuskegee University, was an appropriate remedial step to redress past
inequities found by Congress to have occurred regarding these
institutions. Subsequent to the Secretary's establishment of the
program, Congress began making annual appropriations specifically for
an 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program.
This document proposes to establish Part 3406 of Title 7, Subtitle
B, Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Federal Regulations, for the purpose of
administering the 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program.
Under the authority of section 1472(c) of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7
U.S.C. 3318), and pursuant to annual appropriations made available
specifically by Congress for an 1890 Institution Capacity Building
Grants Program (see, e.g., Pub. L. No. 103-330), the Secretary conducts
this institutional capacity building grants program.
This proposed rule establishes and codifies the administrative
procedures to be followed annually in the solicitation of grant
proposals, the evaluation of such proposals, and the award of grants
under this program. The 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants
Program is competitive in nature and is intended to stimulate the
development of high quality teaching and research programs at these
institutions to build their capacities as full partners in the mission
of the Department to provide more, and better-trained, professionals
for careers in the food and agricultural sciences.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3406
Grant programs--agriculture. Agriculture Higher Education Programs,
1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program.
It is therefore proposed to amend Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter
XXXIV, of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding Part 3406 to read
as follows:
PART 3406--INSTITUTION CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS PROGRAM
Subpart A--General Information
Sec.
3406.1 Applicability of regulations.
3406.2 Definitions.
3406.3 Institutional eligibility.
Subpart B--Program Description
3406.4 Purpose of the program.
3406.5 Matching funds.
3406.6 USDA agency cooperator requirement.
3406.7 General scope of program.
3406.8 Joint project proposals.
3406.9 Complementary project proposals.
3406.10 Use of funds for facilities.
Subpart C--Preparation of a Teaching Proposal
3406.11 Scope of a teaching proposal.
3406.12 Program application materials--teaching.
3406.13 Content of a teaching proposal.
Subpart D--Review and Evaluation of a Teaching Proposal
3406.14 Proposal review--teaching.
3406.15 Evaluation criteria for teaching proposals.
Subpart E--Preparation of a Research Proposal
3406.16 Scope of a research proposal.
3406.17 Program application materials--research.
3406.18 Content of a research proposal.
Subpart F--Review and Evaluation of a Research Proposal
3406.19 Proposal review--research.
3406.20 Evaluation criteria for research proposals.
Subpart G--Submission of a Teaching or Research Proposal
3406.21 Intent to submit a proposal.
3406.22 When and where to submit a proposal.
Subpart H--Supplementary Information
3406.23 Access to peer review information.
3406.24 Grant awards.
3406.25 Use of funds; changes.
3406.26 Monitoring progress of funded projects.
3406.27 Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply.
3406.28 Confidential aspects of proposals and awards.
3406.29 Evaluation of program.
Authority: Sec. 1470, National Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3316).
Subpart A--General Information
Sec. 3406.1 Applicability of regulations.
(a) The regulations of this part apply only to capacity building
grants awarded to the 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee
University under the provisions of section 1472(c) of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 3318(c)) to further the research, extension, and
teaching programs in the food and agricultural sciences. This statute
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, who has delegated the
authority to the Administrator of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), to enter into grants, or
cooperative agreements, for periods not to exceed five years, with
State agricultural experiment stations, State cooperative extension
services, all colleges and universities, other research or education
institutions and organizations, Federal and private agencies and
organizations, individuals, and any other contractor or recipient,
either foreign or domestic, to further research, extension, or teaching
programs in the food and agricultural sciences of the Department of
Agriculture. Only 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University
are eligible for this grants program.
(b) To the extent that funds are available, each year CSREES will
publish a Federal Register notice announcing the program and soliciting
grant applications.
(c)(1) Based on the amount of funds appropriated in any fiscal
year, CSREES will determine and cite in the program announcement:
(i) The program area(s) to be supported (teaching, research, or
both)
(ii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or available
to, teaching projects and research projects;
(iii) The targeted need area(s) in teaching and in research to be
supported;
(iv) The degree level(s) to be supported;
(v) The maximum project period a proposal may request;
(vi) The maximum amount of funds that may be requested by an
institution under a regular, complementary, or joint project proposal;
and
(vii) The maximum total funds that may be awarded to an institution
under the program in a given fiscal year, including how funds awarded
for complementary and for joint projects will be counted toward the
institutional maximum
(2) The program announcement will also specify the deadline date
for proposal submission, the number of copies of each proposal that
must be submitted, the address to which a proposal must be submitted,
and whether or not Form CSRS-711, ``Intent to Submit a Proposal,'' is
requested.
(d)(1) If it is deemed by CSREES that, for a given fiscal year,
additional determinations are necessary, each, as relevant, will be
stated in the program announcement. Such determinations may include:
(i) Limits on the subject matter/emphasis areas to be supported;
(ii) The maximum number of proposals that may be submitted on
behalf of the same school, college, or
[[Page 66016]]
equivalent administrative unit within an institution;
(iii) The maximum total number of proposals that may be submitted
by an institution;
(iv) The maximum number of proposals that may be submitted by an
individual in any one targeted need area;
(v) The minimum project period a proposal may request;
(vi) The minimum amount of funds that may be requested by an
institution under a regular, complementary, or joint project proposal;
(vii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or
available to, regular, complementary, and joint project proposals;
(viii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or
available to, projects in each announced targeted need area;
(ix) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or available
to, each subject matter/emphasis area;
(x) The maximum number of grants that may be awarded to an
institution under the program in a given fiscal year, including how
grants awarded for complementary and joint projects will be counted
toward the institutional maximum; and
(xi) Limits on the use of grant funds for travel or to purchase
equipment, if any.
(2) The program announcement also will contain any other
limitations deemed necessary by CSREES for proper conduct of the
program in the applicable year.
(e) The regulations of this part prescribe that this is a
competitive program; it is possible that an institution may not receive
any grant awards in a particular year.
(f) The regulations of this part do not apply to grants for other
purposes awarded by the Department of Agriculture under section 1472 of
the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act
of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3318) or any other authority.
Sec. 3406.2 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Authorized departmental officer means the Secretary or any employee
of the Department who has the authority to issue or modify grant
instruments on behalf of the Secretary.
Authorized organizational representative means the president of the
1890 Institution or the official, designated by the president of the
institution, who has the authority to commit the resources of the
institution.
Budget period means the interval of time (usually 12 months) into
which the project period is divided for budgetary and reporting
purposes.
Cash contributions means the applicant's cash outlay, including the
outlay of money contributed to the applicant by non-Federal third
parties.
Citizen or national of the United States means:
(1) a citizen or native resident of a State; or,
(2) a person defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(22), who, though not a citizen of the United States,
owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
College or University means an educational institution in any State
which:
(1) Admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of
graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the
recognized equivalent of such a certificate;
(2) Is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of
education beyond secondary education;
(3) Provides an educational program for which a baccalaureate
degree or any other higher degree is awarded;
(4) Is a public or other nonprofit institution; and
(5) Is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or
association.
Complementary project proposal means a proposal for a project which
involves coordination with one or more other projects for which funding
was awarded under this program in a previous fiscal year, or for which
funding is requested under this program in the current fiscal year.
Cost-sharing or Matching means that portion of project costs not
borne by the Federal Government, including the value of in-kind
contributions.
Department or USDA means the United States Department of
Agriculture.
1890 Institution or 1890 land-grant institution or 1890 colleges
and universities means one of those institutions eligible to receive
funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 417-419, as amended; 7
U.S.C. 321-326 and 328) that are the intended recipients of funds under
programs established in Subtitle G of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7
U.S.C. 3221 et seq.), including Tuskegee University.
Eligible participant means, for purposes of Sec. 3406.11(b),
Faculty Preparation and Enhancement for Teaching, and Sec. 3406.11(f),
Student Recruitment and Retention, an individual who:
(1) Is a citizen or national of the United States, as defined in
this section; or
(2) Is a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau. Where
eligibility is claimed under paragraph (2) of the definition of
``Citizen or national of the United States'' in this section,
documentary evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service as
to such eligibility must be made available to CSREES upon request.
Food and agricultural sciences means basic, applied, and
developmental research, extension, and teaching activities in the food,
agricultural, renewable natural resources, forestry, and physical and
social sciences, in the broadest sense of these terms, including but
not limited to, activities concerned with the production, processing,
marketing, distribution, conservation, consumption, research, and
development of food and agriculturally related products and services,
and inclusive of programs in agriculture, natural resources,
aquaculture, forestry, veterinary medicine, home economics, rural
development, and closely allied disciplines.
Grantee means the 1890 Institution designated in the grant award
document as the responsible legal entity to which a grant is awarded.
Joint project proposal means a proposal for a project, which will
involve the applicant 1890 Institution and two or more other colleges,
universities, community colleges, junior colleges, or other
institutions, each of which will assume a major role in the conduct of
the proposed project, and for which the applicant institution will
transfer at least one-half of the awarded funds to the other
institutions participating in the project. Only the applicant
institution must meet the definition of ``1890 Institution'' as
specified in this section; the other institutions participating in a
joint project proposal are not required to meet the definition of
``1890 Institution'' as specified in this section, nor required to meet
the definition of ``college'' or ``university'' as specified in this
section.
Peer review panel means a group of experts or consultants,
qualified by training and experience in particular fields of science,
education, or technology to give expert advice on the merit of grant
applications in such fields, who evaluate eligible proposals submitted
to this program in their personal area(s) of expertise.
Principal investigator/project director means the single individual
designated by the grantee in the grant application
[[Page 66017]]
and approved by the Secretary who is responsible for the direction and
management of the project.
Prior approval means written approval evidencing prior consent by
an authorized departmental officer as defined in this section.
Project means the particular teaching or research activity within
the scope of one or more of the targeted areas supported by a grant
awarded under this program.
Project period means the period, as stated in the award document
and modifications thereto, if any, during which Federal sponsorship
begins and ends.
Research means any systematic inquiry directed toward new or fuller
knowledge and understanding of the subject studied.
Research capacity means the quality and depth of an institution's
research infrastructure as evidenced by its: faculty expertise in the
natural or social sciences, scientific and technical resources,
research environment, library resources, and organizational structures
and reward systems for attracting and retaining first-rate research
faculty or students at the graduate and post-doctorate levels.
Research project grant means a grant in support of a project that
addresses one or more of the targeted need areas or specific subject
matter/emphasis areas identified in the annual program announcement
related to strengthening research programs including, but not limited
to, such initiatives as: studies and experimentation in food and
agricultural sciences, centralized research support systems, technology
delivery systems, and other creative projects designed to provide
needed enhancement of the Nation's food and agricultural research
system.
Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other officer
or employee of the Department of Agriculture to whom the authority
involved may be delegated.
State means any one of the fifty States, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas,
the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the District of Columbia.
Teaching means formal classroom instruction, laboratory
instruction, and practicum experience in the food and agricultural
sciences and matters related thereto (such as faculty development,
student recruitment and services, curriculum development, instructional
materials and equipment, and innovative teaching methodologies)
conducted by colleges and universities offering baccalaureate or higher
degrees.
Teaching capacity means the quality and depth of an institution's
academic programs infrastructure as evidenced by its: curriculum,
teaching faculty, instructional delivery systems, student experiential
learning opportunities, scientific instrumentation for teaching,
library resources, academic standing and racial, ethnic, or gender
diversity of its faculty and student body as well as faculty and
student recruitment and retention programs provided by a college or
university in order to achieve maximum results in the development of
scientific and professional expertise for the Nation's food and
agricultural system.
Teaching project grant means a grant in support of a project that
addresses one or more of the targeted need areas or specific subject
matter/emphasis areas identified in the annual program announcement
related to strengthening teaching programs including, but not limited
to, such initiatives as: curricula design and materials development,
faculty preparation and enhancement for teaching, instruction delivery
systems, scientific instrumentation for teaching, student experiential
learning, and student recruitment and retention.
Third party in-kind contributions means non-cash contributions of
property or services provided by non-Federal third parties, including
real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable property,
directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to a funded project
or program.
USDA agency cooperator means any agency or office of the Department
which has reviewed and endorsed an applicant's request for support, and
indicates a willingness to make available non-monetary resources or
technical assistance throughout the life of a project to ensure the
accomplishment of the objectives of a grant awarded under this program.
Sec. 3406.3 Institutional eligibility.
Proposals may be submitted by any of the 16 historically black 1890
land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University. The 1890 land-grant
institutions are: Alabama A&M University; University of Arkansas--Pine
Bluff; Delaware State University; Florida A&M University; Fort Valley
State College; Kentucky State University; Southern University and A&M
College; University of Maryland--Eastern Shore; Alcorn State
University; Lincoln University; North Carolina A&T State University;
Langston University; South Carolina State University; Tennessee State
University; Prairie View A&M University; and Virginia State University.
Subpart B--Program Description
Sec. 3406.4 Purpose of the program.
(a) The Department of Agriculture and the Nation depend upon sound
programs in the food and agricultural sciences at the Nation's colleges
and universities to produce well trained professionals for careers in
the food and agricultural sciences. The capacity of institutions to
offer suitable programs in the food and agricultural sciences to meet
the Nation's need for a well trained work force in the food and
agricultural sciences is a proper concern for the Department.
(b) Historically, the Department has had a close relationship with
the 1890 colleges and universities, including Tuskegee University.
Through its role as administrator of the Second Morrill Act, the
Department has borne the responsibility for helping these institutions
develop to their fullest potential in order to meet the needs of
students and the needs of the Nation.
(c) The institutional capacity building grants program is intended
to stimulate development of quality education and research programs at
these institutions in order that they may better assist the Department,
on behalf of the Nation, in its mission of providing a professional
work force in the food and agricultural sciences.
(d) This program is designed specifically to build the
institutional teaching and research capacities of the 1890 land-grant
institutions through cooperative programs with Federal and non-Federal
entities. The program is competitive among the 1890 Institutions and
encourages matching funds on the part of the States, private
organizations, and other non-Federal entities to encourage expanded
linkages with 1890 Institutions as performers of research and
education, and as developers of scientific and professional talent for
the United States food and agricultural system. In addition, through
this program, CSREES will strive to increase the overall pool of
qualified job applicants from underrepresented groups in order to make
significant progress toward achieving the objectives of work force
diversity within the Federal Government, particularly the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
Sec. 3406.5 Matching support.
The Department strongly encourages and may require non-Federal
matching support for this program. In the annual program solicitation,
CSREES will announce any incentives that may be
[[Page 66018]]
offered to applicants for committing their own institutional resources
or securing third party contributions in support of capacity building
projects. CSREES may also announce any required fixed dollar amount or
percentage of institutional cost sharing, if applicable.
Sec. 3406.6 USDA agency cooperator requirement.
(a) Each application must provide documentation that at least one
USDA agency or office has agreed to cooperate with the applicant
institution on the proposed project. The documentation should describe
the expected benefits of the partnership venture for the USDA agency
and for the 1890 Institution, and describe the partnership effort
between USDA and the 1890 Institution in regard to the proposed
project. Such USDA agency cooperation may include, but is not limited
to, assisting the applicant institution with proposal development,
identifying possible sources of matching funds, securing resources,
implementing funded projects, providing technical assistance and
expertise throughout the life of the project, participating in project
evaluation, and disseminating project results.
(b) The designated CSREES agency contact can provide suggestions to
institutions seeking to secure a USDA agency cooperator on a particular
proposal.
(c) USDA 1890 Liaison Officers, and other USDA employees serving on
the campuses of the 1890 colleges and universities, may assist with
proposal development and project execution to satisfy the cooperator
requirement, in whole or in part, but may not serve as project
directors or principal investigators.
(d) Any USDA office responsible for administering a competitive or
formula grants program specifically targeted to 1890 Institutions may
not be a cooperator for this program.
Sec. 3406.7 General scope of program.
This program supports both teaching project grants and research
project grants. Such grants are intended to strengthen the teaching and
research capabilities of applicant institutions. Each 1890 Institution
may submit one or more grant applications for either category of grants
(as allowed by the annual program notice). However, each application
must be limited to either a teaching project grant proposal or a
research project grant proposal.
Sec. 3406.8 Joint project proposals.
Applicants are encouraged to submit joint project proposals as
defined in Sec. 3406.2, which address regional or national problems and
which will result overall in strengthening the 1890 university system.
The goals of such joint initiatives should include maximizing the use
of limited resources by generating a critical mass of expertise and
activity focused on a targeted need area(s), increasing cost-
effectiveness through achieving economies of scale, strengthening the
scope and quality of a project's impact, and promoting coalition
building likely to transcend the project's lifetime and lead to future
ventures.
Sec. 3406.9 Complementary project proposals.
Institutions may submit complementary project proposals as defined
in Sec. 3406.2. Such complementary project proposals may be submitted
by the same or by different eligible institutions.
Sec. 3406.10 Use of funds for facilities.
Under the 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program, the
use of grant funds to plan, acquire, or construct a building or
facility is not allowed. With prior approval, in accordance with the
cost principles set forth in OMB Circular No. A-21, some grant funds
may be used for minor alterations, renovations, or repairs deemed
necessary to retrofit existing teaching or research spaces in order to
carry out a funded project. However, requests to use grant funds for
such purposes must demonstrate that the alterations, renovations, or
repairs are incidental to the major purpose for which a grant is made.
Subpart C--Preparation of a Teaching Proposal
Sec. 3406.11 Scope of a teaching proposal.
The teaching component of the program will support the targeted
need area(s) related to strengthening teaching programs as specified in
the annual program announcement. Proposals may focus on any subject
matter area(s) in the food and agricultural sciences unless limited by
determinations as specified in the annual program announcement. A
proposal may address a single targeted need area or multiple targeted
need areas, and may be focused on a single subject matter area or
multiple subject matter areas, in any combination (e.g., curriculum
development in horticulture; curriculum development, faculty
enhancement, and student experiential learning in animal science;
faculty enhancement in food science and agribusiness management; or
instruction delivery systems and student experiential learning in plant
science, horticulture, and entomology). Applicants are also encouraged
to include a library enhancement component related to the teaching
project in their proposals. A proposal may be directed toward the
undergraduate or graduate level of study as specified in the annual
program announcement. Targeted need areas for teaching programs will
consist of one or more of the following:
(a) Curricula design and materials development. (1) The purpose of
this need area is to promote new and improved curricula and materials
to increase the quality of, and continuously renew, the Nation's
academic programs in the food and agricultural sciences. The overall
objective is to stimulate the development and facilitate the use of
exemplary education models and materials that incorporate the most
recent advances in subject matter, research on teaching and learning
theory, and instructional technology. Proposals may emphasize: the
development of courses of study, degree programs, and instructional
materials; the use of new approaches to the study of traditional
subjects; or the introduction of new subjects, or new applications of
knowledge, pertaining to the food and agricultural sciences.
(2) Examples include, but are not limited to, curricula and
materials that promote:
(i) Raising the level of scholastic achievement of the Nation's
graduates in the food and agricultural sciences.
(ii) Addressing the special needs of particular groups of students,
such as minorities, gifted and talented, or those with educational
backgrounds that warrant enrichment.
(iii) Using alternative instructional strategies or methodologies,
including computer-assisted instruction or simulation modeling, media
programs that reach large audiences efficiently and effectively,
activities that provide hands-on learning experiences, and educational
programs that extend learning beyond the classroom.
(iv) Using sound pedagogy, particularly with regard to recent
research on how to motivate students to learn, retain, apply, and
transfer knowledge, skills, and competencies.
(v) Building student competencies to integrate and synthesize
knowledge from several disciplines.
(b) Faculty preparation and enhancement for teaching. (1) The
purpose of this need area is to advance faculty development in the
areas of teaching competency, subject matter expertise, or student
recruitment and
[[Page 66019]]
advising skills. Teachers are central to education. They serve as
models, motivators, and mentors--the catalysts of the learning process.
Moreover, teachers are agents for developing, replicating, and
exchanging effective teaching materials and methods. For these reasons,
education can be strengthened only when teachers are adequately
prepared, highly motivated, and appropriately recognized and rewarded.
(2) Each faculty recipient of support for developmental activities
under Sec. 3406.11(b) must be an ``eligible participant'' as defined in
Sec. 3406.2 of this part.
(3) Examples of developmental activities include, but are not
limited to, those which enable teaching faculty to:
(i) Gain experience with recent developments or innovative
technology relevant to their teaching responsibilities.
(ii) Work under the guidance and direction of experts who have
substantial expertise in an area related to the developmental goals of
the project.
(iii) Work with scientists or professionals in government,
industry, or other colleges or universities to learn new applications
in a field.
(iv) Obtain personal experience working with new ideas and
techniques.
(v) Expand competence with new methods of information delivery,
such as computer-assisted or televised instruction.
(c) Instruction delivery systems. (1) The purpose of this need area
is to encourage the use of alternative methods of delivering
instruction to enhance the quality, effectiveness, and cost efficiency
of teaching programs. The importance of this initiative is evidenced by
advances in educational research which have substantiated the theory
that differences in the learning styles of students often require
alternative instructional methodologies. Also, the rising costs of
higher education strongly suggest that colleges and universities
undertake more efforts of a collaborative nature in order to deliver
instruction which maximizes program quality and reduces unnecessary
duplication. At the same time, advancements in knowledge and technology
continue to introduce new subject matter areas which warrant
consideration and implementation of innovative instruction techniques,
methodologies, and delivery systems.
(2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
(i) Use of computers.
(ii) Teleconferencing.
(iii) Networking via satellite communications.
(iv) Regionalization of academic programs.
(v) Mobile classrooms and laboratories.
(vi) Individualized learning centers.
(viii) Symposia, forums, regional or national workshops, etc.
(d) Scientific instrumentation for teaching. (1) The purpose of
this need area is to provide students in science-oriented courses the
necessary experience with suitable, up-to-date equipment in order to
involve them in work central to scientific understanding and progress.
This program initiative will support the acquisition of instructional
laboratory and classroom equipment to assure the achievement and
maintenance of outstanding food and agricultural sciences higher
education programs. A proposal may request support for acquiring new,
state-of-the-art instructional scientific equipment, upgrading existing
equipment, or replacing non-functional or clearly obsolete equipment.
(2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
(i) Rental or purchase of modern instruments to improve student
learning experiences in courses, laboratories, and field work.
(ii) Development of new ways of using instrumentation to extend
instructional capabilities.
(iii) Establishment of equipment-sharing capability via consortia
or centers that develop innovative opportunities, such as mobile
laboratories or satellite access to industry or government
laboratories.
(e) Student experiential learning. (1) The purpose of this need
area is to further the development of student scientific and
professional competencies through experiential learning programs which
provide students with opportunities to solve complex problems in the
context of real-world situations. Effective experiential learning is
essential in preparing future graduates to advance knowledge and
technology, enhance quality of life, conserve resources, and revitalize
the Nation's economic competitiveness. Such experiential learning
opportunities are most effective when they serve to advance decision-
making and communication skills as well as technological expertise.
(2) Examples include, but are not limited to, projects which:
(i) Provide opportunities for students to participate in research
projects, either as a part of an ongoing research project or in a
project designed especially for this program.
(ii) Provide opportunities for students to complete
apprenticeships, internships, or similar participatory learning
experiences.
(iii) Expand and enrich courses which are of a practicum nature.
(iv) Provide career mentoring experiences that link students with
outstanding professionals.
(f) Student recruitment and retention. (1) The purpose of this need
area is to strengthen student recruitment and retention programs in
order to promote the future strength of the Nation's scientific and
professional work force. The Nation's economic competitiveness and
quality of life rest upon the availability of a cadre of outstanding
research scientists, university faculty, and other professionals in the
food and agricultural sciences. A substantial need exists to supplement
efforts to attract increased numbers of academically outstanding
students to prepare for careers as food and agricultural scientists and
professionals. It is particularly important to augment the racial,
ethnic, and gender diversity of the student body in order to promote a
robust exchange of ideas and a more effective use of the full breadth
of the Nation's intellectual resources.
(2) Each student recipient of monetary support for education costs
or developmental purposes under Sec. 3406.11(f) must be enrolled at an
eligible institution and meet the requirement of an ``eligible
participant'' as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of this part.
(3) Examples include, but are not limited to:
(i) Special outreach programs for elementary and secondary students
as well as parents, counselors, and the general public to broaden
awareness of the extensive nature and diversity of career opportunities
for graduates in the food and agricultural sciences.
(ii) Special activities and materials to establish more effective
linkages with high school science classes.
(iii) Unique or innovative student recruitment activities,
materials, and personnel.
(iv) Special retention programs to assure student progression
through and completion of an educational program.
(v) Development and dissemination of stimulating career information
materials.
(vi) Use of regional or national media to promote food and
agricultural sciences higher education.
(vii) Providing financial incentives to enable and encourage
students to pursue and complete an undergraduate or graduate degree in
an area of the food and agricultural sciences.
[[Page 66020]]
Sec. 3406.12 Program application materials--teaching.
Program application materials in an application package will be
made available to eligible institutions upon request. These materials
include the program announcement, the administrative provisions for the
program, and the forms needed to prepare and submit teaching grant
applications under the program.
Sec. 3406.13 Content of a teaching proposal.
(a) Proposal cover page. (1) Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education
Proposal Cover Page,'' must be completed in its entirety. Note that
providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral
part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing
of the proposal.
(2) One copy of the Form CSRS-712 must contain the pen-and-ink
signatures of the project director(s) and authorized organizational
representative for the applicant institution.
(3) The title of the teaching project shown on the ``Higher
Education Proposal Cover Page'' must be brief (80-character maximum)
yet represent the major thrust of the project. This information will be
used by the Department to provide information to the Congress and other
interested parties,
(4) In block 7. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``1890 Institution Capacity
Building Grants Program.''
(5) In block 8.a. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``Teaching.'' In block
8.b. identify the code for the targeted need area(s) as found on the
reverse of the form. If a proposal focuses on multiple targeted need
areas, enter each code associated with the project. In block 8.c.
identify the major area(s) of emphasis as found on the reverse of the
form. If a proposal focuses on multiple areas of emphasis, enter each
code associated with the project; however, limit the selection to three
areas. This information will be used by program staff for the proper
assignment of proposals to reviewers.
(6) In block 9. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a
complementary project proposal or a joint project proposal as defined
in Sec. 3406.2 of this part. If it is not a complementary project
proposal or a joint project proposal, identify it as a regular project
proposal.
(7) In block 13. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a
new, first-time submission or if the proposal is a resubmission of a
proposal that has been submitted to, but not funded under, the 1890
Institution Capacity Building Grants Program in a previous competition.
(b) Table of contents. For ease in locating information, each
proposal must contain a detailed table of contents just after the
Proposal Cover Page. The Table of Contents should include page numbers
for each component of the proposal. Pagination should being immediately
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation.
(c) USDA agency cooperator. To be considered for funding, each
proposal must include documentation of cooperation with at least one
USDA agency of office. If multiple agencies are involved as
cooperators, documentation must be included from each agency. When
documenting cooperative arrangements, the following guidelines should
be used.
(1) A summary of the cooperative arrangements must immediately
follow the Table of Contents. This summary should:
(i) Bear the signatures of the Agency Head (or his/her designated
authorized representative) and the university project director;
(ii) Indicate the agency's willingness to commit support for the
project;
(iii) Identify the person(s) at the USDA agency who will serve as
the liaison or technical contact for the project;
(iv) Describe the degree and nature of the USDA agency's
involvement in the proposed project, as outlined in Sec. 3406.6(a) of
this part, including its role in:
(A) Identifying the need for the project;
(B) Developing a conceptual approach;
(C) Assisting with project design;
(D) Identifying and securing needed agency or other resources
(e.g., personnel, grants/contracts; in-kind support, etc.);
(E) Developing the project budget;
(F) Promoting partnerships with other institutions to carry out the
project;
(G) Helping the institution launch and manage the project;
(H) Providing technical assistance and expertise;
(I) Providing consultation through site visits, E-mail, conference
calls, and faxes;
(J) Participating in project evaluation and dissemination of final
project results; and
(K) Seeking other innovative ways to ensure the success of the
project and advance the needs of the institution or the agency; and
(v) Describe the expected benefits of the partnership venture for
the USDA agency and for the 1890 Institution.
(2) A detailed discussion of these partnership arrangements should
be provided in the narrative portion of the proposal, as outlined in
paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
(3) Additional documentation, including letters of support or
cooperation, may be provided in the Appendix.
(d) Project summary. (1) A Project Summary should immediately
follow the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation section.
The information provided in the Project Summary will be used by the
program staff for a variety of purposes, including the proper
assignment of proposals to reviewers and providing information to
reviewers prior to the peer panel meeting. The name of the institution,
the targeted need area(s), and the title of the proposal must be
identified exactly as shown on the ``Higher Education Proposal Cover
Page.''
(2) If the proposal is a complementary project proposal, as defined
in Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other
complementary project(s) by citing the name of the submitting
institution, the title of the project, the project director, and the
grant number (if funded in a previous year) exactly as shown on the
cover page of the complementary project so that appropriate
consideration can be given to the interrelatedness of the proposals in
the evaluation process.
(3) If the proposal is a joint project proposal, as defined in
Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other
participating institutions and the key faculty member or other
individual responsible for coordinating the project at each
institution.
(4) The Project Summary should be a concise description of the
proposed activity suitable for publication by the Department to inform
the general public about awards under the program. The text must not
exceed one page, single-spaced. The Project Summary should be a self-
contained description of the activity which would result if the
proposal is funded by USDA. It should include: The objectives of the
project; a synopsis of the plan of operation; a statement of how the
project will enhance the teaching capacity of the institution; a
description of how the project will strengthen higher education in the
food and agricultural sciences in the United States; a description of
the partnership efforts between, and the expected benefits for, the
USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890 Institution; and the plans for
disseminating project results. The Project Summary should be written so
that a technically literate reader can evaluate the use of Federal
funds in support of the project.
[[Page 66021]]
(e) Resubmission of a proposal. (1) Resubmission of previously
unfunded proposals. (i) If a proposal has been submitted previously,
but was not funded, such should be indicated in block 13. on Form CSRS-
712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and the following
information should be included in the proposal:
(A) The fiscal year(s) in which the proposal was submitted
previously;
(B) A summary of the peer reviewers' comments; and
(C) How these comments have been addressed in the current proposal,
including the page numbers in the current proposal where the reviewers'
comments have been addressed. (ii) This information may be provided as
a section of the proposal following the Project Summary and preceding
the proposal narrative or it may be placed in the Appendix (see
paragraph (j) of this section). In either case, the location of this
information should be indicated in the Table of Contents, and the fact
that the proposal is a resubmitted proposal should be stated in the
proposal narrative. Further, when possible, the information should be
presented in tabular format. Applicants who choose to resubmit
proposals that were previously submitted, but not funded, should note
that resubmitted proposals must compete equally with newly submitted
proposals. Submitting a proposal that has been revised based on a
previous peer review panel's critique of the proposal does not
guarantee the success of the resubmitted proposal.
(2) Resubmission of previously funded proposals. Recognizing that
capacity building is a long-term ongoing process, the 1890 Institution
Capacity Building Grants Program is interested in funding subsequent
phases of previously funded projects in order to build institutional
capacity, and institutions are encouraged to build on a theme over
several grant awards. However, proposals that are sequential
continuations or new stages of previously funded Capacity Building
Grants must compete with first-time proposals. Therefore, project
directors should thoroughly demonstrate how the project proposed in the
current application expands substantially upon a previously funded
project (i.e., demonstrate how the new project will advance the former
project to the next level of attainment or will achieve expanded
goals). The proposal must also show the degree to which the new phase
promotes innovativeness and creativity beyond the scope of the
previously funded project. Please note that the 1890 Institution
Capacity Building Grants Program is not designed to support activities
that are essentially repetitive in nature over multiple grant awards.
Project directors who have had their projects funded previously are
discouraged from resubmitting relatively identical proposals for
further funding.
(f) Narrative of a teaching proposal. The narrative portion of the
proposal is limited to 20 pages in length. The one-page Project Summary
is not included in the 20-page limitation. The narrative must be typed
on one side of the page only, using a font no smaller than 12 point,
and double-spaced. All margins must be at least one inch. All pages
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation must be
paginated. It should be noted that reviewers will not be required to
read beyond 20 pages of the narrative to evaluate the proposal. The
narrative should contain the following sections:
(1) Potential for advancing the quality of education.
(i) Impact.
(A) Identify the targeted need area(s).
(B) Clearly state the specific instructional problem or opportunity
to be addressed.
(C) Describe how and by whom the focus and scope of the project
were determined. Summarize the body of knowledge which substantiates
the need for the proposed project.
(D) Describe ongoing or recently completed significant activities
related to the proposed project for which previous funding was received
under this program.
(E) Discuss how the project will be of value at the State,
regional, national, or international level(s).
(F) Discuss how the benefits to be derived from the project will
transcend the proposing institution or the grant period. Also discuss
the probabilities of its adaptation by other institutions. For example,
can the project serve as a model for others?
(ii) Continuation plans. Discuss the likelihood of, or plans for,
continuation or expansion of the project beyond USDA support. For
example, does the institution's long-range budget or academic plan
provide for the realistic continuation or expansion of the initiative
undertaken by this project after the end of the grant period, are plans
for eventual self-support built into the project, are plans being made
to institutionalize the program if it meets with success, and are there
indications of other continuing non-Federal support?
(iii) Innovation. Describe the degree to which the proposal
reflects an innovative or non-traditional approach to solving a higher
education problem or strengthening the quality of higher education in
the food and agricultural sciences.
(iv) Products and results. Explain the kinds of results and
products expected and their impact on strengthening food and
agricultural sciences higher education in the United States, including
attracting academically outstanding students and increasing the ethnic,
racial, and gender diversity of the Nation's food and agricultural
scientific and professional expertise base.
(2) Overall approach and cooperative linkages.
(i) Proposed approach.
(A) Objectives. Cite and discuss the specific objectives to be
accomplished under the project.
(B) Plan of operation.
(1) Describe procedures for accomplishing the objectives of the
project.
(2) Describe plans for management of the project to enhance its
proper and efficient administration.
(3) Describe the way in which resources and personnel will be used
to conduct the project.
(C) Timetable. Provide a timetable for conducting the project.
Identify all important project milestones and dates as they relate to
project start-up, execution, dissemination, evaluation, and close-out.
(ii) Evaluation plans.
(A) Provide a plan for evaluating the accomplishment of stated
objectives during the conduct of the project. Indicate the criteria,
and corresponding weight of each, to be used in the evaluation process,
describe any data to be collected and analyzed, and explain the
methodology that will be used to determine the extent to which the
needs underlying the project are met.
(B) Provide a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the end
results upon conclusion of the project. Include the same kinds of
information requested in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.
(iii) Dissemination plans. Discuss plans to disseminate project
results and products. Identify target audiences and explain methods of
communication.
(iv) Partnerships and collaborative efforts.
(A) Explain how the project will maximize partnership ventures and
collaborative efforts to strengthen food and agricultural sciences
higher education (e.g., involvement of faculty in related disciplines
at the same institution, joint projects with other colleges or
universities, or cooperative activities with business or industry).
Also explain how it will stimulate
[[Page 66022]]
academia, the States, or the private sector to join with the Federal
partner in enhancing food and agricultural sciences higher education.
(B) Provide evidence, via letters from the parties involved, that
arrangements necessary for collaborative partnerships or joint
initiatives have been discussed and realistically can be expected to
come to fruition, or actually have been finalized contingent on an
award under this program. Letters must be signed by an official who has
the authority to commit the resources of the organization. Such letters
should be referenced in the plan of operation, but the actual letters
should be included in the Appendix section of the proposal. Any
potential conflict(s) of interest that might result from the proposed
collaborative arrangements must be discussed in detail. Proposals which
indicate joint projects with other institutions must state which
proposer is to receive any resulting grant award, since only one
submitting institution can be the recipient of a project grant under
one proposal.
(C) Explain how the project will create a new or enhance an
existing partnership between the USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890
Institution(s). This section should expand upon the summary information
provided in the documentation of USDA agency cooperation section, as
outlined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. This is particularly
important because the focal point of attention in the peer review
process is the proposal narrative. Therefore, a comprehensive
discussion of the partnership effort between USDA and the 1890
Institution should be provided.
(3) Institutional capacity building.
(i) Institutional enhancement. Explain how the proposed project
will strengthen the teaching capacity as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of this
part, of the applicant institution and, if applicable, any other
institutions assuming a major role in the conduct of the project. For
example, describe how the proposed project is intended to strengthen
the institution's academic infrastructure by expanding the current
faculty's expertise base, advancing the scholarly quality of the
institution's academic programs, enriching the racial, ethnic, or
gender diversity of the student body, helping the institution establish
itself as a center of excellence in particular field of education,
helping the institution maintain or acquire state-of-the-art scientific
instrumentation or library collections for teaching, or enabling the
institution to provide more meaningful student experiential learning
opportunities.
(ii) Institutional commitment.
(A) Discuss the institution's commitment to the project and its
successful completion. Provide, as relevant, appropriate documentation
in the Appendix. Substantiate that the institution attributes a high
priority to the project.
(B) Discuss how the project will contribute to the achievement of
the institution's long-term (five- to ten-year goals and how the
project will help satisfy the institution's high-priority objectives.
Show how this project is linked to and supported by the institution's
strategic plan.
(C) Discuss the commitment of institutional resources to the
project. Show that the institutional resources to be made available to
the project will be adequate, when combined with the support requested
from USDA, to carry out the activities of the project and represent a
sound commitment by the institution. Discuss institutional facilities,
equipment, computer services, and other appropriate resources available
to the project.
(g) Key personnel. A Form CSRS-708, ``Summary Vita-Teaching
Proposal,'' should be included for each key person associated with the
project.
(h) Budget and cost-effectiveness. (1) Budget form.
(i) Prepare Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget,'' in
accordance with instructions provided with the form. Proposals may
request support for a period to be identified in each year's program
announcement. A budget form is required for each year of requested
support. In addition, a summary budget is required detailing the
requested total support for the overall project period. Form CSRS-713
may be reproduced as needed by proposers. Funds may be requested under
any of the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or
service for which support is requested is allowable under the
authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles, the
administrative provisions in this part, and can be justified as
necessary for successful conduct of the proposed project.
(ii) The approved negotiated instruction rate or the maximum rate
allowed by law should be used when computing indirect costs. If a
reduced rate of indirect costs is voluntarily requested from USDA, the
remaining allowable indirect costs may be used as matching funds.
(2) Matching funds. When documenting matching contributions, use
the following guidelines:
When preparing the column of Form CSRS-713 entitled ``Applicant
Contributions To Matching Funds,'' only those costs to be contributed
by the applicant for the purposes of matching should be shown. The
total amount of this column should be indicated in item M.
(ii) In item N of Form CSRS-713, show a total dollar amount for
Cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties; also
show a total dollar amount (based on current fair market value) for
Non-cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties.
(iii) To qualify for any incentive benefits stemming from matching
support or to satisfy any cost sharing requirements, proposals must
include written verification of any actual commitments of matching
support (including both cash and non-cash contributions) from third
parties. Written verification means--
(A) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge
agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational
representatives of the donor organization (or by the donor if the gift
is from an individual) and the applicant institution,which must
include:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor;
(2) The name of the applicant institution;
(3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;
(4) The dollar amount of the cash donation; and
(5) A statement that the donor will pay the cash contribution
during the grant period; and
(B) For any third party non-cash contributions, a separate pledge
agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized
organizational representatives of the donor organization (or by the
donor if the gift is from an individual) and the applicant institution,
which must include:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor;
(2) The name of the applicant institution;
(3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;
(4) A good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the
non-cash contribution; and
(5) A statement that the donor will make the contribution during
the grant period.
(iv) All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal
immediately following Form CSRS-713. The sources and amounts of all
matching support from outside the applicant institution should be
summarized in the Budget Narrative section of the proposal.
[[Page 66023]]
(v) Applicants should refer to OMB Circulars A-110, ``Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions
of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-profit Organizations,''
and A-21, ``Cost Principles for Educational Institutions,'' for further
guidance and other requirements relating to matching and allowable
costs.
(3) Chart on shared budget for joint project proposal.
(i) For a joint project proposal, a plan must be provided
indicating how funds will be distributed to the participating
institutions. The budget section of a joint project proposal should
include a chart indicating:
(A) The names of the participating institutions;
(B) The amount of funds to be disbursed to those institutions; and
(C) The way in which such funds will be used in accordance with
items A through L of Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget.''
(ii) If a proposal is not for a joint project, such a chart is not
required.
(4) Budget narrative.
(i) Discuss how the budget specifically supports the proposed
project activities. Explain how each budget item (such as salaries and
wages for professional and technical staff, student stipends/
scholarships, travel, equipment, etc.) is essential to achieving
project objectives.
(ii) Justify that the total budget, including funds requested from
USDA and any matching support provided, will be adequate to carry out
the activities of the project. Provide a summary of sources and amounts
of all third party matching support.
(iii) Justify the project's cost-effectiveness. Show how the
project maximizes the use of limited resources, optimizes educational
value for the dollar, achieves economies of scale, or leverages
additional funds. For example, discuss how the project has the
potential to generate a critical mass of expertise and activity focused
on a targeted need area or promote coalition building that could lead
to future ventures.
(iv) Includes the percentage of time key personnel will work on the
project, both during the academic year and summer. When salaries of
university project personnel will be paid by a combination of USDA and
institutional funds, the total compensation must not exceed the faculty
member's regular annual compensation. In addition, the total commitment
of time devoted to the project, when combined with time for teaching
and research duties, other sponsored agreements, and other employment
obligations to the institution, must not exceed 100 percent of the
normal workload for which the employee is compensated, in accordance
with established university policies and applicable Federal cost
principles.
(v) If the proposal addresses more than one targeted need area
(e.g., student experiential learning and instruction delivery systems),
estimate the proportion of the funds requested from USDA that will
support each respective targeted need area.
(i) Current and pending support. Each applicant must complete Form
CSRS-663, ``Current and Pending Support,'' identifying any other
current public- or private-sponsored projects, in addition to the
proposed project, to which key personnel listed in the proposal under
consideration have committed portions of their time, whether or not
salary support for the person(s) involved is included in the budgets of
the various projects. This information should also be provided for any
pending proposals which are currently being considered by, or which
will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors,
including other USDA programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of
identical or similar projects to other possible sponsors will not
prejudice the review or evaluation of a project under this program.
(j) Appendix. Each project narrative is expected to be complete in
itself and to meet the 20-page limitation. Inclusion of material in an
Appendix should not be used to circumvent the 20-page limitation of a
proposal narrative. However, in those instances where inclusion of
supplemental information is necessary to guarantee the peer review
panel's complete understanding of a proposal or to illustrate the
integrity of the design or a main thesis of the proposal, such
information may be included in an Appendix. Examples of supplemental
material are photographs, journal reprints, brochures and other
pertinent materials which are deemed to be illustrative of major points
in the narrative but unsuitable for inclusion in the proposal narrative
itself. Information on previously submitted proposals may also be
presented in the Appendix (refer to paragraph (e) of this section).
When possible, information in the Appendix should be presented in
tabular format. A complete set of the Appendix material must be
attached to each copy of the grant application submitted. The Appendix
must be identified with the title of the project as it appears on Form
CSRS-712 of the proposal and the name(s) of the project director(s).
The Appendix must be referenced in the proposal narrative.
Subpart D--Review and Evaluation of a Teaching Proposal
Sec. 3406.14 Proposal review--teaching.
The proposal evaluation process includes both internal staff review
and merit evaluation by peer review panels comprised of scientists,
educators, business representatives, and Government officials who are
highly qualified to render expert advice in the areas supported. Peer
review panels will be selected and structured to provide optimum
expertise and objective judgment in the evaluation of proposals.
Sec. 3406.15 Evaluation criteria for teaching proposals.
The maximum score a teaching proposal can receive is 150 points.
Unless otherwise stated in the annual solicitation published in the
Federal Register, the peer review panel will consider the following
criteria and weights to evaluate proposals submitted:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight
Evaluation Criterion (points)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Potential for advancing the quality of education:
This criterion is used to assess the likelihood that the
project will have a substantial impact upon and advance
the quality of food and agricultural sciences higher
education by strengthening institutional capacities
through promoting education reform to meet clearly
delineated needs.
(1) Impact--Does the project address a targeted need
area(s)? Is the problem or opportunity clearly
documented? Does the project address a State,
regional, national, or international problem or
opportunity? Will the benefits to be derived from
the project transcend the applicant institution or
the grant period? Is it probable that other
institutions will adapt this project for their own
use? Can the project serve as a model for others?.. 15
[[Page 66024]]
(2) Continuation plans--Are there plans for
continuation or expansion of the project beyond
USDA support with the use of institutional funds?
Are there indications of external, non-Federal
support? Are there realistic plans for making the
project self-supporting?........................... 10
(3) Innovation--Are significant aspects of the
project based on an innovative or a non-traditional
approach toward solving a higher education problem
or strengthening the quality of higher education in
the food and agricultural sciences? If successful,
is the project likely to lead to education reform?. 10
(4) Products and results--Are the expected products
and results of the project clearly defined and
likely to be of high quality? Will project results
be of an unusual or unique nature? Will the project
contribute to a better understanding of or an
improvement in the quality, distribution, or
effectiveness of the Nation's food and agricultural
scientific and professional expertise base, such as
increasing the participation of women and
minorities?........................................ 15
(b) Overall approach and cooperative linkages:
This criterion relates to the soundness of the proposed
approach and the quality of the partnerships likely to
evolve as a result of the project.
FR Doc. 95-30625 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program; Administrative Provisions
(1) Proposed approach--Do the objectives and plan of
operation appear to be sound and appropriate
relative to the targeted need area(s) and the
impact anticipated? Are the procedures
managerially, educationally, and scientifically
sound? Is the overall plan integrated with or does
it expand upon other major efforts to improve the
quality of food and agricultural sciences higher
education? Does the timetable appear to be readily
achievable?........................................ 15
(2) Evaluation--Are the evaluation plans adequate
and reasonable? Do they allow for continuous or
frequent feedback during the life of the project?
Are the individuals involved in project evaluation
skilled in evaluation strategies and procedures?
Can they provide an objective evaluation? Do
evaluation plans facilitate the measurement of
project progress and outcomes?..................... 5
(3) Dissemination--Does the proposed project include
clearly outlined and realistic mechanisms that will
lead to widespread dissemination of project
results, including national electronic
communication systems, publications, presentations
at professional conferences, or use by faculty
development or research/teaching skills workshops?. 5
(4) Partnerships and collaborative efforts--Does the
project have significant potential for advancing
cooperative ventures between the applicant
institution and a USDA agency? Does the project
workplan include an effective role for the
cooperating USDA agency(s)? Will the project expand
partnership ventures among disciplines at a
university, between colleges and universities, or
with the private sector? Will the project lead to
long-term relationships or cooperative partnerships
that are likely to enhance program quality or
supplement resources available to food and
agricultural sciences higher education?............ 15
(c) Institutional capacity building:
This criterion relates to the degree to which the
project will strengthen the teaching capacity of the
applicant institution. In the case of a joint project
proposal, it relates to the degree to which the project
will strengthen the teaching capacity of the applicant
institution and that of any other institution assuming
a major role in the conduct of the project.
(1) Institutional enhancement--Will the project help
the institution to: expand the current faculty's
expertise base; attract, hire, and retain
outstanding teaching faculty; advance and
strengthen the scholarly quality of the
institution's academic programs; enrich the racial,
ethnic, or gender diversity of the faculty and
student body; recruit students with higher grade
point averages, higher standardized test scores,
and those who are more committed to graduation;
become a center of excellence in a particular field
of education and bring it greater academic
recognition; attract outside resources for academic
programs; maintain or acquire state-of-the-art
scientific instrumentation or library collections
for teaching; or provide more meaningful student
experiential learning opportunities?............... 15
(2) Institutional commitment--Is there evidence to
substantiate that the institution attributes a high-
priority to the project, that the project is linked
to the achievement of the institution's long-term
goals, that it will help satisfy the institution's
high-priority objectives, or that the project is
supported by the institution's strategic plans?
Will the project have reasonable access to needed
resources such as instructional instrumentation,
facilities, computer services, library and other
instruction support resources?..................... 15
(d) Personnel Resources:
This criterion relates to the number and qualifications
of the key persons who will carry out the project. Are
designated project personnel qualified to carry out a
successful project? Are there sufficient numbers of
personnel associated with the project to achieve the
stated objectives and the anticipated outcomes?
(e) Budget and cost-effectiveness:
This criterion relates to the extent to which the total
budget adequately supports the project and is cost-
effective.
(1) Budget--Is the budget request justifiable? Are
costs reasonable and necessary? Will the total
budget be adequate to carry out project activities?
Are the source(s) and amount(s) of non-Federal
matching support clearly identified and
appropriately documented? For a joint project
proposal, is the shared budget explained clearly
and in sufficient detail?.......................... 10
(2) Cost-effectiveness--Is the proposed project cost-
effective? Does it demonstrate a creative use of
limited resources, maximize educational value per
dollar of USDA support, achieve economies of scale,
leverage additional funds or have the potential to
do so, focus expertise and activity on a targeted
need area, or promote coalition building for
current or future ventures?........................ 5
(f) Overall quality of proposal:
This criterion relates to the degree to which the
proposal complies with the application guidelines and
is of high quality. Is the proposal enhanced by its
adherence to instructions (table of contents,
organization, pagination, margin and font size, the 20-
page limitation, appendices, etc.); accuracy of forms;
clarity of budget narrative; well prepared vitae for
all key personnel associated with the project; and
presentation (are ideas effectively presented, clearly
articulated, and thoroughly explained, etc.)?.......... 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66025]]
Subpart E--Preparation of a Research Proposal
Sec. 3406.16 Scope of a research proposal.
The research component of the program will support projects that
address high-priority research initiatives in areas such as those
illustrated in this section where there is a present or anticipated
need for increased knowledge or capabilities or in which it is feasible
for applicants to develop programs recognized for their excellence.
Applicants are also encouraged to include in their proposals a library
enhancement component related to the initiative(s) for which they have
prepared their proposals.
(a) Studies and experimentation in food and agricultural sciences.
(1) The purpose of this initiative is to advance the body of
knowledge in those basic and applied natural and social sciences that
comprise the food and agricultural sciences.
(2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
(i) Conduct plant or animal breeding programs to develop better
crops, forests, or livestock (e.g., more disease resistant, more
productive, yielding higher quality products).
(ii) Conceive, design, and evaluate new bioprocessing techniques
for eliminating undesirable constituents from or adding desirable ones
to food products.
(iii) Propose and evaluate ways to enhance utilization of the
capabilities and resources of food and agricultural institutions to
promote rural development (e.g., exploitation of new technologies by
small rural businesses).
(iv) Identify control factors influencing consumer demand for
agricultural products.
(v) Analyze social, economic, and physiological aspects of
nutrition, housing, and life-style choices, and of community strategies
for meeting the changing needs of different population groups.
(vi) Other high-priority areas such as human nutrition, sustainable
agriculture, biotechnology, agribusiness management and marketing, and
aquaculture.
(b) Centralized research support systems.
(1) The purpose of this initiative is to establish centralized
support systems to meet national needs or serve regions or clientele
that cannot otherwise afford or have ready access to the support in
question, or to provide such support more economically thereby freeing
up resources for other research uses.
(2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
(i) Storage, maintenance, characterization, evaluation and
enhancement of germplasm for use by animal and plant breeders,
including those using the techniques of biotechnology.
(ii) Computerized data banks of important scientific information
(e.g., epidemiological, demographic, nutrition, weather, economic, crop
yields, etc.).
(iii) Expert service centers for sophisticated and highly
specialized methodologies (e.g., evaluation of organoleptic and
nutritional quality of foods, toxicology, taxonomic identifications,
consumer preferences, demographics, etc.).
(c) Technology delivery systems.
(1) The purpose of this initiative is to promote innovations and
improvements in the delivery of benefits of food and agricultural
sciences to producers and consumers, particularly those who are
currently disproportionately low in receipt of such benefits.
(2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
(i) Computer-based decision support systems to assist small-scale
farmers to take advantage of relevant technologies, programs, policies,
etc.
(ii) Efficacious delivery systems for nutrition information or for
resource management assistance for low-income families and individuals.
(d) Other creative proposals. The purpose of this initiative is to
encourage other creative proposals, outside the areas previously
outlined, that are designed to provide needed enhancement of the
Nation's food and agricultural research system.
Sec. 3406.17 Program application materials--research.
Program application materials in an application package will be
made available to eligible institutions upon request. These materials
include the program announcement, the administrative provisions for the
program, and the forms needed to prepare and submit research grant
applications under the program.
Sec. 3406.18 Content of a research proposal.
(a) Proposal cover page. (1) Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education
Proposal Cover Page,'' must be completed in its entirety. Note that
providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral
part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing
of the proposal.
(2) One copy of Form CSRS-712 must contain the pen-and-ink
signatures of the principal investigator(s) and Authorized
Organizational Representative for the applicant institution.
(3) The title of the research project shown on the ``Higher
Education Proposal Cover Page'' must be brief (80-character maximum)
yet represent the major thrust of the project. This information will be
used by the Department to provide information to the Congress and other
interested parties.
(4) In block 7. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``Capacity Building Grants
Program.''
(5) In block 8.a. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``Research.'' In block
8.b. identify the code of the targeted need area(s) as found on the
reverse of the form. If a proposal focuses on multiple targeted need
areas, enter each code associated with the project. In block 8.c.
identify the major area(s) of emphasis as found on the reverse of the
form. If a proposal focuses on multiple areas of emphasis, enter each
code associated with the project; however, please limit your selection
to three areas. This information will be used by the program staff for
the proper assignment of proposals to reviewers.
(6) In block 9. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a
complementary project proposal or joint project proposal as defined in
Sec. 3406.2. If it is not a complementary project proposal or a joint
project proposal, identify it as a regular proposal.
(7) In block 13. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a
new, first-time submission or if the proposal is a resubmission of a
proposal that has been submitted to, but not funded under the 1890
Institution Capacity Building Grants Program in a previous competition.
(b) Table of contents. For ease of locating information, each
proposal must contain a detailed table of contents just after the
Proposal Cover Page. The Table of Contents should include page numbers
for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation.
(c) USDA agency cooperator. To be considered for funding, each
proposal must include documentation of cooperation with at least one
USDA agency or office. If multiple agencies are involved as
cooperators, documentation must be included from each agency. When
documenting cooperative arrangements, the following guidelines should
be used:
(1) A summary of the cooperative arrangements must immediately
follow the Table of Contents. This summary should:
[[Page 66026]]
(i) Bear the signatures of the Agency Head (or his/her designated
authorized representative) and the university project director;
(ii) Indicate the agency's willingness to commit support for the
project;
(iii) Identify the person(s) at the USDA agency who will serve as
the liaison or technical contact for the project;
(iv) Describe the degree and nature of the USDA agency's
involvement in the proposed project, as outlined in Sec. 3406.6(a) of
this part, including its role in:
(A) Identifying the need for the project;
(B) Developing a conceptual approach;
(C) Assisting with project design;
(D) Identifying and securing needed agency or other resources
(e.g., personnel, grants/contracts; in-kind support, etc.);
(E) Developing the project budget;
(F) Promoting partnerships with other institutions to carry out the
project;
(G) Helping the institution launch and manage the project;
(H) Providing technical assistance and expertise;
(I) Providing consultation through site visits, E-mail, conference
calls, and faxes;
(J) Participating in project evaluation and dissemination of final
project results; and
(K) Seeking other innovative ways to ensure the success of the
project and advance the needs of the institution or the agency; and
(v) Describe the expected benefits of the partnership venture for
the USDA agency and for the 1890 Institution.
(2) A detailed discussion of these partnership arrangements should
be provided in the narrative portion of the proposal, as outlined in
paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
(3) Additional documentation, including letters of support or
cooperation, may be provided in the Appendix.
(d) Project summary. (1) A Project Summary should immediately
follow the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation. The
information provided in the Project Summary will be used by the program
staff for a variety of purposes, including the proper assignment of
proposals to reviewers and providing information to reviews prior to
the peer panel meeting. The name of the institution, the targeted need
area(s), and the title of the proposal must be identified exactly as
shown on the ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page.''
(2) If the proposal is a complementary project proposal, as defined
in Sec. 3406.2 of this part, clearly state this fact and identify the
other complementary project(s) by citing the name of the submitting
institution, the title of the project, the principal investigator, and
the grant number (if funded in a previous year) exactly as shown on the
cover page of the complementary project so that appropriate
consideration can be given to the interrelatedness of the proposals in
the evaluation process.
(3) If the proposal is a joint project proposal, as defined in
Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other
participating institutions and the key person responsible for
coordinating the project at each institution.
(4) The Project Summary should be a concise description of the
proposed activity suitable for publication by the Department to inform
the general public about awards under the program. The text should not
exceed one page, single-spaced. The Project Summary should be a self-
contained description of the activity which would result if the
proposal is funded by USDA. It should include: the objective of the
project, a synopsis of the plan of operation, a statement of how the
project will enhance the research capacity of the institution, a
description of how the project will enhance research in the food and
agricultural sciences, and a description of the partnership efforts
between, and the expected benefits for, the USDA agency cooperator(s)
and the 1890 Institution and the plans for disseminating project
results. The Project Summary should be written so that a technically
literate reader can evaluate the use of Federal funds in support of the
project.
(e) Resubmission of a proposal. (1) Resubmission of previously
unfunded proposals. (i) If the proposal has been submitted previously,
but was not funded, such should be indicated in block 13. On Form CSRS-
712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and the following
information should be included in the proposal.
(A) The fiscal year(s) in which the proposal was submitted
previously;
(B) A summary of the peer reviewers' comments; and
(C) How these comments have been addressed in the current proposal,
including the page numbers in the current proposal where the reviewers'
comments have been addressed.
(ii) This information may be provided as a section of the proposal
following the Project Summary and preceding the proposal narrative or
it may be placed in the appendix (see paragraph (j) of this section).
In either case, the location of this information should be indicated in
the Table of Contents, and the fact that the proposal is a resubmitted
proposal should be stated in the proposal narrative. Further, when
possible, the information should be presented in a tabular format.
Applicants who choose to resubmit proposals that were previously
submitted, but not funded, should note that resubmitted proposals must
compete equally with newly submitted proposals. Submitting a proposal
that has been revised based on a previous peer review panel's critique
of the proposal does not guarantee the success of the resubmitted
proposal.
(2) Resubmission of previously funded proposals. Recognizing that
capacity building is a long-term ongoing process, the 1890 Institution
Capacity Building Grants Program is interested in funding subsequent
phases of previously funded projects in order to build institutional
capacity, and institutions are encouraged to build on a theme over
several grant awards. However, proposals that are sequential
continuations or new stages of previously funded Capacity Building
Grants must compete with first-time proposals. Therefore, project
directors should thoroughly demonstrate how the project proposed in the
current application expands substantially upon a previously funded
project (i.e., demonstrate how the new project will advance the former
project to the next level of attainment or will achieve expanded
goals). The proposal must also show the degree to which the new phase
promotes innovativeness and creativity beyond the scope of the
previously funded project. Please note that the 1890 Institution
Capacity Building Grants Program is not designed to support activities
that are essentially repetitive in nature over multiple grant awards.
Principal investigators who have had their projects funded previously
are discouraged from resubmitting relatively identical proposals for
future funding.
(f) Narrative of a research proposal. The narrative portion of the
proposal is limited to 20 pages in length. The one-page Project Summary
is not included in the 20-page limitation. The narrative must be typed
on one side of the page only, using a font no smaller than 12 point,
and double-spaced. All margins must be at least one inch. All pages
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation must be
paginated. It should be noted that reviewers will not be required to
read beyond 20 pages of the narrative to evaluate the proposal. The
narrative should contain the following sections:
(1) Significance of the problem.
(i) Impact.
[[Page 66027]]
(A) Identification of the problem or opportunity. Clearly identify
the specific problem or opportunity to be addressed and present any
research questions or hypotheses to be examined.
(B) Rationale. Provide a rationale for the proposed approach to the
problem or opportunity and indicate the part that the proposed project
will play in advancing food and agricultural research and knowledge.
Discuss how the project will be of value and importance at the State,
regional, national, or international level(s). Also discuss how the
benefits to be derived from the project will transcend the proposing
institution or the grant period.
(C) Literature review. Include a comprehensive summary of the
pertinent scientific literature. Citations may be footnoted to a
bibliography in the Appendix. Citations should be accurate, complete,
and adhere to an acceptable journal format. Explain how such knowledge
(or previous findings) is related to the proposed project.
(D) Current research and related activities. Describe the relevancy
of the proposed project to current research or significant research
support activities at the proposing institution and any other
institution participating in the project, including research which may
be as yet unpublished.
(ii) Continuation plans. Discuss the likelihood or plans for
continuation or expansion of the project beyond USDA support. Discuss,
as applicable, how the institution's long-range budget, and
administrative and academic plans, provide for the realistic
continuation or expansion of the line of research or research support
activity undertaken by this project after the end of the grant period.
For example, are there plans for securing non-Federal support for the
project? Is there any potential for income from patents, technology
transfer or university-business enterprises resulting from the project?
Also discuss the probabilities of the proposed activity or line of
inquiry being pursued by researchers at other institutions.
(iii) Innovation. Describe the degree to which the proposal
reflects an innovative or non-traditional approach to a food and
agricultural research initiative.
(iv) Products and results. Explain the kinds of products and
results expected and their impact on strengthening food and
agricultural sciences higher education in the United States, including
attracting academically outstanding students or increasing the ethnic,
racial, and gender diversity of the Nation's food and agricultural
scientific and professional expertise base.
(2) Overall approach and cooperative linkages.
(i) Approach.
(A) Objectives. Cite and discuss the specific objectives to be
accomplished under the project.
(B) Plan of operation. The procedures or methodologies to be
applied to the proposed project should be explicitly stated. This
section should include, but not necessarily be limited to a description
of:
(1) The proposed investigations, experiments, or research support
enhancements in the sequence in which they will be carried out.
(2) Procedures and techniques to be employed, including their
feasibility.
(3) Means by which data will be collected and analyzed.
(4) Pitfalls that might be encountered.
(5) Limitations to proposed procedures
(C) Timetable. Provide a timetable for execution of the project.
Identify all important research milestones and dates as they relate to
project start-up, execution, dissemination, evaluation, and close-out.
(ii) Evaluation plans.
(A) Provide a plan for evaluating the accomplishment of stated
objectives during the conduct of the project. Indicate the criteria,
and corresponding weight of each, to be used in the evaluation process,
describe any performance data to be collected and analyzed, and explain
the methodologies that will be used to determine the extent to which
the needs underlying the project are being met.
(B) Provide a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the end
results upon conclusion of the project. Include the same kinds of
information requested in Sec. 3406.13(f)(2)(ii)(A).
(iii) Dissemination plans. Provide plans for disseminating project
results and products including the possibilities for publications.
Identify target audiences and explain methods of communication.
(iv) Partnerships and collaborative efforts.
(A) Explain how the project will maximize partnership ventures and
collaborative efforts to strengthen food and agricultural sciences
higher education (e.g., involvement of faculty in related disciplines
at the same institution, joint projects with other colleges or
universities, or cooperative activities with business or industry).
Also explain how it will stimulate academia, the States, or the private
sector to join with the Federal partner in enhancing food and
agricultural science higher education.
(B) Provide evidence, via letters from the parties involved, that
arrangements necessary for collaborative partnerships or joint
initiatives have been discussed and realistically can be expected to
come to fruition, or actually have been finalized contingent on an
award under this program. Letters must be signed by an official who has
the authority to commit the resources of the organization. Such letters
should be referenced in the plan of operation, but the actual letters
should be included in the Appendix section of the proposal. Any
potential conflict(s) of interest that might result from the proposed
collaborative arrangements must be discussed in detail. Proposals which
indicate joint projects with other institutions must state which
proposer is to receive any resulting grant award, since only one
submitting institution can be the recipient of a project grant under
one proposal.
(C) Explain how the project will create a new or enhance an
existing partnership between the USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890
Institution(s). This section should expand upon the summary information
provided in the documentation of USDA agency cooperation section, as
outlined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. This is particularly
important because the focal point of attention in the peer review
process is the proposal narrative. Therefore, a comprehensive
discussion of the partnership effort between USDA and the 1890
Institution should be provided.
(3) Institutional capacity building.
(i) Institutional enhancement. Explain how the proposed project
will strengthen the research capacity, as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of
this part, of the applicant institution and, if applicable, any other
institutions assuming a major role in the conduct of the project. For
example, describe how the proposed project is intended to strengthen
the institution's research infrastructure by advancing the expertise of
the current faculty in the natural or social sciences; providing a
better research environment, state-of-the-art equipment, or supplies;
enhancing library collections; or enabling the institution to provide
efficacious organizational structures and reward systems to attract and
retain first-rate research faculty and students--particularly those
from underrepresented groups.
(ii) Institutional commitment.
(A) Discuss the institution's commitment to the project and its
successful completion. Provide, as relevant, appropriate documentation
in the Appendix. Substantiate that the
[[Page 66028]]
institution attributes a high priority to the project.
(B) Discuss how the project will contribute to the achievement of
the institution's long-term (five- to ten-year) goals and how the
project will help satisfy the institution's high-priority objectives.
Show how this project is linked to and supposed by the institution's
strategic plan.
(C) Discuss the commitment of institutional resources to the
project. Show that the institutional resources to be made available to
the project will be adequate, when combined with the support requested
from USDA, to carry out the activities of the project and represent a
sound commitment by the institution. Discuss institutional facilities,
equipment, computer services, and other appropriate resources available
to the project.
(g) Key personnel. A From CSRS-710, ``Summary Vita--Research
Proposal,'' should be included for each key person associated with the
project.
(h) budget and cost-effectiveness.
(1) Budget form.
(i) Prepare Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget,'' in
accordance with instructions provided with the form. Proposals may
request support for a period to be identified in each year's program
announcement. A budget form is required for each year of requested
support. In addition, a summary budget is required detailing the
requested total support for the overall project period. Form CSRS-713
may be reproduced as needed by proposers. Funds may be requested under
any of the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or
service for which support is requested is allowable under the
authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles, these
administrative provisions, and can be justified as necessary for
successful conduct of the proposed project.
(ii) The approved negotiated research rate or the maximum rate
allowed by law should be used when computing indirect costs. If a
reduced rate of indirect costs is voluntarily requested from USDA, the
remaining allowable indirect costs may be used as matching funds. In
the event that a proposal reflects an incorrect indirect cost rate and
is recommended for funding, the correct rate will be applied to the
approved budget in the grant award.
(2) Matching funds. When documenting matching contributions, use
the following guidelines:
(i) When preparing the column of Form CSRS-713 entitled ``Applicant
Contributions To Matching Funds,'' only those costs to be contributed
by the applicant for the purposes of matching should be shown. The
total amount of this column should be indicated in item M.
(ii) In item N of Form CSRS-713, show a total dollar amount for
Cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties; also
show a total dollar amount (based on current fair market value) for
Non-cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties.
(iii) To qualify for an incentive benefits stemming from matching
support or to satisfy any cost sharing requirements, proposals must
include written verification of any actual commitments of matching
support (including both cash and non-cash contributions) from third
parties. Written verification means--
(A) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge
agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational
representatives of the donor organization (or by the donor if the gift
is from an individual) and the applicant institution, which must
include:
(1) The name, address and telephone number of the donor;
(2) The name of the applicant institution;
(3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;
(4) The dollar amount of the cash donation; and
(5) A statement that the donor will pay the cash contribution
during the grant period; and
(B) For any third party non-cash contributions, a separate pledge
agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized
organizational representatives of the donor organization (or by the
donor if the gift is from an individual) and the applicant institution,
which must include:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor;
(2) The name of the applicant institution;
(3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;
(4) A good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the
non-cash contribution; and
(5) A statement that the donor will make the contribution during
the grant period.
(iv) All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal
immediately following Form CSRS-713. The sources and amounts of all
matching support from outside the applicant institution should be
summarized in the Budget Narrative section of the proposal.
(v) Applicants should refer to OMB Circulars A-110, ``Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions
of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-profit Organizations,''
and A-21, ``Cost Principles for Educational Institutions,'' for further
guidance and other requirements relating to matching and allowable
costs.
(3) Chart on shared budget for joint project proposal.
(i) For a joint project proposal, a plan must be provided
indicating how funds will be distributed to the participating
institutions. The budget section of a joint project proposal should
include a chart indicating:
(A) The names of the participating institutions;
(B) The amount of funds to be disbursed to those institutions; and
(C) The way in which such funds will be used in accordance with
items A through L of Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget.''
(ii) If a proposal is not for a joint project, such a chart is not
required.
(4) Budget narrative.
(i) Discuss how the budget specifically supports the proposed
project activities. Explain how each budget item (such as salaries and
wages for professional and technical staff, student workers, travel,
equipment, etc.) is essential to achieving project objectives.
(ii) Justify that the total budget, including funds requested from
USDA and any matching support provided, will be adequate to carry out
the activities of the project. Provide a summary of sources and amounts
of all third party matching support.
(iii) Justify the project's cost-effectiveness. Show how the
project maximizes the use of limited resources, optimizes research
value for the dollar, achieves economies of scale, or leverages
additional funds. For example, discuss how the project has the
potential to generate a critical mass of expertise and activity focused
on a high-priority research initiatives(s) or promote coalition
building that could lead to future ventures.
(iv) Include the percentage of time key personnel will work on the
project, both during the academic year and summer. When salaries of
university project personnel will be paid by a combination of USDA and
institutional funds, the total compensation must not exceed the faculty
member's regular annual compensation. In addition, the total commitment
of time devoted to the project, when combined with time for teaching
and research duties, other sponsored agreements, and other employment
obligations to the institution, must not exceed 100 percent of the
normal workload for which the
[[Page 66029]]
employee is compensated, in accordance with established university
policies and applicable Federal cost principles.
(v) If the proposal addresses more than one targeted need area,
estimate the proportion of the funds requested from USDA that will
support each respective targeted need area.
(i) Current and pending support. Each applicant must complete Form
CSRS-663, ``Current and Pending Support,'' identifying any other
current public- or private-sponsored projects, in addition to the
proposed project, to which key personnel listed in the proposal under
consideration have committed portions of their time, whether or not
salary support for the person(s) involved is included in the budgets of
the various projects. This information should also be provided for any
pending proposals which are currently being considered by, or which
will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors,
including other USDA programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of
identical or similar projects to other possible sponsors will not
prejudice the review or evaluation of a project under this program.
(j) Appendix. Each project narrative is expected to be complete in
itself and to meet the 20-page limitation. Inclusion of material in the
Appendix should not be used to circumvent the 20-page limitation of the
proposal narrative. However, in those instances where inclusion of
supplemental information is necessary to guarantee the peer review
panel's complete understanding of a proposal or to illustrate the
integrity of the design or a main thesis of the proposal, such
information may be included in the Appendix. Examples of supplemental
material are photographs, journal reprints, brochures and other
pertinent materials which are deemed to be illustrative of major points
in the narrative but unsuitable for inclusion in the proposal narrative
itself. Information or previously submitted proposals may also be
presented in the Appendix (refer to paragraph (e) of this section).
When possible, information in the Appendix should be presented in
tabular format. A complete set of the Appendix material must be
attached to each copy of the grant application submitted. The Appendix
must be identified with the title of the project as it appears on Form
CSRS-712 of the proposal and the name(s) of the principal
investigator(s). The Appendix must be referenced in the proposal
narrative.
(k) Special considerations. A number of situations encountered in
the conduct of research require special information or supporting
documentation before funding can be approved for the project. If such
situations are anticipated, proposals must so indicate via completion
of Form CSRS-662, ``Assurance Statement(s).'' It is expected that some
applications submitted in response to these guidelines will involve the
following:
(1) Recombinant DNA research. All key personnel identified in the
proposal and all endorsing officials of the proposing organization are
required to comply with the guidelines established by the National
Institutes of Health entitled ``Guidelines for Research Involving
Recombinant DNA Molecules,'' as revised. All applicants proposing to
use recombinant DNA techniques must so indicate by checking the
appropriate box on Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover
Page,'' and by completing the applicable section of Form CSRS-662. In
the event a project involving recombinant DNA or RNA molecules results
in a grant award, the Institutional Biosafety Committee of the
proposing institution must approve the research plan before CSREES will
release grant funds.
(2) Protection of human subjects. Responsibility for safeguarding
the rights and welfare of human subjects used in any grant project
supported with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing
organization. Guidance on this is contained in the Department of
Agriculture regulations under 7 CFR part 1c. All applicants who propose
to use human subjects for experimental purposes must indicate their
intention by checking the appropriate block on Form CSRS-712, ``Higher
Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and by completing the appropriate
portion of Form CSRS-662. In the event a project involving human
subjects results in a grant award, the Institutional Review Board of
the proposing institution must approve the research plan before CSREES
will release grant funds.
(3) Laboratory animal care. Responsibility for the humane care and
treatment of laboratory animals used in any grant project supported
with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing organization.
All key project personnel and all endorsing officials of the proposing
organization are required to comply with the Animal Welfare Act of
1966, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), and the regulations
promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture in 9 CFR parts
1, 2, 3, and 4 pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of
laboratory animals. All applicants proposing a project which involves
the use of laboratory animals must indicate their intention by checking
the appropriate block on Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education Proposal
Cover Page,'' and by completing the appropriate portion of Form CSRS-
662. In the event a project involving the use of living vertebrate
animals results in a grant award, the Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee of the proposing institution must approve the research plan
before CSREES will release grant funds.
(l) Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
As outlined in 7 CFR part 3407 (CSREES's implementing regulations of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969), environmental data for
the proposed project is to be provided to CSREES in order for a
determination to be made as to the need for any further action such as
preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact
statement (EIS).
(1) NEPA determination statement. In order for a determination to
be made, pertinent information regarding environmental activities is
necessary; therefore, Form CSRS-1234, ``National Environmental Policy
Act Exclusions Form,'' along with supporting documentation, must be
included in the proposal indicating whether or not the project falls
under USDA categorical exclusions as defined in 7 CFR 1b.3 (and
restated at 7 CFR 3407.6(a)(1)) or CSREES categorical exclusions
defined at 7 CFR 3407.6(a)(2) (i) and (ii). The information should be
identified in the Table of Contents as ``NEPA Determination Statement''
and Form CSRS-1234 and the supporting documentation should be placed at
the back of the proposal.
(2) Exceptions to categorical exclusions. An EA or EIS shall be
prepared for an activity which is normally within the purview of
categorical exclusion where it is determined by CSREES that substantial
controversy on environmental grounds exists or that other extraordinary
conditions or circumstances are present which may cause such activity
to have a significant environmental effect.
Subpart F--Review and Evaluation of a Research Proposal
Sec. 3406.19 Proposal review--research.
The proposal evaluation process includes both internal staff review
and merit evaluation by peer review panels comprised of scientists,
educators, business representatives, and Government officials who are
highly qualified to render expert advice in the areas supported. Peer
review panels will be selected and structured to provide
[[Page 66030]]
optimum expertise and objective judgment in the evaluation of
proposals.
Sec. 3406.20 Evaluation criteria for research proposals.
The maximum score a research proposal can receive is 150 points.
Unless otherwise stated in the annual solicitation published in the
Federal Register, the peer review panel will consider the following
criteria and weights to evaluate proposals submitted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight
Evaluation Criterion (points)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Significance of the problem:
This criterion is used to assess the likelihood that the
project will advance or have a substantial impact upon
the body of knowledge constituting the natural and
social sciences undergirding the argicultural, natural
resources, and food systems.
(1) Impact--Is the problem or opportunity to be
addressed by the proposed project clearly
identified, outlined, and delineated? Are research
questions or hypotheses precisely stated? Is the
project likely to further advance food and
agricultural research and knowledge? Does the
project have potential for augmenting the food and
agricultural scientific knowledge base? Does the
project address a State, regional, national, or
international problem(s)? Will the benefits to be
derived from the project transcend the applicant
institution or the grant period?................... 15
(2) Continuation plans--Are there plans for
continuation or expansion of the project beyond
USDA support? Are there plans for continuing this
line of research or research support activity with
the use of institutional funds after the end of the
grant? Are there indications of external, non-
Federal support? Are there realistic plans for
making the project self-supporting? What is the
potential for royalty or patent income, technology
transfer or university-business enterprises? What
are the probabilities of the proposed activity or
line of inquiry being pursued by researchers at
other institutions?................................ 10
(3) Innovation--Are significant aspects of the
project based on an innovative or a non-traditional
approach? Does the project reflect creative
thinking? To what degree does the venture reflect a
unique approach that is new to the applicant
institution or new to the entire field of study?... 10
(4) Products and results--Are the expected products
and results of the project clearly outlined and
likely to be of high quality? Will project results
be of an unusual or unique nature? Will the project
contribute to a better understanding of or an
improvement in the quality, distribution, or
effectiveness of the Nation's food and agricultural
scientific and professional expertise base, such as
increasing the participation of women and
minorities?........................................ 15
(b) Overall approach and cooperative linkages:
This criterion relates to the soundness of the proposed
approach and the quality of the partnerships likely to
evolve as a result of the project.
(1) Proposed approach--Do the objectives and plan of
operation appear to be sound and appropriate
relative to the proposed initiative(s) and the
impact anticipated? Is the proposed sequence of
work appropriate? Does the proposed approach
reflect sound knowledge of current theory and
practice and awareness of previous or ongoing
related research? If the proposed project is a
continuation of a current line of study or
currently funded project, does the proposal include
sufficient preliminary data from the previous
research or research support activity? Does the
proposed project flow logically from the findings
of the previous stage of study? Are the procedures
scientifically and managerially sound? Are
potential pitfalls and limitations clearly
identified? Are contingency plans delineated? Does
the timetable appear to be readily achievable?..... 15
(2) Evaluation--Are the evaluation plans adequate
and reasonable? Do they allow for continuous or
frequent feedback during the life of the project?
Are the individuals involved in project evaluation
skilled in evaluation strategies and procedures?
Can they provide an objective evaluation? Do
evaluation plans facilitate the measurement of
project progress and outcomes...................... 5
(3) Dissemination--Does the proposed project include
clearly outlined and realistic mechanisms that will
lead to widespread dissemination of project
results, including national electronic
communication systems, publications and
presentations at professional society meetings?.... 5
(4) Partnerships and collaborative efforts--Does the
project have significant potential for advancing
cooperative ventures between the applicant
institution and a USDA agency? Does the project
workplan include an effective role for the
cooperating USDA agencie(s)? Will the project
encourage and facilitate better working
relationships in the university science community,
as well as between universities and the public or
private sector? Does the project encourage
appropriate multidisciplinary collaboration? Will
the project lead to long-term relationships or
cooperative partnerships that are likely to enhance
research quality or supplement available resources? 15
(c) Institutional capacity building:
This criterion relates to the degree to which the
project will strengthen the research capacity of the
applicant institution. In the case of a joint project
proposal, it relates to the degree to which the project
will strengthen the research capacity of the applicant
institution and that of any other institution assuming
a major role in the conduct of the project.
(1) Institutional enhancement--Will the project help
the institution to advance the expertise of current
faculty in the natural or social sciences; provide
a better research environment, state-of-the-art
equipment, or supplies; enhance library collections
related to the area of research; or enable the
institution to provide efficacious organizational
structures and reward systems to attract, hire and
retain first-rate research faculty and students--
particularly those from underrepresented groups.... 15
(2) Institutional commitment--Is there evidence to
substantiate that the institution attributes a high-
priority to the project, that the project is linked
to the achievement of the institution's long-term
goals, that it will help satisfy the institution's
high-priority objectives, or that the project is
supported by the institution's strategic plans?
Will the project have reasonable access to needed
resources such as scientific instrumentation,
facilities, computer services, library and other
research support resources?........................ 15
(d) Personnel Resources:
This criterion relates to the number and qualifications
of the key persons who will carry out the project. Are
designated project personnel qualified to carry out a
successful project? Are there sufficient numbers of
personnel associated with the project to achieve the
stated objectives and the anticipated outcomes? Will
the project help develop the expertise of young
scientists at the doctoral or post-doctorate level?.... 10
(e) Budget and cost-effectiveness:
[[Page 66031]]
This criterion relates to the extent to which the total
budget adequately supports the project and is cost-
effective.
(1) Budget--Is the budget request justifiable? Are
costs reasonable and necessary? Will the total
budget be adequate to carry out project activities?
Are the source(s) and amount(s) of non-Federal
matching support clearly identified and
appropriately documented? For a joint project
proposal, is the shared budget explained clearly
and in sufficient detail?.......................... 10
(2) Cost-effectiveness--Is the proposed project cost-
effective? Does it demonstrate a creative use of
limited resources, maximize research value per
dollar of USDA support, achieve economies of scale,
leverage additional funds or have the potential to
do so, focus expertise and activity on a high-
priority research initiative(s), or promote
coalition building for current or future ventures?. 5
(f) Overall quality of proposal:
This criterion relates to the degree to which the
proposal complies with the application guidelines and
is of high quality. Is the proposal enhanced by its
adherence to instructions (table of contents,
organization, pagination, margin and font size, the 20-
page limitation, appendices, etc.); accuracy of forms;
clarity of budget narrative; well prepared vitae for
all key personnel associated with the project; and
presentation (are ideas effectively presented, clearly
articulated, thoroughly explained, etc.)?.............. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart G--Submission of a Teaching or Research Proposal
Sec. 3406.21 Intent to submit a proposal.
To assist CSREES in preparing for the review of proposals,
institutions planning to submit proposals may be requested to complete
Form CSRS-711, ``Intent to Submit a Proposal,'' provided in the
application package. CSREES will determine each year if Intent to
Submit a Proposal forms will be requested and provide such information
in the program announcement. If Intent to Submit a Proposal forms are
required, one form should be completed and returned for each proposal
an institution anticipates submitting. Submitting this form does not
commit an institution to any course of action, nor does failure to send
this form prohibit an institution from submitting a proposal.
Sec. 3406.22 When and where to submit a proposal.
The program announcement will provide the deadline date for
submitting a proposal, the number of copies of each proposal that must
be submitted, and the address to which proposals must be submitted.
Subpart H--Supplementary Information
Sec. 3406.23 Access to peer review information.
After final decisions have been announced, CSREES will, upon
request, inform the project director of the reasons for its decision on
a proposal. Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the
identity of the reviewers, will be made available to respective project
directors upon specific request.
Sec. 3406.24 Grant awards.
(a) General. Within the limit of funds available for such propose,
the authorized departmental officer shall make project grants to those
responsible, eligible applicants whose proposals are judged most
meritorious in the announced targeted need areas under the evaluation
criteria and procedures set forth in this part. The beginning of the
project period shall be no later than September 30 of the Federal
fiscal year in which the project is approved for support. All funds
granted under this part shall be expended solely for the purpose for
which the funds are granted in accordance with the approved application
and budget, the regulations of this part, the terms and conditions of
the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the Department's
Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations (7 CFR part 3015).
(b) Organization management information. Specific management
information relating to a proposing institution shall be submitted on a
one-time basis prior to the award of a project grant identified under
this part if such information has not been provided previously under
this or another program for which the sponsoring agency is responsible.
Copies of forms used to fulfill this requirement will be sent to the
proposing institution by the sponsoring agency as part of the pre-award
process.
(c) Notice of grant award. The grant award document shall include
at a minimum the following:
(1) Legal name and address of performing organization.
(2) Title of project.
(3) Name(s) and address(es) of principal investigator(s)/project
director(s).
(4) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department.
(5) Project period, which specifies how long the Department intend
to support the effort without requiring reapplication for funds.
(6) Total amount of Federal financial assistance approved during
the project period.
(7) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded.
(8) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds
to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award.
(9) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by the
Department to carry out its granting activities or to accomplish the
purpose of this particular project grant.
(d) Obligation of the Federal Government. Neither the approval of
any application nor the award of any project grant shall legally commit
or obligate CSREES or the United States to provide further support of a
project or any portion thereof.
Sec. 3406.25 Use of funds; changes.
(a) Delegation of fiscal responsibility. The grantee may not in
whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution,
or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant
funds.
(b) Change in project plans. (1) The permissible changes by the
grantee, project director(s), or other key project personnel in the
approved project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology,
techniques, or other aspects of the project to expedite achievement of
the project's approved goals. If the grantee or the project director(s)
are uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the
question must be referred to the Department for a final determination.
(2) Changes in approved goals, or objectives, shall be requested by
the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental
officer prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for
such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the approved
project.
(3) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or
reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the
grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer
prior to effecting such changes.
[[Page 66032]]
(4) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic
work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether
or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee
and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer prior to
effecting such transfers.
(c) Changes in project period. The project period may be extended
by the authorized departmental officer without additional financial
support for such additional period(s) as the authorized departmental
officer determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes
of an approved project. However, due to statutory restriction, no grant
may be extended beyond five years from the original start date of the
grant. Grant extensions shall be conditioned upon prior request by the
grantee and approval in writing by the authorized departmental officer.
(d) Changes in approved budget. Changes in an approved budget must
be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized
departmental officer prior to instituting such changes if the revision
will:
(1) Involved transfers of amounts budgeted for indirect costs to
absorb an increase in direct costs;
(2) Involve transfers of amounts budgeted for direct costs to
accommodate changes in indirect cost rates negotiated during a budget
period and not approved when a grant was awarded; or
(3) Involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior
approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles,
Departmental regulations, or in the grant award.
Sec. 3406.26 Monitoring progress of funded projects.
(a) During the tenure of a grant, project directors must attend at
least one national project directors meeting, if offered, in
Washington, D.C. or any other announced location. The purpose of the
meeting will be to discuss project and grant management, opportunities
for collaborative efforts, future directions for education reform,
research project management, advancing a field of science, and
opportunities to enhance dissemination of exemplary end products/
results.
(b) An Annual Performance Report must be submitted to the USDA
program contact person within 90 days after the completion of the first
year of the project and annually thereafter during the life of the
grant. Generally, the Annual Performance Reports should include a
summary of the overall progress toward project objectives, current
problems or unusual developments, the next year's planned activities,
and any other information that is pertinent to the ongoing project or
which may be specified in the terms and conditions of the award. These
reports are in addition to the annual Current Research Information
System (CRIS) reports required for all research grants under the
award's ``Special Terms and Conditions.''
(c) A Final Performance Report must be submitted to the USDA
program contact person within 90 days after the expiration date of the
project. The expiration date is specified in the award documents and
modifications thereto, if any. Generally, the Final Performance Report
should be a summary of the completed project, including: a review of
project objectives and accomplishments; a description of any products
and outcomes resulting from the project; activities undertaken to
disseminate products and outcomes; partnerships and collaborative
ventures that resulted from the project; future initiatives that are
planned as a result of the project; the impact of the project on the
project director(s), the institution, and the food and agricultural
sciences higher education system; and data on project personnel and
beneficiaries. The Final Performance Report should be accompanied by
samples or copies of any products or publications resulting from or
developed by the project. The Final Performance Report must also
contain any other information which may be specified in the terms and
conditions of the award.
Sec. 3406.27 Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply.
Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant
proposals considered for review and to project grants awarded under
this part. These include but are not limited to:
7 CFR part 1, subpart A--USDA implementation of Freedom of
Information Act.
7 CFR part 3--USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129
regarding debt collection.
7 CFR part 15, subpart A--USDA implementation of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
7 CFR part 3015--USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations,
implementing OMB directives (i.e., Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122) and
incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Public Law 95-224), as well as
general policy requirements applicable to recipients of Departmental
financial assistance.
7 CFR part 3017--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement); Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace
(Grants), implementing Executive Order 12549 on debarment and
suspension and the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701).
7 CFR part 3018--Restrictions on Lobbying, prohibiting the use of
appropriated funds to influence Congress or a Federal agency in
connection with the making of any Federal grant and other Federal
contracting and financial transactions.
7 CFR part 3019--USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions
of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
7 CFR part 3051--Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and
other Nonprofit Institutions.
29 U.S.C. 794, section 504--Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 7 CFR
part 15b (USDA implementation of statute), prohibiting discrimination
based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.
35 U.S.C. 200 et seq.--Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of
rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and
domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally
assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR
part 401).
Sec. 3406.28 Confidential aspects of proposals and awards.
When a proposal results in a grant, it becomes a part of the record
of the Agency's transactions, available to the public upon specific
request. Information that the Secretary determines to be of a
privileged nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by
law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to have
considered as privileged should be clearly marked as such and sent in a
separate statement, two copies of which should accompany the proposal.
The original copy of a proposal that does not result in a grant will be
retained by the Agency for a period of one year. Other copies will be
destroyed. Such a proposal will be released only with the consent of
the applicant or to the extent required by law. A proposal may be
withdrawn at any time prior to the final action thereon.
Sec. 3406.29 Evaluation of program.
Grantees should be aware that CSREES may, as a part of its own
program evaluation activities, carry out
[[Page 66033]]
in-depth evaluations of assisted activities. Thus, grantees should be
prepared to cooperate with CSREES personnel, or persons retained by
CSREES, evaluating the institutional context and the impact of any
supported project. Grantees may be asked to provide general information
on any students and faculty supported, in whole or in part, by a grant
awarded under this program; information that may be requested includes,
but is not limited to, standardized academic achievement test scores,
grade point average, academic standing, career patterns, age, race/
ethnicity, gender, citizenship, and disability.
Done at Washington, D.C., this 11th day of December 1995.
Colien Hefferan,
Acting Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30625 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30547 Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65951-65977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30547]
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65951]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 121, 135
[Docket No. 28081; Notice No. 95-18]
RIN 2120-AF63
Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time
Limitations and Rest Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend existing regulations to establish
one set of duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest
requirements for flight crewmembers engaged in air transportation. The
proposal results from public and congressional interest in regulating
flight crewmember rest requirements, NTSB Safety Recommendations,
petitions for rulemaking, and scientific data contained in recent
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) studies relating
to flight crewmember duty periods, flight times, and rest. The proposal
would update the regulations and replace certain out-dated regulations
with a simplified regulatory approach based upon scientific studies of
fatigue. The objective of the proposal is to contribute to an improved
aviation safety system by ensuring that flight crewmembers are provided
with the opportunity to obtain sufficient rest to perform their routine
and emergency safety duties.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments on this notice in triplicate to:
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Room 915G, Docket No. 28081, 800
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591. Comments may also be
submitted to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet address:
[email protected]. Comments must be marked Docket No. 28081.
Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket in Room 915G on weekdays
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Youngblut, Project Development
Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service,
Room 829, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3755.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or arguments, and by commenting on the
possible environmental, economic, and federalism- or energy-related
impact of the adoption of this proposal. Comments concerning the
proposed implementation and effective date of the rule are also
specifically requested.
Comments should carry the regulatory docket or notice number and
should be submitted in triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified
above. All comments received and a report summarizing any substantive
public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking will be filed in
the docket. The docket is available for public inspection both before
and after the closing date for receiving comments.
Before taking any final action on this proposal, the Administrator
will consider the comments made on or before the closing date for
comments, and the proposal may be changed in light of the comments
received.
The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a comment if the commenter
includes a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the comment. The
postcard should be marked ``Comments to Docket No. 28081.'' When the
comment is received by the FAA, the postcard will be dated, time
stamped, and returned to the commenter.
Availability of the NPRM
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs,
Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-430, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications must
identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future FAA
NPRM's should request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes application
procedures.
Background
The aviation industry requires 24-hour activities to meet
operational demands. Growth in global long-haul, regional, overnight
cargo, and short-haul domestic operations is likely to increase round-
the-clock requirements. Flight crews must be available to support 24-
hour a day operations to meet these industry demands. Both domestic and
international aviation frequently require crossing multiple time zones.
Therefore, shift work, night work, irregular work schedules,
unpredictable work schedules, and time zone changes will continue to be
commonplace components of the aviation industry. These factors affect
human physiology by causing performance-impairing fatigue that can
affect the level of safety. The FAA believes that it is critical,
whenever possible, to incorporate scientific information on fatigue and
human sleep physiology into regulations on flight crew scheduling. Such
scientific information can help to maintain the safety margin and
promote optimum crew performance and alertness during flight
operations.
Over the past 40 years, scientific knowledge about sleep, sleep
disorders, circadian physiology, fatigue, sleepiness/alertness, and
performance decrements has grown significantly. Some of this scientific
knowledge, gained through field and simulator studies, has confirmed
that aviators experience performance-impairing fatigue from sleep loss
resulting from current flight and duty practices. Incorporation of
scientific knowledge on fatigue into operations (e.g., regulatory
scheduling considerations, personal strategies, fatigue
countermeasures) would greatly benefit safety. A primary purpose of
this rulemaking is to incorporate as much as possible of the scientific
knowledge into the applicable regulations.
A second purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to establish
consistent and clear duty period limitations, flight time limitations,
and rest requirements for all types of operations. The current
regulations require revising because of their complexity and age. While
domestic flight time limitations and some commuter limitations were
updated in 1985, flag and supplemental operations were not. With
advancements in new aircraft, these operational distinctions are no
longer as meaningful as they once were. This proposal would establish
the same duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest
requirements for all types of operations in part 121 for domestic,
flag, and supplemental operations and in part 135 for commuter and on-
demand operations. The duty period limitations, flight time
limitations, and rest requirements would allow for differences based on
the length of flights and number of flight crewmembers on a flight.
[[Page 65952]]
General Discussion
Historical Review
The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1007; as amended by 62
Stat. 1216, 49 U.S.C. 551) and subsequently, the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.) addressed the issue
of regulating flight crewmember hours of service. The Federal Aviation
Act, as amended, empowers and directs the Secretary of Transportation
to promote the safety of civil air flight in air commerce by
prescribing and revising from time to time ``reasonable rules and
regulations governing, in the interest of safety, the maximum hours or
periods of service of airmen, and other employees.''
Despite many changes in the airline transportation industry over
the 30 years before 1983, the rules governing flight time limitations
and rest requirements remained virtually unchanged because no safety
reasons had been presented which necessitated changes to the
regulations. But the presumed level of safety established by these
rules did not necessarily mean that the rules were as effective as they
should have been when considered in light of changes that had occurred
in the industry in the previous 30 years.
In 1983, a significant rulemaking was initiated to clarify and
simplify the regulations and to make them more applicable to the air
transportation environment at that time. A significant driving force
for amending the flight time regulations in 1983 was that the
requirements under part 121 were so complicated that they had required
thousands of pages of interpretation and had sometimes been incorrectly
followed by air carriers.
A second significant factor justifying amendment of the rules in
1983 was their inflexibility. For example, although under the then
existing rule, air carriers were not considered in violation of the
rules if flight times were exceeded due to adverse weather conditions
or other circumstances beyond the control of the air carrier, an air
carrier did not have the flexibility to adjust scheduled rest periods
in the event of late arrivals or other factors. If a flight was late,
the subsequent flights often had to be delayed while substitute flight
crewmembers were brought in or while the flight crewmembers received
their scheduled rest periods.
A third factor affecting the pre-1983 rules was, under deregulation
of the air transportation industry, the number and variety of domestic
certificate holders dramatically increased. The complexity and variety
of the newer operations required that the FAA provide clear and simple
minimum safety criteria for all operators.
A fourth factor affecting the pre-1983 rules, and one related to
the changing character of the air transportation industry, was the
growth of commuter operations. Some commuter operations fall under part
121 domestic rules while others fall under part 135 rules. A question
existed as to whether either set of requirements effectively covered
these comparatively new and growing operations. Thus an additional aim
of the 1983-1985 rulemaking proceedings was to study the materials
submitted by the commuter industry group and incorporate the findings
into the applicable rules in order to provide, in this segment of the
industry, a level of safety equivalent to other air transportation
operations.
The 1983-1985 rulemaking proceeding was not the FAA's first attempt
to solve the previously described problems. For a number of years
before 1983 the FAA recognized that the flight time limits and rest
requirements needed to be clarified and substantively improved in those
areas where they were potentially inadequate. On several occasions the
FAA had attempted to correct the flight time limitation problems of
both parts 121 and 135 through rulemaking actions. But because of the
complexity of the flight time rules and the economic interests
affected, none of the previous proposals succeeded in resolving the
problems to the satisfaction of the affected parties. Given the
importance of the flight time rules in air transportation safety, the
FAA decided in 1983 to try an innovative approach that would bring the
affected parties together to negotiate a resolution.
1983-1985 Regulatory Negotiation
In 1983 regulatory negotiation was a new concept recommended by the
Administrative Conference of the United States. Basically, it was a
procedure by which representatives of all interests affected by a
rulemaking could be brought together to fully discuss the issues under
conditions conducive to narrowing or eliminating differences and to
negotiating a proposed rule acceptable to each interest. In accordance
with the recommended procedure, the FAA created an advisory committee
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The committee was
comprised of persons representing the diverse interests affected by the
flight time rules, including persons representing flight crewmembers,
air carriers, air taxis, helicopter operators, and the public.
The committee met for 16 days in 1983 under the direction of a
convener/mediator and thoroughly discussed the major issues involved in
the regulation of flight time limits and rest requirements for domestic
operations under part 121 and for operations under part 135. Although
the committee did not reach consensus on any particular proposal, its
deliberations were successful in narrowing the differences among
parties and in reaching substantial agreement on some issues. In
addition, the committee identified major areas of concern and all
parties obtained significant, new information on a subject which had
been discussed, without resolution, for years. The committee
deliberations led to a notice of proposed rulemaking [49 FR 12136,
March 28, 1984] and then to a final rule [50 FR 29306, July 18, 1985].
The final rule reflected comments received from the organizations
represented on the Advisory Committee and from others. The final rule
accomplished the following major objectives:
(1) It resolved a series-of-flights problem in part 121, domestic
air carrier rules, thereby addressing many interpretation issues;
(2) It established a new rest period requirement in part 121,
domestic air carrier rules, for flight crewmembers scheduled to fly 8
hours or less in 24 consecutive hours and allowed greater scheduling
flexibility, including the introduction of a reduced rest period;
(3) It upgraded the requirements for all operations in part 135,
particularly scheduled operations; and
(4) It incorporated into the rules certain exemptions that had wide
applicability: The reduction of a 10-hour rest under part 135 under
certain conditions; the extension of flight time with augmented crews;
and the special limitations needed for helicopter medical emergency
services.
ARAC Flight/Duty Working Group
While the FAA's 1983-1985 flight time limitations rulemaking was a
step forward in dealing with rest and flight time issues, the
rulemaking was limited in its scope and did not address either flag or
supplemental operations under part 121. The FAA recognized at the time
that flag and supplemental rules would need to be updated because these
rules contained some of the same language and problems contained in the
domestic rules that were amended. Furthermore, though the 1985
rulemaking clarified some of the flight time and rest requirements, it
did not resolve the problems completely. Also, since the 1985
rulemaking, the complexity of the rules and
[[Page 65953]]
inconsistencies associated with various types of operations (domestic,
flag, and supplemental under part 121 and commuter and on-demand under
part 135) have continued to make application and interpretation
burdensome. A number of petitions to amend the various sections were
received (discussed in more detail later), as well as hundreds of
letters concerning the interpretation of rest requirements for flight
crewmembers assigned to a reserve status. Therefore, on June 15, 1992,
the FAA announced [57 FR 26685] the establishment of the Flight
Crewmember Flight/Duty Rest requirements working group (ARAC Flight/
Duty Working Group) of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC).
The ARAC had been established by the FAA in January 1991 [46 FR
2190, January 22, 1991] as a vehicle for convening representatives of
interested groups to assist the FAA in addressing regulatory problems
in a forum that could use, in a less formal setting, many of the
regulatory negotiation techniques that had been used by the 1983-1985
flight time limitations advisory committee. The working group's task
was to determine whether regulations pertaining to air carrier flight
duty and rest requirements are consistently interpreted and understood
by the FAA, air carriers, and pilots; to evaluate industry compliance/
practice regarding scheduling of reserve duty and rest periods; and to
evaluate reports of excessive pilot fatigue as a result of such
scheduling. The working group was to develop recommendations for
advisory material and a regulatory revision as appropriate.
Between its creation on June 15, 1992, and June 30, 1994, the ARAC
Flight/Duty Working Group met on numerous occasions. The chairman of
this working group (Dr. Donald E. Hudson of the Aviation Medicine
Advisory Service) submitted a preliminary report on February 1, 1994,
and a final report on June 30, 1994. The report indicated that while
the working group did not reach a consensus on the specific issues, the
working group did agree on four major areas that the FAA should address
in future rulemaking actions: Absence of a duty time limitation;
reserve scheduling; back-side-of-the-clock operations; and scheduled
reduced rest. Each of the four areas is briefly described here. Three
areas are specifically addressed in this rulemaking and one, back-side-
of-the-clock operations, is partially, though indirectly, addressed.
Continuous or indefinite duty could occur under the current rules
if flight crewmembers complete their daily schedule when delays
encountered are beyond the control of the certificate holder, no matter
how long it extends their duty period. The reserve scheduling issue
concerns questions such as, do the same rest period requirements apply
to flight crewmembers assigned to reserve duty as the rest period
requirements that apply to flight crewmembers assigned to scheduled
flights? Back-side-of-the clock operations refers to the question
whether special duty limitations and rest requirements should be
developed for operations that are scheduled during a flight
crewmember's normal sleep cycle. The scheduled reduced rest issue
concerns whether certificate holders should be allowed to schedule
reduced rest in advance or whether reduced rest should only be allowed
to deal with unavoidable delays.
Because no consensus could be reached, Dr. Hudson's final report
included proposals submitted by several members of the working group.
It also stated that there is enough clear scientific guidance available
to assist the FAA in establishing a regulatory ``safety floor'' that
will both address the identified issues and not unfairly penalize
carriers economically. The report further stated that there is not any
physiological justification for having different work rules for part
121 and 135 operators.
NASA Research Program
In 1980, in response to a Congressional request, the National
Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center created
a Fatigue/Jet Lag Program to examine whether there are safety problems
due to transmeridian flying and fatigue in association with various
factors found in air transport operations. Since its inception, the
program has pursued the following three goals: (1) to determine the
extent of fatigue, sleep loss, and circadian disruption in both
domestic and international flight operations; (2) to determine the
impact of these factors on flight crew performance; and (3) to develop
and evaluate countermeasures to reduce the adverse effects of these
factors and improve flight crew performance and alertness. In 1991, the
NASA Ames Program was renamed the NASA Ames Fatigue Countermeasures
Program to highlight the increased focus on the third goal. Since the
beginning of the program, NASA has worked in close cooperation with the
FAA and with the airline industry to collect data and to provide the
findings of its extensive research as quickly as possible. This
research is fundamental to this proposal.
NASA Technical Memoranda reveal general principles pertinent to
scheduling flight crewmembers. The memoranda include but are not
limited to the following:
1. Crew Factors in Flight Operations II: Psychophysiological
Responses to Shorthaul Air Transport Operations. (NASA Technical
Memorandum 108856, November 1994)
2. Crew Factors in Flight Operations: Factors Influencing Sleep
Timing and Subjective Sleep Quality in Commercial Long-Haul Operations.
(NASA Technical Memorandum 103852, December 1991)
3. Principles and Guidelines for Duty and Rest Scheduling in
Commercial Aviation. (NASA Technical Memorandum, 1995)
Copies of these memoranda have been placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.
These memoranda state that sleep, awake time off, and recovery are
primary considerations for maintaining alertness and performance
levels. Adequate sleep is essential to maintain alertness and
performance, a positive mood, and overall health and well-being. Each
individual has a basic sleep requirement. The average sleep requirement
is for 8 hours in a 24-hour period. Losing as little as 2 hours of
sleep in a 24-hour time period can result in acute sleep loss, which
will promote fatigue and degrade subsequent performance and alertness.
Over days, sleep loss will accrue into a cumulative sleep debt which
can only be reversed by sleep. An individual who has obtained required
sleep performs better even after long hours awake or during altered
work schedules. An individual who is fatigued typically shows a decline
in performance by requiring more time to complete a given task. Two
nights of an individual's usual sleep requirement will typically
stabilize the sleep pattern and restore acceptable levels of waking
alertness and performance. More frequent recovery periods reduce
cumulative fatigue more effectively than less frequent ones. For
example, weekly recovery periods afford a higher likelihood of
relieving acute fatigue than monthly recovery periods. Consequently,
regulations that ensure minimum days off per week are critical for
minimizing the effects of cumulative fatigue over longer periods of
time.
The NASA findings and recommendations have been summarized in a
1995 NASA Technical Memorandum titled ``Principles and Guidelines for
Duty and Rest Scheduling in Commercial Aviation.''
[[Page 65954]]
This is the first document that NASA intends to publish. This first
document is intended to be concise, focused on operational
considerations and to provide specific scientific input to this complex
issue. The second document will provide the specific scientific
references that support the principles and guidelines outlined in the
first document. The second document will be longer and will focus on
the scientific considerations related to these issues. NASA has assured
the FAA that the Technical Reports presently in the docket contain the
data on which the results and conclusions in both the first and second
document are based. While not every NASA finding or recommendation is
specifically reflected in this proposal, the overall thrust of this
proposal is consistent with those findings and recommendations.
Specific findings of the 1995 NASA memorandum are discussed and where
relevant referenced by paragraph number in the discussion of specific
proposals in this document.
National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations (NTSB)
Issues of fatigue in transportation have been of special concern to
the NTSB in all modes of transportation. In 1989, the NTSB made three
recommendations to the Department of Transportation (DOT) to encourage
an aggressive Federal program to address the problems of fatigue and
sleep issues in transportation safety:
Expedite a coordinated research program on the effects of fatigue,
sleepiness, sleep disorders, and circadian factors on transportation
system safety. (I-89-1)
Develop and disseminate educational material for transportation
industry personnel and management regarding shift work; scheduled work
and rest; and proper regimens of health, diet, and rest. (I-89-2)
Review and upgrade regulations governing hours of service for all
modes to ensure that they are consistent and that they incorporate the
results of the latest research on fatigue and sleep issues. (I-89-3)
Further NTSB recommendations were issued as a result of the August
18, 1993, Douglas DC-8-61 freighter crash at the Leeward Point Airfield
at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba after the captain
lost control of the airplane on approach. The airplane was destroyed by
impact forces and a post accident fire, and the three flight
crewmembers sustained serious injuries. NTSB determined that among the
probable causes of this accident were impaired judgment, impaired
decision-making, and impaired flying abilities of the captain and
flightcrew due to the effects of fatigue.
In the letter accompanying the NTSB Safety Recommendations issued
as a result of the accident, the NTSB cited the fact that FAA's flight
and duty rules applicable to part 121 and 135 certificate holders, as
interpreted, allow flight crewmembers to conduct flights under part 91,
e.g., ferry flights for their certificate holders following the
completion of flights conducted under part 121 or 135, without having
to count these flight hours or duty time toward the part 121 or 135
flight time duty time limitations and rest requirements. The NTSB
concluded that ``the accident trip was under the provisions of a
combination of separate regulations that allowed extended flight and
duty times to be scheduled, contrary to safe operating practices.'' The
NTSB went on to note that the United States and France are the only
countries in the world that base their aviation hours of service
regulations on flight time, while most other countries base them on
duty time or a combination of duty and flight time.
As a result of the Guantanamo Bay accident, the NTSB issued the
following Safety Recommendations that relate to flight and duty time
limits:
(1) Revise part 121 to require that flight time accumulated in
noncommercial ``tail end'' ferry flights conducted under part 91, as a
result of 14 CFR, part 121, revenue flights, be included in the flight
crewmember's total flight and duty time accrued during those revenue
operations. (A-94-105)
(2) Expedite the review and upgrade of flight/duty time limitations
of the Federal Aviation Regulations to ensure that they incorporate the
results of the latest research on fatigue and sleep issues. (A-94-106)
The NTSB also reiterated an earlier recommendation that the FAA
require U.S. air carriers operating under 14 CFR part 121, to include,
as part of pilot training, a program to educate pilots about the
detrimental effects of fatigue, and strategies for avoiding fatigue and
countering its effects. (A-94-5)
Aviation Safety Reporting System
The FAA has recently examined incident reports submitted by pilots
to NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System. Since January 1, 1986, NASA
has received several reports of situations resulting from fatigue from
pilots engaged in part 121 operations and 200 reports from pilots
conducting part 135 operations. Although these incidents did not
actually result in accidents, they were of a sufficiently serious
nature that pilots took the trouble to file a report with NASA with the
hope of gaining the attention of the regulatory authorities.
Petitions for Rulemaking
The FAA has received several petitions for rulemaking on flight,
duty, and rest requirements:
On June 1, 1989, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA)
petitioned the FAA to amend part 121, Subpart R of the FAR (which
contains the flight time limitations for flag operations). This
petition primarily addressed the need for rulemaking to address the
industry wide technological airplane changes that have taken place
since these rules were promulgated, such as airplanes that require only
two pilots on long distance flights and significant improvements in
cockpit automation and noise reduction. Specifically, the petition
requested that two-pilot flight crews be allowed to fly 12 hours
between required rest periods.
On June 22, 1990, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) petitioned
the FAA to amend Secs. 121.471 and 135.265 to delete the reduced rest
provisions and to increase the required minimum rest for flight
crewmembers who are scheduled to fly fewer than 8 hours in a 24-hour
period to 10 hours with at least 8 hours in a rest facility; propose
longer rest for flight crewmembers who are scheduled to fly more than 8
hours or who make more than eight landings in a 24-hour period; limit
duty period time to 14 consecutive hours in a 24-hour period; mandate 1
calendar day free of duty every 7 days, even when flight crewmembers
are assigned reserve and/or training duties; and restrict air carriers
from interrupting a flight crewmember's rest by communicating with him
or her during a required rest period.
On September 12, 1990, the Regional Airline Pilot Association
(RAPA) petitioned to amend Sec. 135.265 of the FAR to delete the
reduced rest provisions for flight crewmembers who are scheduled to fly
in pressurized aircraft during a 24-hour period and increase the
minimum rest period to 10 hours with at least 9 hours in a rest
facility. For those crewmembers scheduled to fly in unpressurized
aircraft, and those who make more than seven landings in a 24-hour
period, RAPA petitioned to require a 12-hour rest with at least 10
hours in a rest facility. RAPA petitioned also for an amendment to
Sec. 135.265(a) of the FAR which would reduce the total flight time
allowed per year to 1,000 hours and per month to 100 hours.
[[Page 65955]]
On November 25, 1991, Mr. Thomas T. Gasta, a captain on turbo-jet
aircraft, petitioned the FAA to amend the definitions in part 1 of the
FAR to include a definition of rest that would ensure that a rest
period is free from restraint and free from responsibility for work.
Mr. Gasta's particular concern is to ensure that reserve time is not
considered rest.
The FAA has considered each of these petitions for rulemaking in
preparing this NPRM.
Commuter Rulemaking
The FAA has issued a proposed rulemaking that would affect commuter
operations, in general, including applicable flight time limitations
and rest requirements (Notice 95-5, 60 FR 16230; March 29, 1995).
The effect of Notice 95-5, if adopted, would be to apply the part
121 domestic flight time limitations and rest requirements to certain
commuter operations within the United States and the part 121 flag
flight time limitations and rest requirements to certain commuter
operations to or from the United States. Thus, that proposal would
eliminate the present differences between part 121 and part 135 flight
time limitations and rest requirements for affected commuter
operations. For all of the reasons discussed in this preamble, the FAA
has decided to propose one set of duty period limitations, flight time
limitations, and rest requirements for flight crewmembers engaged in
air transportation (domestic, flag, supplemental, commuter and on-
demand operations). Since, if adopted, this proposal would eliminate
all of the present differences between parts 121 and 135 in this
subject area, it overrides the related proposal and discussion in
Notice 95-5. Nonetheless, in any final rule action based on this
proposal, the FAA will consider, where relevant, any comments relating
to flight time limitations and rest requirements submitted in response
to Notice 95-5.
If the commuter rulemaking is issued as a final rule, the
compliance date for the flight time limitations and rest requirements
of that rule will be coordinated with the effective date of any final
rule that may be issued as a result of this NPRM, so that certificate
holders conducting commuter operations will have to change their
procedures for scheduling duty periods, flight time, and rest only
once.
The Proposal
General
This proposal is a preventive measure designed to address the
potential safety problems associated with fatigue-based performance
decrements. This proposal is not a response to specific accidents, but
rather to extensive data which shows a relationship between fatigue and
a decrement in performance. This proposed measure would place
limitations on flight crewmember hours of service by requiring certain
scheduling limitations and minimum rest periods.
The proposed rule would simplify existing flight crewmember flight
time limitations and rest requirements by replacing existing Subparts
Q, R, and S of part 121 with a new Subpart Q and revising most of
subpart F of part 135. Subpart Q of part 121 would not differentiate
between domestic, flag, and supplemental operations as current
regulations do, and subpart F of part 135 would not differentiate
between commuter and on-demand operations.
As stated previously, the proposed regulatory limitations for parts
121 and 135 are based in part on knowledge of effects of fatigue as
reflected in the scientific studies done by NASA. These proposed
amendments would be compatible with air carrier operations and would
provide reasonable, basic limitations that are conducive to safety.
The FAA considered a number of options prior to proposing those
outlined in this notice. The proposal in this notice takes a combined
approach based on duty period limitations, flight time scheduling
limitations, daily and weekly rest requirements, and requirements for
augmented flight crews. Since the studies concerning fatigue in flight
operations could not determine any fatigue based rationale for
differentiating between types of operations, a single proposed set of
scheduling limitations was selected for all types of operations. The
proposal is designed to provide science based parameters for duty
limitations and rest requirements and, at the same time, be
understandable to everyone involved in flight operations. The proposal
would establish a basic scheduling limitation for two pilot flight
crews of 14 hours of scheduled duty, 10 hours of scheduled flight time,
and 10 hours of scheduled rest. Certificate holders would have
additional flexibility under the proposal to increase the length of
scheduled duty periods, but only under certain conditions. The proposed
scheduled maximum 14 hour duty period, 10 hours of scheduled flight
time, and 10 hour rest period are consistent with the NASA ``Principles
and Guidelines'' (Specific Principles, Guidelines, and Recommendations
2.2.3 and 2.1.2, hereafter referred to as ``Recommendations'') for 2-
pilot crews.
Although not a proposal in this notice, the FAA also requests that
commenters provide scientific data concerning the amount of flight time
that two pilot flightcrews should be allowed to fly in a 14-hour duty
period, particularly on long range international flights that infringe
on the flight crewmember's window of circadian low (2 a.m. to 6 a.m. at
the crewmember's home base time).
Applicability
Proposed Secs. 121.471 and 135.261 state the applicability of these
amendments. Subpart Q in part 121 would provide duty period
limitations, flight time limitations, and rest requirements for flight
crewmembers in domestic, flag, and supplemental operations. Subpart F
in part 135 would provide duty period limitations, flight time
limitations, and rest requirements for commuter and on-demand
operations.
The proposed duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and
rest requirements would also be applicable to duty periods and flight
time performed for a certificate holder conducting part 91 operations,
as specified in proposed Secs. 121.1, 121.487, 135.1, and 135.275.
Terms and Definitions
Proposed Secs. 121.471 and 135.261 contain a list of terms and
definitions applicable to the proposed amendments.
The proposal defines ``approved sleeping quarters'' to mean an area
designated for the purpose of flight crewmembers obtaining sleep as
approved by the Administrator. See Advisory Circular 121-31,
``Flightcrew Sleeping Quarters and Rest Facilities'' for guidance on
methods obtaining FAA approval for aircraft used in part 121 and 135
operations. Sleeping quarters that are already in use that have been
determined to be adequate by the Administrator, such as bunks or other
horizontal surfaces, will not need to be reapproved because of this
proposed rule. The FAA recognizes that there is a difference between
the term ``adequate'' sleeping quarters and ``approved'' sleeping
quarters. Approved sleeping quarters could include additional
possibilities that were not part of ``adequate sleeping quarters'' as
previously interpreted. For example, formerly passenger seats were
never considered adequate for use as sleeping quarters. Recently,
however, a
[[Page 65956]]
new type of passenger seat has been developed that meets the guidelines
in AC 121-31 and therefore could be approved for use as sleeping
quarters by certificate holders operating under part 121 or part 135.
The proposed rule defines four kinds of time: assigned time, duty
involving flight time (referred to as ``duty period''), reserve time,
and rest (referred to as ``rest period''). Definitions of each of these
times, as well as other terms, as proposed in Secs. 121.471 and135.261,
are discussed below.
``Assigned time'' is time when the flight crewmember is assigned by
the certificate holder to activities other than flight duties. Assigned
time may include activities such as deadhead transportation, training,
loading baggage, taking tickets, administrative tasks and any other
assignments, excluding reserve time and required rest periods. Assigned
time may be performed as part of a duty period, in which case the
proposed duty period limitations and rest requirements in
Secs. 121.473, 121.475, and 135.263 would apply. Rest requirements
associated with assigned time that is not part of a duty period are
found in proposed Secs. 121.483(f) and 135.271(f).
The proposed rule defines ``duty period'' as the period of elapsed
time between reporting for an assignment involving flight time and
release from that assignment by the certificate holder. The time is
calculated using either Coordinated Universal Time or the local time of
the flight crewmember's home base.
The proposed rule defines two types of reserve: ``Reserve time''
and ``standby duty.'' ``Reserve time'' is defined as a period of time
when a flight crewmember must be available to report upon notice for a
duty period. The certificate holder must allow the flight crewmember a
minimum of 1 hour or more to report. Reserve time is not considered
part of a rest period and is not considered a duty period. Reserve time
does not include activities defined as assigned time. Reserve time ends
when the crewmember reports for a duty period, when the crewmember is
notified of a future flight assignment and released from all further
responsibilities until report time for that assignment, or when the
flight crewmember has been relieved for a rest period.
``Standby duty'' in the proposed rule must be treated just like any
other duty period associated with flight. Standby reserve duty is any
period of time when a flight crewmember is required to report for a
flight assignment in less than 1 hour from the time of notification. It
also includes time when a flight crewmember is required to report to
and remain at a specific facility (e.g., airport, crew lounge)
designated by a certificate holder.
The proposed rule defines ``rest period'' as the time period free
of all restraint or duty for a certificate holder and free of all
responsibility for work or duty should the occasion arise. Rest periods
are considered personal time. Rest periods are provided to give the
flight crewmember a predetermined opportunity for rest.
For example, if a flight crewmember is scheduled for a duty period
which ends on 1200 on Tuesday and requires 14 hours of rest and the
flight crewmember is not scheduled for another duty period until 1200
on Thursday, then the 48 hours between duty periods is considered a
rest period. The flight crewmember's minimum rest period requirements
would be satisfied after 14 hours from the time the duty period ended.
The air carrier may reschedule the flight crewmember, but must ensure
the minimum rest period requirements are satisfied. It should be noted
that the crewmember cannot be required by the air carrier to contact
the air carrier, answer the phone, carry a beeper, remain at a specific
location or in any other way be responsible to the air carrier during a
scheduled rest period. This does not prohibit the flight crewmember
from contacting the air carrier at his or her own discretion.
For clarification purposes, the proposal also defines a ``calendar
day'' as the period of elapsed time, using Coordinated Universal Time
or local time, that begins at midnight and ends 24 hours later at the
next midnight. The definition is needed because certificate holders
have been confused about the application of the term. ``Calendar day''
is defined in the proposed rule in a manner consistent with past
interpretations of the rule.
Also, for clarification purposes, the proposal defines
``operational delays'' as delays that are beyond the control of the
certificate holder such as those that would be caused by weather,
aircraft equipment malfunctions, and air traffic control delays. It
would not include late arriving passengers, late food service, late
fuel trucks, or delays in loading baggage, freight, or mail, or similar
events.
Flight Crewmember Duty, Flight, and Rest
Proposed Secs. 121.473, 121.475, and 135.263 would establish
maximum scheduled duty periods and a maximum scheduled amount of flight
time for flight crewmembers within the maximum scheduled duty period.
In addition, the proposal would establish minimum rest requirements for
flight crewmembers, including requirements that apply when flight crews
are augmented and when on board rest facilities are provided.
Current rules are primarily based on flight time. In addition, in
some cases the current rules are based on actual rather than scheduled
flight time. The major basis for the proposed rule is scheduled duty.
The reason for going to a scheduled duty rule is that it is more
consistent with current studies relating to fatigue.
For the purposes of assignments involving flight time, the duty
period includes the total elapsed time between when the flight
crewmember reports for a flight assignment, as required by the air
carrier, and when the flight crewmember is relieved from duty by the
air carrier. A typical duty period for a flight crewmember would
consist of pre-flight duties and post-flight duties assigned by the air
carrier. Pre-flight safety duties include aircraft emergency equipment
checks, flight planning/dispatch related duties, and complying with the
certificate holder's approved operations manual.
At least one industry study and information obtained from
crewmembers indicates that air carriers vary in how early they require
flight crewmembers to check in to begin their duty periods and pre-
flight duties. This check-in or report time varies depending on the
type of equipment flown and the flight destination. Carriers typically
require flight crewmembers to arrive 30 minutes to 1 hour before
scheduled departure. For international flights some carriers require
flight crewmembers to report for duty up to 2 hours before departure.
Post-flight safety duties include the post-landing duties, safe
deplaning of passengers, duties related to securing the aircraft, and
administrative responsibilities such as reporting inoperative equipment
to maintenance personnel. Typically, flight crewmembers are required to
remain on duty after the aircraft arrives at the gate to accomplish
these post-flight duties before they are relieved from duty.
A duty period may also include activities defined as ``assigned
time,'' as discussed under ``Terms and Definitions,'' above.
Thus, a flight crewmember's duty period is not solely a function of
whether the aircraft is airborne. Flight crewmembers perform important
safety duties during boarding and deplaning. This proposal, therefore,
is based on duty periods that include flight time
[[Page 65957]]
rather than solely on flight time. The FAA expects certificate holders
to establish realistic report and release times to allow flight
crewmembers sufficient time to complete these essential pre-flight and
post-flight safety activities.
Proposed Secs. 121.473 and 135.263 would provide for different duty
period limits based on the number of pilots assigned. Each duty period
would have a scheduled flight time limit and would be followed by a
required rest period. NASA (Recommendation 2.3.6) recognizes that the
use of additional flight crewmembers justifies longer duty periods if
the flight crewmembers are provided on-duty sleep opportunities.
To allow flexibility a scheduled duty period could be extended two
hours if the extension is needed because of operational delays. Rest
periods may be reduced by up to one hour only if the reduction is
needed because of operational delays and then only if the pilot has not
exceeded the pilot's scheduled maximum duty-period limitations. If a
rest period is reduced, the next rest period would have to be extended.
Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed limitations on duty
periods and flight time and the proposed rest requirements for pilots.
For one- and two-pilot crews. In proposed Sec. 135.263(b), the
basic duty period scheduling limitation for a one-pilot crew would be
14 hours, including no more than 8 scheduled hours of flight time. In
proposed Secs. 121.473(b) and 135.263(c), the basic duty period
limitations for a two-pilot crew would be 14 hours, including no more
than 10 scheduled hours of flight time. The minimum rest period for
one- and two-pilot crews would be 10 hours. The proposed 10-hour limit
on scheduled flight time and the proposed 10-hour minimum rest are
consistent with NASA Recommendations 2.3.3 and 2.1.1, respectively.
These proposed duty periods for one- and two-pilot crews could be
extended to 16 hours due to operational delays. The rest periods may be
reduced to 9 hours if the actual duty period is not more than 14 hours
and if the reduction is needed due to operational delays. If the rest
period is reduced the next rest period would have to be a minimum of 11
hours. A duty period extended due to operational delays may involve
longer than scheduled flight time.
Table 1.--Pilot Duty Period, Flight Time and Rest Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rest hours
Minimum following Extended duty period
No. of pilots Duty period hours Flight time hours rest Reduced rest hours reduced rest hours \2\
hours \1\ (compensatory)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (part 135)...................... No more than 14...... No more than 8....... 10 9, May only be 11 Up to 16 only if due
reduced if duty to operational
period has not delays
exceeded 14.
2................................. No more than 14...... No more than 10...... 10 9, May only be 11 Up to 16 only if due
reduced if duty to operational
period has not delays
exceeded 14.
3................................. No more than 16...... No more than 12...... 14 12, May only be 16 Up to 18 only if due
reduced if duty to operational
period has not delays
exceeded 16.
3 Each pilot must have sleep More than 16, but no No more than 16...... 18 16, May only be 20 Up to 20 only if due
opportunity and approved sleeping more than 18. reduced if duty to operational
quarters must be available. period has not delays
exceeded 18.
4 Each pilot must have sleep More than 18 but no No more than 18...... 22 20, May only be 24 Up to 26 only if due
opportunity ad approved sleeping more than 24. reduced if duty to operational
quarters must be available \3\. period has not delays
exceeded 24.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rest periods may be reduced only when the actual duty period does not exceed the maximum scheduled duty period for that crew composition and if the
pilot is provided a compensatory rest period. This compensatory rest period must be scheduled to begin no later than 24 hours after the beginning of
the reduced rest period.
\2\ The flights to which the pilot is assigned must at block out time be expected to reach their destination within the extended duty period.
\3\ Applies only to duty periods with one or more flights that land or take off outside the 48 contiguous states and DC.
Longer Duty Period for a 3-Pilot Crew. Under proposed
Secs. 121.473(c) and 135.263(d), the certificate holder may schedule up
to a 16-hour duty period with up to 12 hours of flight time if 3 pilots
are assigned to the flight. The required rest would be 14 hours. This
duty period could be extended to 18 hours due to operational delays.
The required rest could be reduced to 12 hours if the actual duty
period is not more than 16 hours. If the rest is reduced the next rest
would have to be 16 hours.
Longer duty period for three-pilot flightcrews with approved
sleeping quarters. Under proposed Secs. 121.473(d) and 135.263(e), if
three pilots are assigned and if approved sleeping quarters are
provided, the scheduled duty period can be up to 18 hours with a
scheduled flight time limit of 16 hours. The required rest would be 18
scheduled hours. Each pilot must be given an opportunity to rest in
approved sleeping quarters. The duty period could be extended to 20
hours due to operational delays. The rest could be reduced to 16 hours
if the actual duty period is not more than 18 hours. If the rest is
reduced, the next rest would have to be 20 hours.
Longer duty period if outside the U.S., four pilots, and approved
sleeping quarters. Under proposed Secs. 121.473(e) and 135.263(f), if
the duty period involves one or more flights outside the 48 contiguous
states, if four pilots are assigned, and if approved sleeping quarters
are provided, the scheduled duty period can be up to 24 hours with 18
hours of scheduled flight time. Each
[[Page 65958]]
pilot must be given an opportunity to rest in flight in approved
sleeping quarters. The required scheduled rest following the duty
period would be 22 hours. The duty period could be extended to 26 hours
due to operational delays. The rest could be reduced to 20 hours if the
duty period is not greater than 24 hours. If the rest is reduced, the
next rest would have to be 24 hours.
Reporting for a duty period. The effect of the proposal is that if
a flight crewmember reports for duty, including standby duty, as
required and finds that the flight assignment was incorrectly scheduled
or that the flight is delayed or canceled, a duty period nevertheless
would have begun. For example, a flight crewmember may report for duty
as scheduled, only to find that the assigned report time is incorrect
and that duty actually begins 2 hours later. The carrier could either
keep the flight crewmember on duty or release the flight crewmember for
a complete rest period under the applicable section of this proposed
rule. While the rule language does not spell out in detail this kind of
example, or application, this is how the concept of duty period would
work.
Extension of duty periods. The intent of this proposed rule is to
ensure that flight crewmembers are provided adequate opportunity to
rest through properly scheduled duty periods, flight times, and rest.
Regular delays on certain routes or deviations from certain schedules
would indicate that the schedules need to be adjusted to comply with
the proposed limitations. The proposal acknowledges that certain
delays, such as adverse weather, cannot be anticipated. A flight
crewmember would not be considered to be scheduled for flight time or a
duty period in excess of flight time or duty period limitations if the
flights to which he is assigned are scheduled and normally terminate
within the limitations, but due to operational delays (such as adverse
weather conditions, equipment malfunctions, and air traffic control)
are not at block out time expected to reach their destination within
the scheduled time. Operational delays do not include late arriving
passengers, late food service, late fuel trucks, delays in handling
baggage, freight, or mail, or similar events. (See proposed
Secs. 121.473, 121.475, 121.479, 135.263, 135.267.)
The FAA is proposing limiting the extension of any scheduled duty
period due to operational delays to no more than 2 hours. If at any
time during a duty period it is determined that, due to operational
delays, a scheduled flight will not terminate within the scheduled
termination of that duty period plus 2 hours, then the flight
crewmembers must be relieved of duty before initiating that flight
segment. They may be scheduled for another flight as long as that
flight is scheduled to terminate within the original scheduled duty
period limitations plus two hours. The FAA believes that 2 hours
provides flexibility in the event of operational delays and also limits
the possibility of flight crewmembers being on a continuous duty period
even when the duty period is extended due to circumstances beyond the
control of the certificate holder. The limit on flight time hours is
discussed elsewhere in this preamble.
Certificate holders would be expected to recognize when certain
schedules need adjustment due to regularly experienced or seasonal
delays.
Augmented Flight Crews
The longer scheduled duty periods that would be allowed under
proposed Sec. 121.473 (c), (d), and (e) and Sec. 135.263 (c), (d), and
(e) are contingent upon the assignment of additional pilots in order to
maintain safety by distributing the workload and permitting more rest.
This will ensure that pilots are alert and can contribute to safe
operations. It is important to note that if a pilot is scheduled for a
duty period longer than 14 hours, the appropriate number of additional
pilots would have to be present on every flight segment within that
duty period. In practical terms, the FAA expects that this would occur
on larger aircraft and, generally, long-haul operations with relatively
few flight segments. This result would be consistent with the intent of
the proposal and consistent with current industry practice.
It should be noted, however, that if a flight crew with additional,
non-required pilots is assigned a duty period of 14 hours or less, the
certificate holder may follow Sec. 121.473(b) or Sec. 135.263(b),
(i.e., provide a rest period of 10 hours).
Proposed Secs. 121.473 (d) and (e) would require opportunities for
flightcrew members to rest and availability of approved sleeping
quarters for duty periods of more than 16 hours. The provision for
additional flight crewmembers and for on board sleeping quarters takes
into account the extended time flight crewmembers may be on duty to
complete long range flight segments. Existing rules, (Secs. 121.483,
121.485, 121.507, 121.509, 121.521, 121.523) require augmented
flightcrews for longer duty periods.
Existing rules in some cases, under present Sec. 121.523(c), allow
a scheduled duty period of 30 hours; however, the FAA believes that 24
hours should be the limit of any scheduled duty period.
This proposal does not provide for substituting flight engineers
for pilots. Rather the augmentation of pilots must take place
regardless of the number of flight engineers assigned.
Reduction of the rest period. In order to provide additional
flexibility, the FAA is proposing to allow the reduction of rest due to
operational delays. The rest period may be reduced only if the maximum
scheduled duty period limitation has not been exceeded or extended.
Table 1 provides information on reduced rest periods followed by
compensatory rest periods.
Flight Engineers
Proposed Sec. 121.475 would provide similar requirements for flight
engineers. Table 2 provides a summary of the proposed limitations on
duty periods and flight time and the proposed rest requirements for
pilots and flight engineers. Present part 121 rules for domestic
operations do not contain separate flight time limitation requirements
for flight engineers. The flag and supplemental operations rules
(Secs. 121.493 and 121.511) deal with flight engineers by referencing
other sections within the applicable subpart. To avoid any possible
confusion as to which flight time limitation rules apply to flight
engineers, the FAA proposes in Sec. 121.475 to address flight engineers
separately.
[[Page 65959]]
Table 2.--Flight Engineer Duty Period, Flight Time and Rest Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rest hours
Minimum Reduced rest hours following Extended duty period
No. of flight engineers Duty period hours Flight time hours rest hours (\1\) reduced rest hours \2\
(compensatory)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. No more than 14...... No more than 10..... 10 9, May only be 11 Up to 16 only if due
reduced if duty to operational
period has not delays
exceeded 14.
1................................. No more than 16...... No more than 12..... 14 12, May only be 16 Up to 18 only if due
reduced if duty to operational
period has not delays
exceeded 16.
2 Each flight engineer must have More than 16, but no No more than 16..... 18 16, May only be 20 Up to 20 only if due
sleep opportunity and approved more than 20. reduced if duty to operational
sleeping quarters must be period has not delays
available. exceeded 18.
2 Each flight engineer must have More than 18 but no No more than 18..... 22 20, May only be 24 Up to 26 only if due
sleep opportunity and approved more than 24 \3\. reduced if duty to operational
sleeping quarters must be period has not delays
available. exceeded 24.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rest periods may be reduced only when the actual duty period does not exceed the maximum scheduled duty period for that crew composition and if the
flight engineer is provided a compensatory rest period. This compensatory rest period must be scheduled to begin no later than 24 hours after the
beginning of the reduced rest period.
\2\ The flights to which the flight engineer is assigned must at block out time be expected to reach their destination within the extended duty period.
\3\ Applies only to duty periods with one or more flights that land or take off outside the 48 contiguous States and DC.
Reserve and Standby Assignments
Current regulations do not specifically cover the issue of reserve
time and standby duty. Within the air transportation industry two types
of generic reserve assignments have developed. One type, usually
referred to as ``standby reserve,'' is essentially the same as a duty
period, and as discussed below would be treated as duty for duty period
limitation and rest requirement purposes. The other type, here called
``reserve time'' is not considered part of a rest period and is not
considered part of a duty period and therefore would be dealt with
separately under this proposal. Proposed Secs. 121.477 and 135.265
provide reserve assignment requirements.
Under the proposal a standby duty period must be scheduled in
accordance with proposed Secs. 121.473, 121.475, or 135.263. A standby
duty ends when the duty period associated with a subsequent flight
assignment ends or the flight crewmember is relieved from standby duty
for a scheduled rest period.
Standby duty periods are assigned because the air carrier believes
that some time within that period the flight crewmember will be needed
for a flight assignment and must report for flight assignment within
less than 1 hour of being notified. Standby duty also includes time
when a flight crewmember is required to report to and remain at a
specific facility (e.g., airport, crew lounge) designated by a
certificate holder. Usually flight crewmembers are assigned to standby
duty at the airport. In addition, since the industry has indicated that
they treat standby as duty, this proposed definition should not impose
any additional burdens on certificate holders. It is because of the
momentary anticipation of a flight assignment, which prevents a pilot
from planning for adequate rest, that standby assignments are treated
as duty periods.
The proposed standby duty period would be treated as a duty period
that is associated with flight, regardless of whether the flight
crewmember is ever assigned to flight time during that standby duty
period or not. Standby duty periods would be scheduled in accordance
with proposed duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and
rest requirements. A standby duty period commences when the flight
crewmember is placed on standby duty and ends when the flight
crewmember is relieved of duty, whether that duty is standby or flight.
Following standby duty, the flight crewmember must be scheduled for and
must receive the same amount of rest as he or she would receive if he
or she accumulated flight time, even if there is no actual flight time.
Reserve time is a period of time when a flight crewmember is not on
duty but nonetheless must be available to report upon notice for a duty
period. During reserve time a flight crewmember typically goes about
his or her off duty routine, obtaining rest as needed during each 24
hour period. Reserve time is not considered part of a rest period, is
not considered part of a duty period, and is not considered assigned
time. Reserve time ends when the crewmember is released, the crewmember
is notified of a future duty period assignment and released from all
further responsibility until the report time for that assignment, or
the crewmember reports for a duty period. The certificate holder must
allow the flight crewmember a minimum of 1 hour to report.
Often flight crewmembers are on reserve for days at a time and are
given 10 or more hours notification prior to a duty period assignment.
However, there are times when a flight crewmember is given fewer than
10 hours notification and may not be completely rested. Some flight
crewmembers arise early in the morning and may have been awake for many
hours at the time they receive notification of an evening flight. These
flight crewmembers may not have an opportunity for a complete rest
period before the flight assignment. The same may be true of a flight
crewmember who does not awaken until the middle of the afternoon and
receives fewer than 10 hours notification of a duty period which starts
after midnight.
Since it is difficult to predict when an individual flight
crewmember sleeps and when he or she awakens, no attempt has been made
in the proposal to correlate the amount of notice a flight crewmember
should receive with the time of day. Rather, the emphasis is placed on
the flight crewmember's receiving enough notice to provide an
[[Page 65960]]
opportunity for rest before the duty period assignment. If a flight
crewmember receives at least 10 hours notice there would be enough time
for the flight crewmember to be fully rested before reporting for a
duty period of 14 hours. However, under proposed Secs. 121.477(b) and
135.265(b), when flight crewmembers receive fewer than 10 hours notice
for a duty period assignment, there is a reduction in the length of
that duty period. While it could be possible for a flight crewmember to
receive 10 hours rest before being placed on reserve and then given 10
hours of notification in order to serve a 14-hour duty period, the FAA
believes that efficient crew scheduling will minimize the possibility
of this happening. Table 3 shows for each proposed amount of
notification time the proposed corresponding duty period limitation.
Proposed Secs. 121.477(b)(2) and 135.265(b)(2) would provide
another option under which a flight crewmember could be given a minimum
6-hour period of protected time for each 24 hours of reserve time.
During this 6-hour period of protected time the certificate holder
would not be able to contact the flight crewmember or assign the flight
crewmember to any duty. The 6-hour period must be assigned before the
flight crewmember begins the reserve time assignment and must occur at
the same time during each 24-hour period during a reserve time
assignment. Any duty period assignment must be scheduled to be
completed within the 18-hour reserve time, exclusive of the 6 hours of
protected time. The length of the duty period and the subsequent rest
period must be in accordance with Secs. 121.473, 121.475, or 135.263.
The FAA believes that this option would allow flexibility for the
certificate holder while giving the flight crewmember sufficient
certainty to plan for and obtain adequate rest. While the 6 hours of
protected time must be the same 6 hours for any reserve assignment, it
could be a different 6 hours for subsequent reserve assignments (e.g.,
a subsequent reserve assignment following duty or assigned time).
Under either reserve time assignment option, the flight crewmember
must be notified of which option has been selected before the beginning
of the reserve time assignment.
Although NASA recommends a predictable and protected 8-hour sleep
opportunity (2.6.2), the FAA believes that the above described options
are practical and in most instances will provide at least an 8-hour
rest opportunity. Either the flight crewmember is provided an
opportunity for a full 10-hour rest period or, in the case of a short
notice, the flight crewmember's duty period is limited, or the flight
crewmember is able to plan each day with the certain knowledge there
will be a minimum 6-hour period for undisturbed rest. Thus, these
options would protect against excess fatigue without eliminating the
objective of the reserve system and without placing a significant
economic burden on the industry.
There have been a number of complaints stating that in some cases
pilots were unable to obtain enough rest because they were given a
reserve assignment immediately following a duty period and then were
called for duty before they had received an adequate rest. While under
these proposed rules such a practice would be a violation because of
the requirement for a minimum rest period between duty periods, the FAA
has included in proposed Secs. 121.477(b) and 135.265(b) a requirement
that a flight crewmember must be given a 10-hour rest period before
beginning a reserve time assignment. Sections 121.483(c) and 135.271(c)
state that required rest periods can occur concurrently so this
proposed requirement may not require an additional rest period.
The FAA believes that both of these methods of handling reserve
time assignments would provide more flexibility, would be less costly
for certificate holders, and would be more likely to ensure adequate
rest than the current rules. Under the lookback provision in the
current rules, for instance, a flight crewmember on reserve could not
take a flight assignment unless he or she had a scheduled rest period
in the previous 24 hours. There have been situations in which
certificate holders have professed experiencing difficulties in
implementing rest requirements for flight crewmembers on reserve.
Recognizing this, the FAA has developed this proposal. However, if this
proposal on reserve time assignments is not issued as a final rule, the
FAA intends to ensure that the current rule, as interpreted, is being
correctly implemented.
Other Proposals on Reserve Time Presented During ARAC Discussions
Southwest Airlines proposed a system under which the total of
reserve time and ``time engaged in scheduled air transportation'' could
not exceed 18 hours (16 hours if this period included any time during
the hours between 0300 and 0459). In addition, Southwest proposed that
reserve time between 0001 and 1000 not be included if the air carrier
did not contact the crewmember during that period. One option presented
by the Air Line Pilots Association is similar to Southwest's proposal.
ALPA would not allow reserve time and duty time to exceed 16 hours. A
14-hour maximum would apply when the duty time is not contained with
the period between 0500 and 0259.
The FAA has several concerns about this approach. First, we believe
it will be difficult to understand and to apply consistently. More
importantly, although it appears to provide for some reductions in duty
time, depending on the time of day a crewmember is notified of a flight
assignment, it do
FR Doc. 95-30547 Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements
es not expressly provide for any dedicated rest
opportunity. Moreover, it is not clear exactly what would be
encompassed by Southwest's term ``time engaged in scheduled air
transportation.'' The FAA requests that commenters supporting this
approach provide additional details about this alternative and
operational scenarios on how it would be applied. Commenters should
provide information on how this alternative does or does not provide
the flexibility of the options proposed in this NPRM, and how this
alternative provides an equivalent level of safety to the options
proposed here.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters proposed two
alternatives for reserve duty. The first alternative proposes that a
crewmember could be assigned a reserve period of 24 consecutive hours
if the crewmember is given 11 hours or more advance notification for a
flight assignment. The second alternative would allow a crewmember to
be assigned a reserve period of up to 12 consecutive hours if the
crewmember is given less than 11 hours of advance notification. In this
case, the total flight time and duty time could not exceed 17 hours.
The FAA believes that both of these options unnecessarily limit the
scheduling flexibility of the operator and that both would greatly
increase operators' costs while providing no increase in safety when
compared with the reserve options proposed in this NPRM.
The Air Transport Association would give the operator five
alternatives for dealing with reserve time. (1) The carrier could give
the employee at least eight consecutive hours of rest during any 24
hour period on reserve; (2) The carrier could give the crewember at
least 10 hours of advance notice of any assignment, at which point the
crewmember would be released on rest until the time to report; (3) The
carrier could not assign the crewmember on
[[Page 65961]]
reserve to flights between midnight and 5 a.m.; (4) The carrier could
assign the crewmember on reserve to no more than two flight segments;
or (5) The carrier could establish alternative policies and procedures
to ensure that a crewmember will not be assigned to a flight unless
that crewmember is ``adequately rested for that flight assignment.''
The first three ATA proposals are generally similar to this NPRM.
The NPRM contains the option of blocking out a protected period of at
least six hours during which the crewmember could not be disturbed by
the employer. This is less restrictive than ATA's proposal (1),
although it involves a slightly longer period than would be provided by
proposal (3). Like ATA's proposal (2), the NPRM would provide for
advance notice of assgnments. However, the NPRM is not limited to a
single cut-off of 10 hours' notice. Carriers would be permitted to
assign crewmembers to duty periods that vary with the amount of advance
notice, down to as little as 4 hours' notice. Since ATA's proposal
number (4) does not address rest at all, it is not included in the
NPRM. Proposal number (5) sets no minimum standards for rest, and it,
too, is therefore not part of this NPRM.
The Air Line Pilots Association, in addition to the alternative
described above, offered a proposal somewhat similar to that of ATA.
ALPA's proposal appears intended to provide more stability for pilot
rest periods; it would not permit carriers to move the eight hour rest
period more than three hours in any 24-hour period. Similarly, ALPA
proposed a six-hour protected period, comparable to the five-hour
period proposed by ATA. Our comments on ATA's proposal apply to ALPA's
as well, i.e., we believe we have accomodated much of their objectives.
Another proposal advanced during the ARAC discussions came from a
labor/pilot group consisting mainly of Part 135 pilots. This proposal
would limit any combination of reserve time and duty periods to no more
than 18 hours or any duty assignment to no more than 14 hours. After
being on reserve for 18 hours, a crewmember would have to receive a 10-
hour rest period before accepting another reserve assignment. This
proposal is not included in the NPRM because it unnecessarily limits
the air carrier's reserve scheduling flexibility and provides no
increase in safety when compared with the options proposed in the NPRM.
Table 3.--Advance Notification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of hours notification prior to 8 or more hours but 6 or more hours but 4 or more hours but
report time 10 hours or more less than 10 less than 8 less than 6 Less than 4 hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum scheduled duty period...... Maximum scheduled duty No more than 12 hours. No more than 10 hours No more than 8 hours. No more than 6 hours.
period \1\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum scheduled duty period could be 14, 16, 18, or 24 hours.
Additional Duty Period Limitations and Reduced Rest
Current Secs. 121.471(g) and 135.263(d) state that a flight
crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for flight time in excess
of the flight time limitations if the flights to which he or she is
assigned normally terminate within the limitations, but due to
circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder (such as
adverse weather conditions) are not at block out time expected to reach
their destination within the scheduled time. These requirements do not
specify a limit to the flight time extensions under these
circumstances.
In theory, under the current rule language, duty periods could be
extended for unlimited periods of time as long as the extension was due
to operational causes beyond the control of the air carrier such as
weather, mechanical problems, and Air Traffic Control situations. This
could result in flight crewmembers who, after the first flight of a
flight schedule in a duty period, would be as much as 6 hours late, but
would still continue with the flight schedule. The NASA Scientific
Working Group determined that extended duty periods with no limit on
the amount of time which the duty period could be extended was one of
the major fatigue related problems with current flight crewmember
assignments (Recommendations 1.4, 2.1.2, and 2.3.3). Therefore, the FAA
has proposed to place a limit on the amount of time that a duty period
may be extended regardless of the nature of the delay.
Proposed Secs. 121.473, 121.475, and 135.263 would allow
certificate holders an extension of a duty period of not more than 2
hours beyond the maximum scheduled duty period if the extension is due
to operational delays not under the control of the certificate holder.
The proposed requirements would also allow the reduction of the
required rest if the flight crewmember has not exceeded the required
duty period (without the extension), if the flight crewmember is
provided with a longer subsequent rest period as specified, and if the
reduction in rest is due to operational delays. Reduced rest periods
may not be scheduled in advance.
Proposed Secs. 121.479 (a) and (b) and 135.267 (a) and (b) would
state that a flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for a
duty period or flight time in excess of the duty period or flight time
limitations if the duty period or flight times to which the flight
crewmember is assigned are scheduled and normally terminate within the
limitations, but due to operational delays are not at block out time
expected to reach their destination within the scheduled duty period or
flight time.
In addition, proposed Secs. 121.479(a) and 135.267(a) state that a
flight crewmember may not serve as a crewmember in an aircraft if, at
block out time for the purpose of flight, that flight crewmember's
actual elapsed duty time plus duty time scheduled for the next flight
will cause the flight crewmember to exceed the applicable duty period
limitations by more than two hours. However, there is no limit on
actual flight time accrued during a duty period, if the additional
flight time is due to operational delays, but in any event the duty
time limit may not be extended by more than 2 hours.
The proposal would allow a certificate holder the flexibility to
schedule the same crew on a flight even when that flight is going to be
late; however, it would not allow flight crewmembers to be scheduled
indefinitely even when the circumstances which caused them to be late
are beyond the control of the certificate holder. During a scheduled
flight assignment, if the combination of scheduled times for the
remaining flights would mean that the maximum scheduled duty period
would be exceeded by more than two hours, the flight crewmember would
have to be
[[Page 65962]]
rescheduled so that the remaining duty period to which he or she is
assigned will not exceed the maximum scheduled duty period by more than
two hours. This can be done by assigning a flight crewmember to a new
flight schedule or by reassigning the original scheduled flights so the
flight crewmember is relieved of duty before commencing the flight
which would extend beyond the maximum scheduled duty period plus two
hours.
Weekly and Monthly Flight Time Limitations
Proposed Secs. 121.481 and 135.269 would provide limits on the
amount of actual flight time which a flight crewmember can accrue in a
calendar month and in any 7 consecutive calendar days. These proposed
rules would replace current Secs. 121.471(a), 121.481 (d), (e), and
(f), 121.503 (d) and (e), 135.265(a) and 135.267(a). Although NASA
states that there is insufficient scientific information to provide
guidance in this area, these limits are proposed to counter any harmful
effects of any possible cumulative fatigue.
In addition to the scheduled flight time limits which are
integrated into the scheduled duty periods, weekly and monthly flight
time limits are proposed as follows:
Proposed Secs. 121.481(a) and 135.269(a) would limit a
flight crewmember to 32 flight hours in any 7 consecutive calendar
days.
Proposed Secs. 121.481(b) and 135.269(b) would limit a
flight crewmember to 100 flight hours in any calendar month.
In practice, this means that, before beginning to fly on any
particular day, a flight crewmember's actual accrued flight time for
the previous six days must be added to the flight time scheduled to be
flown that day. If the result is fewer than 32 hours, the flight
crewmember may begin and complete the day's scheduled flying even if
delays (which are beyond the carrier's control) encountered during the
day eventually cause the total time to exceed 32 hours. The same
principle applies for the calendar month flight time limitation.
Current regulations place varying limits on the amount of time that
a flight crewmember can serve. The variance is based on the type of
operation. Flight crewmembers given flight assignments under part 121
for domestic operations (Sec. 121.471(a)) are limited to 30 flight
hours in any 7 consecutive days. The 7 consecutive day limit for flag
operations is 32 flight hours (Sec. 121.481(d)) and there is no 7
consecutive day limit for supplemental operations. Under
Sec. 135.265(a) in scheduled operations the amount of flight time which
may be accrued in any 7 consecutive days is 34 hours and there is no 7
consecutive day limit for unscheduled operations. Sections 121.471(a)
and 121.481(e) restrict flight crewmembers serving in domestic or flag
operations conducted under part 121 to 100 hours in any calendar month
and Sec. 121.503(d) restricts flight crewmembers serving in
supplemental operations to 100 flight hours in any 30 consecutive days.
Section 121.521(c) allows certain flight crewmembers to accrue 120
hours in any 30 consecutive days. Section 135.265 allows flight
crewmembers serving in part 135 scheduled operations to accumulate 120
flight hours in any calendar month.
In addition, Sec. 121.471(a) restricts flight crewmembers engaged
in domestic operations conducted under part 121 to 1000 hours in any
calendar year. Section 135.265 allows flight crewmembers serving in
part 135 scheduled operations to serve as crewmembers during flight for
1200 hours in any calendar year, while Sec. 135.267 allows 1,400 flight
hours in a calendar year for unscheduled operations. Sections 121.503,
121.521, 135.267, and 135.269 also provide other calendar quarter and
90 consecutive day limitations.
The proposed rule would establish a common 32 hour limitation in
any 7 consecutive days, a 100 hour limitation in any calendar month,
and would eliminate quarterly, 90 consecutive day and calendar year
limitations.
The proposed rule does not provide a yearly flight time limitation
because the monthly limit would effectively restrict flight time to
1200 hours in a calendar year. Although the NASA document recommends
the annual flight time limitations be decreased a percentage of the
monthly requirement, it also states that there is not enough scientific
data to provide specific guidance in this area. The FAA believes that
this proposal contains sufficient additional rest provisions (i.e. 36
hours in 7 days, 10 hour rest periods, and 48 hours for crossing
multiple time zones). Because of the increase in rest requirements, the
FAA believes that safety would not be adversely affected because of a
lack of a yearly flight time limit which is less than the sum of all
the monthly flight time limits. At the same time the lack of annual
flight time limits will provide flexibility and the opportunity for
increased productivity. In view of the fact that there is no scientific
data to suggest a discrete yearly limit and the fact that the
requirement for rest has been increased, the FAA believes the proposed
rule will provide the appropriate level of safety.
The FAA believes that there is no longer justification for the
different weekly, monthly, and annual flight time limitations for
different types of operations and that proposing a single limitation
standard provides adequate safeguard against the effects of cumulative
fatigue, eliminates rules that do not have an adequate scientific
rationale, and also simplifies the overall limitations. The FAA asks
for comments from the public about the maximum number of hours a flight
crewmember should be allowed to fly under this chapter. Further, the
FAA asks for comments regarding the impact of this rule on seasonal
flying.
Additional Rest Requirements
The proposed rule would continue some of the rest requirements
which are contained in the existing regulations. Proposed
Secs. 121.483(a) and 135.271(a) would state that no certificate holder
may assign any flight crewmember and no flight crewmember may accept
any duty period or flight time with the certificate holder unless the
flight crewmember has had at least the minimum rest period required.
Proposed Secs. 121.483(b) and 135.271(b) would state that no duty could
be assigned during any required rest period. This proposed requirement
would preclude any carrier from assigning any type of duty, including
nonflight assignments (such as training, assigned time, reserve time,
standby duty, or ground duties), to any flightcrew member during a
required rest period. These proposed requirements are the same as those
in current Sec. 121.471(c)(4) and (e) and Sec. 135.263(a) and (b).
Proposed Secs. 121.483(c) and 135.271(c) would be a new requirement
to clarify that rest periods required under the subpart can occur
concurrently with any other required rest period. For instance a
required 10-hour rest could occur concurrently with the 36-hour rest
required under proposed Secs. 121.483(e) and 135.271(e). Further, under
the proposal, if a flight crewmember is not serving in assigned time,
reserve time, standby duty or a duty period, that crewmember would be
in a rest period.
Proposed Secs. 121.483(d) and 135.271(d) would be a new requirement
stating that a rest period required in Secs. 121.473, 121.475, or
135.263 may be reduced only because of operational delays. The
reductions may not be scheduled in advance.
Current Secs. 121.471 and 135.265 require each domestic air carrier
operating under part 121 and each
[[Page 65963]]
certificate holder in scheduled operations under part 135 to relieve
each flight crewmember engaged in scheduled air transportation from all
further duty for at least 24 consecutive hours during any 7 consecutive
days. Proposed Secs. 121.483(e) and 135.271(e) would require that each
flight crewmember who is assigned to one or more duty periods, standby
duty, or reserve time shall be provided a rest period of at least 36
consecutive hours during any 7 consecutive calendar days. The proposed
36-hour rest could be taken during a layover. Thirty-six hours of rest
is the amount of time recommended by the NASA Scientific Working Group
(2.1.3); further the FAA believes that flight crewmembers should be
provided at least 36 consecutive hours rest during any 7 consecutive
calendar days any time they are assigned to reserve regardless of the
nature of the reserve. This allows flight crewmembers the time to plan
for and obtain a thorough rest so that they are not fatigued if they
receive a duty period assignment.
The Air Transport Association proposed, during the ARAC
discussions, that this provision be applied over a period of 168
consecutive hours rather than 7 consecutive calendar days. We believe
that it would be more difficult for crewmembers and carriers to
maintain records in this fashion. However, commenters are invited to
address this issue more fully in their comments. If adequate
justification is shown for using 168 hours rather than 7 calendar days,
the final rule may incorporate that proposal. Commenters should note
that any change in this provision would likely require corresponding
changes in the flight time limitations proposed in Secs. 121.481 and
135.269.
Proposed Secs. 121.483(f) and 135.271(f) would require certificate
holders to provide each flight crewmember assigned to assigned time, as
defined in proposed Secs. 121.471 and 135.261, a minimum rest period of
10 hours before the commencement of a subsequent duty period. This rest
period may occur concurrently with another required rest period. This
proposed rest requirement is needed to address situations in which a
flight crewmember is assigned to one of a group of activities that are
neither rest nor part of an assignment involving flight time, but which
could contribute to crewmember fatigue (e.g. training, deadhead
transportation, etc.). The intent of this proposed rule is for flight
crewmembers to have the opportunity to obtain sufficient rest in order
to be able to perform assigned flight duties, regardless of whether the
fatigue was caused by flight duties or by other activities for the
certificate holder. However, certificate holders have the option of
counting assigned time as part of a duty period and scheduling the
appropriate rest period for that duty period or of counting assigned
time exclusively as assigned time and ensuring that the flight
crewmember is given 10 hours of rest before commencing a duty period.
The 10 hours is consistent with the other required rest periods.
For example, a flight crewmember could be deadheaded to a new
location at the beginning of a duty period and then begin a schedule
flight assignment. In this case the deadhead transportation would be
counted as part of the duty period. Alternatively, after completing a
duty period, a flight crewmember could be deadheaded back to his or her
home base before beginning the required rest period. In this case the
deadhead transportation could be considered assigned time. Performing
assigned time after the completion of a duty period would be permitted
as long as the flight crewmember received the minimum rest required for
that duty period or 10 hours, whichever is greater, before the next
duty period.
Proposed Secs. 121.483(g) and 135.271(g) would establish a
requirement for a certificate holder to provide each flight crewmember
at least 48 consecutive hours of rest upon return to the flight
crewmember's home base after completion of one or more duty periods
that terminate in a time zone or zones that differs from the time zone
of the flight crewmember's home base by 6 or more hours and the flight
crewmember remains in that time zone or zones for at least 48
consecutive hours. The accumulation of the 48 hours may be in one or
more time zones but each of these time zones must be 6 or more hours
from the flight crewmember's home base. The flight crewmember must
receive this rest before beginning a subsequent duty period. The home
base is determined by the certificate holder and is where that
crewmember is based and receives schedules. The present rules make no
provisions for rest periods based on time zones. The NASA Scientific
Working Group data and subjective comments from crewmembers indicate
there is a need to recognize the additional fatigue effects of crossing
time zones (2.1.4). The literature indicates that some flight
crewmembers experience, at times, additional fatigue from crossing as
few as two time zones; while others do not report the same fatigue
until they have crossed many more time zones. The FAA recognizes the
complicated problem of addressing each individual flight crewmembers
circadian rhythm; nevertheless by establishing a minimum rest
requirement at the home base for flight crewmembers who cross 6 or more
time zones the FAA believes these flight crewmembers will be given an
opportunity to once again establish what is for that flight crewmember
the normal sleep awake cycle. The proposed rest requirement is a
minimum requirement and is provided to give the flight crewmember an
opportunity for rest. The flight crewmember should use this time to
obtain the needed rest so that he or she will be rested when called
upon for the next duty period. The FAA will issue advisory material
based on scientific studies to assist air carriers and flight
crewmembers in dealing with fatigue related issues.
Deadhead Transportation
Current Secs. 121.471(f) and 135.263(c) specify that time spent in
transportation, not local in character, that a certificate holder
requires of a flight crewmember and provides to transport the
crewmember to an airport to which he or she is to serve on a flight as
a crewmember, or from an airport at which the flight crewmember was
relieved from duty to return to his or her home base is not considered
part of a rest period. This type of transportation is commonly called
``deadhead'' transportation. Proposed Secs. 121.485 and 135.273 would
be the same as the current requirement except that in addition it would
specify that for duty period limitation purposes the certificate holder
and flight crewmember must consider deadhead time as assigned time or
as part of a duty period associated with flight.
Other Flying for a Certificate Holder
Proposed Secs. 121.487 and 135.275 establish duty period and flight
time limitations for other flying for a certificate holder, including
flying under part 91. Flight crewmembers and certificate holders must
ensure that any duty periods and flight assignments assigned by the
certificate holder are scheduled, assigned, and performed under the
applicable requirements of parts 121 and 135 (14 CFR 121.473, 121.477,
121.479,121.481, 121.483, and 14 CFR 135.263, 135.265, 135.267,
135.269, and 135.271) even if the flight is not conducted under part
121 or 135. In addition, any flight crewmember who is employed by two
or more air carriers or commercial operators must ensure that any duty
periods and flight assignments are scheduled, assigned and performed
under the applicable rules of parts 121 and 135. In other
[[Page 65964]]
words, when certificate holders assign flight crewmembers to conduct
ferry flights, or other flights under part 91, this flight assignment
is treated just as any other duty period involving flight.
This proposal is based on NTSB recommendation A-94-105, which was
issued as a result of the Guantanamo Bay accident, discussed above
under ``NTSB Recommendations'' and the FAA's belief that other flying
for a certificate holder such as training flights for a 121 or 135
certificate holder may cause both short term and cumulative fatigue
which may adversely effect that flight crewmember's flight duties
performed under parts 121 and/or 135. This would include flying for
more than one part 121 and/or 135 certificate holder.
Proposed Effective Date for Final Rule
The FAA is proposing an effective date of 60 days after these
proposals are published as a final rule. By that date all certificate
holders operating under part 121 or part 135 would have to begin
scheduling all flight time duty periods and rest periods in accordance
with the new requirements. However, as mentioned above under ``Commuter
Rulemaking,'' the FAA intends to coordinate the effective date of this
rulemaking with the compliance date of the commuter rulemaking, so that
certificate holders conducting commuter operations will have to change
their procedures for scheduling flight time, duty periods, and rest
periods only once.
The FAA requests comments on the length of time needed between the
issuance of the final rule and its effective date.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Summary
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
interpretation that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess
the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) would probably generate benefits and cost savings
that are greater than its costs and is ``a significant regulatory
action'' as defined in the Executive Order. The FAA also estimates that
the NPRM would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. No part of the proposed rule is expected to
constitute a barrier to international trade. These analyses, available
in the docket, are summarized below.
This proposal would amend existing regulations to establish one set
of duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest
requirements for flight crewmembers engaged in air transportation.
Currently, these limitations and requirements differ across the various
sectors of the industry (e.g., part 121, part 135). In addition, the
FAA is required to consider alternatives to the proposed rule when the
following circumstances are met:
--The regulatory action is designated as a ``significant regulatory
action'' (as defined by Executive Order 12866), and
--The regulatory action is designated as having a significant impact on
a substantial number of small businesses, nonprofit groups, or airports
operated by small governmental jurisdictions.
The FAA has determined that the potential economic impacts of the
proposed rule are sufficiently large that both of these criteria are
satisfied. Accordingly, two alternatives will be discussed in the
section entitled ``Analysis of Alternatives'' below.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Proposal
As mentioned above, the main thrust of the proposal is to amend
existing regulations to establish one set of duty period limitations,
flight time limitations, and rest requirements for flight crewmembers
engaged in air transportation. The proposal would establish a basic
scheduling limitation for 2 pilot crews of 14 hours of scheduled duty
and 10 hours of scheduled rest. The maximum length of duty periods
permitted would increase as the number of pilots increases. The
proposal would also revise limits on the amount of flight time which a
flight crewmember can accrue in a duty period, in any 7 consecutive
calendar days, and in a calendar month. The maximum duty period limits
would be decreased in most cases for part 121 and part 135 operators,
and the required length of rest periods would be increased. These
changes are expected to impose unquantifiable costs on unscheduled part
135 operators.
Although the maximum length of duty periods would generally
decrease under the proposal, the maximum allowable flight times for
pilots operating 2-pilot aircraft (no flight engineer) would increase
from 8 to 10 hours. This provision should create the potential for
substantial cost savings for both part 121 and 135 operators.
The FAA determined that 2 provisions of the proposed rule could
impose substantial quantifiable costs. Another provision could impose
substantial costs on the commuter operators, but could not be
quantified. The potential economic impacts on the air taxi operators of
these provisions could not be quantified at this time. The most costly
provision applies to the scheduling and duty assignments of reserve
pilots. A reserve pilot must be available to report upon notice for a
duty period with one hour or longer of notice. The proposal would
require that the maximum length of a duty period be reduced in those
cases when less than 10 hours of notice for a duty period assignment is
received. The proposal would also provide another option under which a
flight crewmember could be given a regularly scheduled minimum 6 hour
protected time within each 24 hours of reserve time.
The other provision which would impose substantial quantifiable
costs would require that ``ferry'' flight time used to reposition
aircraft be counted the same as time accrued in part 121/135 revenue
operations for the purpose of determining compliance with FAA
limitations on duty periods and flight time limitations. Another
provision that would increase the minimum required rest periods between
flight duty periods might impose substantial costs on the commuter
operators, but they cannot be quantified without additional data. The
provisions pertaining to reserve pilot scheduling might also impose
substantial costs on air taxi operators, but these costs could not be
quantified.
Cost Analysis
As described in more detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the
FAA has relied heavily on surveys of a limited number of operators to
develop its analysis. The FAA is interested in comments on the
representativeness of the data used for extrapolation to the entire
affected population. Where commenters believe these survey data do not
reflect the circumstances/responses for operators generally, the FAA
welcomes any and all relevant data supporting such claims.
The FAA also seeks comments on its methodology, assumptions, and/or
data used to estimate the following:
(1) The efficiency gains from the increase in allowable flight time
from 8 to 10 hours.
[[Page 65965]]
(2) The likely operator response to the reserve pilot requirements
(i.e., the likelihood of operators choosing between canceling flights
and adding pilots),
(3) The cost to operators and passengers of flight cancellations
and of adding pilots, and
(4) The potential safety benefits from reduced fatigue.
Part 121 Air Carriers
The FAA estimated the economic impact of each provision of this
proposed rule. Some of the provisions by themselves were estimated to
entail substantial compliance costs, whereas others have the potential
for affording substantial cost savings to operators.
The proposed rule is estimated to impose discounted costs of
$842.03 million on part 121 operators over the next 15 years, but these
costs are expected to be offset by the cost savings. The total
potential discounted cost savings from increased productivity were
estimated at $1.72 billion over this period. The net discounted
compliance cost savings of the proposed rule would therefore amount to
$877.90 million over this period. The cost savings would result if
operators take advantage of opportunities afforded by the proposal to
more efficiently schedule their existing workforce, which could enable
them to reduce their plans for hiring new pilots by 3,348 pilots over
the next 15 years.
Costs
The FAA determined that the primary cost of implementing the
reserve pilot scheduling and duty time regulations would consist of the
cost of reassigning some scheduled airline pilots or hiring new pilots
to assure adequate coverage of flights that would otherwise have to be
canceled or delayed. Other provisions of the proposal, however, may
allow operators to use on-line pilots more intensively; therefore, the
need for additional reserve pilots is likely to be satisfied by
reassigning on-line pilots that would become available because of
enhanced productivity. In addition, a relatively small number of
flights might be canceled.
These cost estimates were based on the least cost combination of
reserve pilot scheduling options for each operator based on the nature
of its flight operations, such as the amount of advance notification
provided reserve pilots and duty period durations. The FAA estimates
that the part 121 scheduled operators would have to hire an additional
500 pilots, representing a 1% increase in their current pilot staffing
level, thereby increasing their recurring annual salary costs by $41.29
million. In addition, the FAA estimated that the flight cancellations
resulting from decreased flexibility in scheduling reserve pilots would
impose societal costs (the value of delayed passenger time) amounting
to $8.12 million per year. The total potential cost of the reserve
pilot regulation was therefore estimated at $49.40 million annually
after the first year the proposed rule were in effect for part 121
scheduled carriers. In the first year, this annual cost would be
increased by $9.26 million to $58.66 million to capture initial
training costs.
The FAA determined that the reserve pilot regulation would also
impose substantial costs on part 121 unscheduled or ``supplemental''
air carriers. The economic impact on these air carriers is expected to
be greater than for the scheduled part 121 carriers because of the less
predictable nature of their operations, which doesn't allow them to
give as much advance notification of flight assignments to their
reserve pilots. The FAA estimated that approximately 330 additional
pilots, representing about 4% of their present pilot staffing level,
would need to be hired by these air carriers at a recurring annual cost
of $24.02 million.
The FAA determined that the proposed restriction on ``ferry''
flights would have very little, if any, impact on scheduled part 121
operators. These proposed restrictions, however, could have a
substantial economic impact on part 121 unscheduled operators, which
are more likely than the scheduled operators to conduct these
operations because of the greater distance between crew bases and
destination points of their revenue flights. The FAA estimated that
these operators would have to hire an additional 235 pilots (3%
increase in current pilot staff) to avoid major disruptions in their
flight schedules, entailing recurring annual costs amounting to $17.04
million.
The total recurring annual potential compliance costs (reserve
pilot and ``ferry flight'' restrictions) for unscheduled or
supplemental operators were therefore estimated at $41.06 million. The
first year initial training costs for these unscheduled air carriers
were estimated to add $10.10 million to annual costs in the first year.
In summary, the total first year annual compliance costs for all
part 121 air carriers of the reserve pilot regulation and restriction
on ferry flights were estimated at $110.28 million. Societal costs
resulting from canceled flights were estimated to comprise $8.12
million of this total. These costs were estimated based on the time
that passengers on canceled flight would be delayed, which the analysis
assumes would be two hours. Total discounted costs were estimated at
$842.46 million over the period from 1996-2010.
Cost Savings
The FAA expects that these costs would be more than offset by cost
savings afforded the scheduled part 121 operators by the opportunity to
more effectively utilize their flight crewmembers. The potential cost
savings for the unscheduled part 121 air carriers, however, are not
expected to be of a sufficient magnitude to outweigh the proportionally
higher potential costs that were estimated for this sector of the
industry. Under the proposal, both scheduled and unscheduled air
carriers could increase the maximum permitted flight times within
individual duty periods from 8 to 10 hours for 2-pilot crews.
The potential productivity gains from this provision should enable
scheduled part 121 air carriers to maintain their current schedules
with fewer pilots and transfer some pilots from active or nonreserve to
reserve status. The decrease in the anticipated need for pilots among
the scheduled air carriers is expected to substantially outweigh any
potential increased need for pilots among the unscheduled air carriers.
In other words, the overall need for pilots in future years should
decrease because the positive economic effects resulting from increased
productivity are expected to outweigh the negative economic impacts of
the need for more reserve pilots.
Data collected by the FAA indicate that domestic air carriers do
not fly their crewmembers close to the maximum permitted current limit
of 100 hours per month. The average monthly flying time for the
scheduled air carriers is 60 hours. The part 121 unscheduled operators
tended to fly their crewmembers from 40-60 hours per month. In fact,
most unionized air carriers are prevented by labor contracts from
flying their crewmembers more than 75-80 hours per month.
If this proposed rule is adopted as an amendment, most air carriers
would likely attempt to take advantage of the opportunity to utilize
their crewmembers more effectively. The increase from 8 to 10 hours in
the maximum permitted flight hours 2-pilot crews could fly within
individual duty periods should provide an incentive for air carriers to
increase the daily flight hours and hence monthly flight hours of their
crews and decrease the amount of duty time which is not flight time.
The FAA determined that air carriers would
[[Page 65966]]
most likely be able to increase utilization of their pilots by 4% on
average (which would amount to an additional 2 flight hours per month
per pilot in most cases).
Air carriers would realize these productivity gains only to the
extent that their pilot salary costs would not increase. Such an
assumption appears warranted for the following reasons. The FAA
estimated that about 10% of the pilot salary cost of the major air
carriers is for nonproductive time (i.e., time within a duty period
that is not devoted to actually flying the airplane). Air carriers
frequently pay pilots for this nonproductive time at a reduced hourly
rate, as established by formulas in their contracts. The proposal would
allow them to significantly reduce this nonproductive time by
permitting an increase in maximum flight hours from 8 to 10 hours
within a shorter duty period.
Many unionized part 121 air carriers would probably have to
renegotiate their contracts in order to reduce the amount of
nonproductive time for which they are currently paying. Renegotiation
would not be required, however, in order to add about 2 hours on
average to monthly pilot flying hours because actual flying hours are
currently considerably lower than the maximum range of 75-80 hours
under most contracts. In addition, the nonunionized air carriers would
in theory have a greater potential for increasing flight hours flown by
their crewmembers because their maximum limits on flight hours tend to
be closer to the current regulatory maximums of 1,000 hours per year.
Under the proposal, the maximum monthly flight time of 100 hours per
month would effectively allow 1,200 hours of flight time per year,
thereby affording them the potential of a 20% increase in productivity
(nonunionized air carriers account for 16% of the operations flown by
all part 121 air carriers). This analysis, however, only assumes a 4%
increase in productivity.
The FAA estimated that a 4% overall productivity enhancement would
afford part 121 carriers overall total cost savings amounting to $3.07
billion (present value, $1.72 billion) over the next 15 years. These
estimates are based on an expected decrease of 3,348 new pilots hired
over this period and an average loaded salary of $82,572 for part 121
scheduled and $72,600 for part 121 supplemental. In addition, initial
training costs of $18,516 for part 121 scheduled pilot and $17,908 for
part 121 supplemental pilot were used in this analysis as in the cost
analysis.
This estimate should be regarded as an lower bound for potential
cost savings arising from the increase in pilot productivity.
Productivity cost savings above 4% are theoretically possible; however,
due to any salary increases that unions may negotiate, the air carriers
may not be able to achieve all of these savings. In any event, air
carriers would have a greater opportunity to limit pay for
nonproductive time under the proposal, as noted above, which currently
amounts to a significant part of their total salary costs. The FAA does
not have sufficient information to assess the interplay of these
factors in determining pilot salaries and requests comments from the
public on this issue.
Longer proposed flying hours would also allow air carriers to
reduce the number of 3-pilot crews in favor of 2-pilot crews. The FAA
estimates an additional savings of 200 pilots, with annual net cost
savings which could amount to $20.40 million in the first year and
$16.54 million in subsequent years. These potential cost savings were
estimated at $119.62 million (discounted) over a 15-year period.
Consequently, total cost savings of the proposed rule for part 121 air
carriers is expected to amount to $3.32 billion (present value, $1.87
billion) over the next 15 years.
Part 135 Scheduled Air Carriers
The proposed rule is estimated to impose discounted quantifiable
costs of $56.75 million on part 135 carriers over the next 15 years,
but these costs could be offset by cost savings. The total potential
cost savings of the proposed rule are expected to amount to $94.04
million over the next 15 years. The net cost savings, which would
result from an expected net reduction of 353 new pilots hired over the
next 15 years, could therefore amount to $50.68 million over this
period. This conclusion is contingent on the assumption that these
operators would be able to modify their flight schedules so as to avoid
expenses associated with longer minimum rest periods without
significantly affecting revenues.
Costs
The FAA estimated that the reserve pilot provisions of the proposal
would result in the hiring of 152 additional pilots in order to avoid
having to cancel flights because of inadequate reserve pilot resources.
The increased annual cost for the industry was estimated at $6.12
million. In addition, these operators are expected to incur incremental
initial training costs amounting to $1.06 million in the first year the
proposed rule is in effect, increasing annual compliance costs to $7.18
million in that year. These costs would amount to a discounted $56.75
million over a 15-year period.
Cost Savings
Part 135 scheduled airlines would reap potential cost savings
amounting to $145.04 million (present value, $84.76 million) over the
next 15 years. Although these operators currently tend to utilize their
pilots more intensively than the part 121 operators (i.e., 74-89
hours), they still utilize them well under the proposed regulatory
maximum of 100 hours a month. The potential for a 4% increase in
productivity would still remain. The fact that a considerably smaller
portion of the part 135 pilot workforce is unionized would remove that
possible constraint to increased productivity.
These potential cost savings are based on a projection that these
operators would need 353 fewer pilots at an average annual loaded
salary of $40,280 that was used in the analysis of costs. In addition,
initial training costs of $6,948 per pilot would be saved.
Benefits
The FAA has promulgated flight time limitation rules that contain
rest requirements for certain operations and weekly and monthly limits
on the number of hours of flight time in an effort to protect flight
crewmembers from work-related fatigue. The issue did not receive much
publicity until May 1994, when the NTSB cited pilot fatigue as a
probable cause in an accident when the captain lost control of a DC-8
freighter while approaching the U.S. Naval Station Airbase at
Guantanomo Bay, Cuba in August 18, 1993. Prior to that time, this
factor had never been cited by the NTSB as a probable cause in an
accident involving part 135 or 121 operations.
In its investigation, the NTSB noted that the flight crew had been
on duty about 18 hours and had flown about 9 hours at the time of the
accident. Under the proposed rule, this flight would have been illegal
because the maximum length of a duty period for a 3-person flight crew
on an airplane lacking appropriate sleeping quarters is 16 hours. In
addition, the company had intended to further extend this flight by
having the crew ferry the airplane back to Atlanta after the plane had
landed at Guantanamo Bay, which would have resulted in a total duty
time of 24 hours. The NTSB report specifically noted that the flight
crewmembers had experienced a disruption of circadian rhythms and sleep
loss, which resulted in fatigue that had adversely affected
[[Page 65967]]
performance during the critical landing phase.
The National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) Ames
Research Center has been studying this issue since 1980 and has
published a number of studies on it. These studies have established a
relationship between long duty periods and fatigue and between fatigue
and a deterioration in performance.
It is very difficult to quantify the potential safety benefits of
this proposed rule because of the scarcity of accidents that have been
attributable to pilot fatigue. The NTSB has not focused on this issue
until quite recently in its accident investigations. The FAA believes
that the investigation of the effects of fatigue on pilot performance
should not be limited to a review of relevant accidents. A better
understanding of this issue can be gained from examining incident
reports submitted by pilots to the National Aeronautical and Space
Administration's Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). Since January
1, 1986, ASRS has received 21 reports of unsafe incidents resulting
from fatigue by pilots engaged in part 121 operations and 200 reports
from pilots conducting part 135 operations. Although these incidents
did not actually result in accidents, they were of a sufficiently
serious nature that pilots filed a report with NASA with the hope of
gaining the attention of the regulatory authorities.
NASA has sponsored some research into the issue of the relationship
between fatigue and performance decrements based on information
contained in these incident reports. The researchers found that about
21% of the reports citing air transport flight crew errors were related
to the general issue of fatigue. The researchers selected a control or
comparison group of incident reports citing these problem areas but
where fatigue was not an apparent factor. Most of the incidents in both
data sets involved altitude or clearance operational deviations (e.g.,
taking off or landing without clearance). The deviations within the
fatigue set tended to occur more frequently during the more critical
descent, approach, and landing flight phases. This finding was expected
because fatigue is most likely to set in towards the end of a flight or
work day. Another key finding was that duty period length and workload
level were most frequently cited as being responsible for the fatigue.
The FAA has quantified the economic value of all major accidents
involving the part 121 air carriers and part 135 air carriers over the
1985-1994 period that were attributable to pilot error. For the part
121 analysis, the FAA examined the seating capacity, average passenger
load, and the average replacement cost of a representative sample of
both narrow body and wide body aircraft. The FAA examined the same
factors in estimating the cost of a part 135 accident.
For the part 121 analysis, the FAA assumes that an average airplane
costs $14.75 million in 1994 dollars and carries 107 people (101
passengers, 3 flight crewmembers, and 3 flight attendants). In order to
provide the public and government officials with a benchmark comparison
of the expected safety benefits of rulemaking actions over an extended
period of time with estimated costs in dollars, the FAA currently uses
a value of $2.7 million to statistically represent a human fatality
avoided. The values for serious and minor injuries are $518,000 and
$38,000, respectively. For the part 135 analysis, the FAA used the same
assumptions regarding the value of a human life and injuries. The
amount of airplane damage and severity of injuries was based on a
review of NTSB reports of all accidents involving 10-30 seat aircraft
over the period from 1985-1994.
Based on these assumptions, the FAA estimated that the economic
value of the 71 serious accidents involving pilot error used in part
121 scheduled operations that were involved in serious accidents over
the 1985-1994 period at $1.896 billion. Projecting this total from 1996
to 2010 yields a discounted $1.151 billion. The comparable total for
the 8 serious accidents involving pilot error used in part 121
supplemental operations that were involved in serious accidents over
this time period was $273.9 million. Projecting this total from 1996 to
2010 yields a discounted $166.3 million. The corresponding total for
the 71 aircraft involving pilot error used in part 135 operations with
10 to 30 seats that were involved in serious accidents over that period
was $602.32 million. Projecting this total from 1996 to 2010 yields a
discounted $365.73 million.
The NASA research study summarized above revealed that 21% of pilot
error incidents were related to fatigue. Applying this proportion to
the total discounted value of the pilot error accidents, using the
assumptions noted above, one could conclude that fatigue resulted in
accidents valued at $398.24 million (present value, $241.81 million)
for part 121 scheduled operations, $57.52 million (present value,
$34.92 million) for part 121 supplemental operations, and $126.49
million (present value, $76.80 million) for part 135 operations over a
15-year period. These estimates could be used to provide some idea of
the potential safety benefits of this proposed rule, assuming it is
100% effective in preventing these types of accidents.
Cost Savings and Benefits
Initial annual quantifiable compliance costs for part 121
scheduled, part 121 supplemental, and scheduled part 135 air carriers
were estimated at $58.66 million, $41.16 million and $7.18 million,
respectively. Subsequent annual quantifiable compliance costs were
estimated at $49.40 million, $41.06 million and $6.12 million,
respectively. Over the period from 1996 to 2010, costs would amount to
$750.33 million (present value, $458.63 million), $625.99 million
($383.40 million) and $92.89 million (present value, $56.75 million),
respectively.
For part 121 scheduled operators, these compliance costs should be
more than offset by cost savings that are projected to result from
productivity enhancements for the scheduled part 121 carriers. The same
conclusion may apply to the part 135 operators as well in view of the
potential magnitude of the unquantifiable costs. But cost savings
expected to accrue to the part 121 supplemental carriers are not
expected be sufficient to offset potential costs for this sector of the
industry.
The estimates for the scheduled part 135 air carriers do not
include the potential costs of the proposed general limitations on
flight duty and rest periods, which are expected to be fairly
significant, although not quantifiable at the present time. On the
other hand, these estimates do not take account of potential cost
savings as air carriers gain more experience in implementing the
various combinations of the available options, which should in theory
result in the selection of the most cost effective option. The extent
to which these potential impacts would offset each other cannot be
determined on the basis of the available data.
These estimates also do not include the potential costs of the
proposed rule for air taxi operators, which could not be quantified.
The FAA expects that the costs of the reserve pilot restrictions would
probably not be substantial for this sector of the industry because the
majority of the operators should be able to adopt the second reserve
pilot scheduling option without major operational disruptions. The FAA
does not have sufficient information to estimate the potential
compliance costs for this sector of the industry if the ``other
commercial flying'' restrictions in the proposal are adopted. The
potential for cost savings would appear
[[Page 65968]]
to be more limited for these operators because of the point-to-point
and geographically restricted nature of their operations, which would
tend to limit the length of flight assignments.
The FAA has quantified the economic value of all major accidents
involving the part 121 fleet and part 135 fleet over the 1985-1994
period that were attributable to pilot error. Based on this value and
the proportion of incidents with similar causal factors where pilots
were affected by fatigue, the FAA estimated that if proposed rule were
100% effective at eliminating fatigue as a factor in accidents, it
could prevent accidents involving part 121 scheduled operations valued
at $242 million and part 121 supplemental operations at $35 million
over a 15-year period. The same methodology yielded an estimate of $77
million for the potential effectiveness of the proposal in preventing
part 135 accidents. It is important to note that it is unlikely that
this proposal would be 100% effective, in part because it addresses
duty and rest times, but does not require pilots to rest. The FAA is
unable to develop an estimate of effectiveness of this proposal in
reducing fatigue-related incidents, but welcomes data and methodologies
that may assist such an effort.
The table below compares the costs, potential benefits, and cost
savings sections. The FAA therefore concludes that the proposed rule
would be cost beneficial for the part 121 scheduled operators, sector
of the air transportation industry, would probably be cost beneficial
for the entire part 121 sector of the air transportation industry, and
could be cost beneficial for the scheduled part 135 operators as well,
provided the unquantifiable compliance costs for the commuters do not
exceed about $127.5 million (discounted) over a 15-year period.
The FAA does not have sufficient information at this time to
evaluate the cost effectiveness of this proposal for air taxi
operators. A more definitive overall conclusion would not be
appropriate in view of the lack of data pertaining to how the affected
air carriers would modify their operations in order to comply with the
proposed rule and also to take advantage of the opportunities to
increase pilot productivity. The FAA has decided to issue this proposed
rule with the expectation that additional data that can clarify these
issues will be forthcoming.
Fifteen Year Discounted Costs/Cost Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 121 Part 121 Part 135
scheduled supplemental Total part 121 scheduled Air taxi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance costs............................. $458,627,143 $383,403,020 $842,030,163 $56,750,685 Unknown.
Reserve requirements..................... 458,627,143 224,331,554 682,958,697 56,750,685 Unknown.
Other requirements....................... 0 159,071,466 159,071,466 0 Unknown.
Potential safety benefits.................... 241,806,628 34,922,912 276,729,539 76,802,495 Unknown.
Net costs of reserve and other requirements.. 216,820,515 348,480,108 565,300,623 (20,051,810) Unknown.
Cost savings................................. 1,658,078,896 215,723,343 1,873,802,239 107,431,330 Unknown.
Increased flight times....................... 1,504,206,226 215,723,343 1,719,929,569 107,431,330 Unknown.
Other cost savings........................... 153,872,670 0 153,872,670 0 Unknown.
Net combined cost savings of proposal........ 1,441,258,380 (132,756,765) 1,308,501,615 127,483,140 Unknown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking should be considered complimentary to the Commuter
Rule and the Air Carrier Training Program final rule. One of the goals
of these three rulemaking actions is to prevent the 67 accidents that
represent the accident-rate gap between part 135 commuter operators and
part 121 operators. The FAA estimates that over the next 15 years,
closing this gap would prevent 67 accidents at a present value benefit
of $350 million.
In terms of the accident rate gap, the benefits of this NPRM are a
part of this total benefit. However, it is not possible to allocate
that benefit among the three rulemaking actions because it difficult to
determine which rulemaking action would prevent a given accident. For
example, individual accidents may be prevented by any one or a
combination of several factors such as:
Preventing the occurrence of a problem with an airplane in
the first place (Commuter rule);
Providing more or better crew training to properly respond
to the problem after it occurs (Air Carrier Training Program rule);
Providing a dispatcher to help identify a problem before
it becomes a potential accident (Commuter rule);
And ensuring pilots are not over-worked and tired (Pilot
Rest and Duty NPRM).
The Commuter Rule only addresses a portion of the necessary
requirements to close the accident-rate gap. If the $51 million present
value in net cost savings of this rule ($107 million in cost savings
minus $56 million in costs) is combined with the cost of the Commuter
Rule, $75 million, and the cost of Pilot Training, $34 million, the
total cost, $58 million (-$51+$75+$34), is still less than the
estimated $350 million benefit of eliminating the accident-rate gap.
These rules combined need only be 17 percent effective to be cost-
beneficial. The $77 million in potential safety benefits of this
proposed rule is a subset of the aforementioned $350 million.
Analysis of Alternatives
As explained above, the FAA is required to consider alternatives to
the proposed rule; the two alternatives will be discussed in this
section. As indicated earlier in this preamble, if this proposal on
reserve time assignments is not issued as a final rule, the FAA intends
to ensure that the current rule, as interpreted, is being correctly
implemented. The FAA has estimated that doing so could cost part 121
operators in excess of $2.5 billion and part 135 operators in excess of
$450 million discounted over the next 10 years. At the same time, the
resulting potential safety benefits would be no more than those
estimated for this proposal.
Alternative Number One
This alternative would be to maintain the status quo. This option
would not impose any costs on operators because it would not require
that they change their pilot scheduling practices. It could impose
costs on society, however, by increasing the risk of a preventable
fatigue-related accident. The accumulation of a substantial body of
scientific evidence documenting the harmful effects of fatigue on pilot
performance have increased the need to amend these rules. In addition,
given the scientific data available and the NTSB recommendations
resulting from an accident at Guantanamo Bay in August 1993, this
option is not feasible.
Alternative Number Two
This alternative was the original proposal considered by the FAA.
After surveying industry, the FAA determined
[[Page 65969]]
that such a proposal would impose substantial costs, and that these
costs would outweigh any potential benefits. Consequently, the current
proposal was established, which uses some of the elements of this
original proposal.
This alternative would afford operators three options for
scheduling their reserve pilots but does not address the fatigue
problem for pilots who are not on reserve status. The three options for
scheduling reserve pilots are as follows:
Option 1: The certificate holder provides a minimum of 10 hours
of advance notice of reporting time for flight duty.
Option 2: The certificate holder provides 8 hours of rest each
24 hour period of reserve duty. The 8 hours of rest must be assigned
prospectively and remain constant for the duration of the reserve
assignment.
Option 3: For each 24 hour period of reserve duty the flight
crewmember is limited to 18 hours of eligibility for flight duty,
with the remaining 6 hours being set aside for rest.
The potential annual compliance costs for the part 121 scheduled
carriers were estimated at $225 million on an annual basis based on the
assumption they would have to increase their pilot staffing by 4%. The
second most heavily affected sector of the industry was the air taxi
operators, who indicated they would have to increase their pilot
staffing by 74%, resulting in potential annual compliance costs of $175
million. The FAA estimated that commuter operators would increase their
pilot staffing by 5% in order to avoid disrupting their flight
schedules, resulting in potential annual compliance costs of $24
million. Finally, the annual compliance cost for the part 121
unscheduled operators was estimated at $11.5 million.
The total annual cost was estimated to be $436 million for the air
carrier industry. These costs would not be offset by any cost savings
because of the limited nature of this alternative (i.e., applies only
to reserve pilots). In addition, this alternative would have a
considerably lower potential for preventing accidents than the proposal
for the same reason. The FAA therefore concluded that this alternative
would not be cost beneficial.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires Federal
agencies to review rules that may have ``a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.''
Under FAA Order 2100.14A, the criterion for a ``substantial
number'' is a number that is not less than 11 and that is more than one
third of the small entities subject to the rule. This rule would
primarily affect part 121 and 135 operators. For operators of aircraft
for hire, a small operator is one that owns, but not necessarily
operates, nine or fewer aircraft. The FAA's criteria for ``significant
impact'' are $4,600 or more per year for an unscheduled operator,
$119,900 or more per year for a scheduled operator whose airplane fleet
has over 60 seats, and $67,000 or more for other scheduled carriers.
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The present value cost savings of the proposed rule over the 10-
year study period would be $1.20 billion for the part 121 scheduled
carriers or $148.47 million annualized at 7%. Based on a total fleet of
3,429 airplanes for these air carriers, the projected annualized cost
savings of this rule would be $43,298 per airplane. Given the threshold
annualized cost of $119,900 for a small part 121 scheduled operator,
the FAA estimates that the proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on any operator owning 3 or more aircraft but less than
10 aircraft. However, there are only 7 small operators in this
category. Since this is less than 11, a substantial number of these
entities would not be affected.
The present value of the net costs of the proposed rule over the
10-year study period would be $139.56 million for the part 121
unscheduled carriers or $19.82 million annualized at 7%. Based on a
total fleet of 557 airplanes for these operators, the projected annual
cost of this rule would be $42,747 per airplane. This exceeds the cost
threshold of $4,600 per unscheduled operator for all small operators in
this sector of the industry.
The present value of the cost savings of the proposed rule over the
study period has been estimated at $50.68 million for the part 135
scheduled carriers or $7.2 million annualized at 7%. Based on a total
fleet of 950 airplanes for these operators, the projected annual cost
of this rule would be $7,579 per airplane. Given the threshold
annualized cost of $67,000 for a small commuter operator, the FAA
estimates that an operator would need to own exactly 9 airplanes in
order to incur a significant economic impact. As there is only one part
135 scheduled carrier with 9 airplanes, the FAA concludes that a
substantial number of small entities in this sector of the industry
would not be significantly affected by the proposed rule.
The FAA requests comments from small air taxi operators regarding
the potential economic impacts of this proposed rule on their
operations. Would additional pilots be required to maintain the current
scope of their operations?
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small part 121 unscheduled operators, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. This analysis
assures that agencies have examined selected regulatory alternatives
that could minimize the economic burdens of the proposed rule on small
entities. As delineated in section 603(b) of the RFA, this initial
regulatory flexibility analysis is required to identify: (1) the
reasons why the agency is considering this action, (2) the objectives
and legal basis for the proposed rule, (3) the kind and number of small
entities to which the proposed rule would apply, (4) the projected
reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, and (5) all Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap
or conflict with the proposed rule. This section of the RFA further
requires that each initial regulatory flexibility analysis contain a
description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
1. Why the Agency Action is Taken
The main reason for the NPRM is that the FAA Administrator, when
prescribing safety regulations, is required by statute to consider
``the duty of an air carrier to provide service with the highest
possible safety in the public interest.'' The FAA has determined that
the most appropriate way to meet this statutory mandate is to ensure
that flight crewmembers are provided with the opportunity to obtain
sufficient rest to perform their routine and emergency safety duties.
The need for this rulemaking is supported by studies on pilot fatigue
conducted by NASA, anecdotal evidence of the problem contained in pilot
reports submitted to the Aviation Safety Reporting System, and the
complexity and age of the current flight duty and rest period
restrictions.
2. Objective of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule
The objective of the proposed rule is to increase safety in
passenger- and cargo-carrying operations, both scheduled and
unscheduled. The proposed rule would also clarify and
[[Page 65970]]
simplify existing regulations pertaining to duty period limitations,
flight time limitations, and rest requirements for crewmembers. This
objective is more thoroughly discussed in the preamble to the NPRM.
The legal basis for the proposed rule is 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153,
40101, 40102, etc.
3. Description of the Small Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule
The proposal would affect part 121 air carriers conducting both
scheduled and unscheduled operations. The FAA estimates that the
proposal would affect only one scheduled part 121 operator, which owns
9 aircraft. The remaining operators in this category each own 5 or
fewer aircraft, less than the number required for a substantial
economic impact potential. The FAA estimates that the proposal would
have a substantial economic impact on all 23 small part 121 unscheduled
operators, which operate a total of 99 aircraft.
4. Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
The proposed duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and
rest requirements would apply to all crewmembers conducting part 121
domestic, flag, and supplemental operations, as well as those engaged
in commuter and on-demand operations. These limitations and
requirements would also apply to part 121 and 135 certificate holders
conducting part 91 operations. The preamble to the NPRM provides a more
thorough discussion of the compliance requirements of the proposed
rule.
5. Overlap of the Proposed Rule With Other Federal Regulations
No other Federal rules would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule.
6. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
Alternative Number One did not have any potential compliance costs.
Alternative Number Two would have been more costly and would have had a
significant impact on a substantial number of entities for the three
industry areas where costs could be estimated. Alternative Number Two
would have projected annual costs of $65,325 per aircraft for part 121
scheduled operators. Therefore, any operator with 2 or more aircraft
would be significantly affected by this alternative rule. Since these
operators would comprise more than one-third of the total number of
small operators in this category, the FAA concludes that a substantial
number of small entities would be affected. In addition, Alternative
Number Two was substantially more costly for part 121 unscheduled
operators than the proposed rule, which would have affected all
operators in this sector of the industry. The impacts of this
Alternative on these operators would be considerably greater than the
proposed rule.
Alternative Number Two would have projected annual costs of $20,443
per aircraft for part 135 scheduled operators.
Therefore, any operator with 4 or more aircraft would be
significantly affected by this alternative rule. Since these operators
comprise at least one-third of the total number of small entities in
this sector of the industry, the FAA concludes that a substantial
number of small operators would be affected. This Alternative, which
would be considerably more costly for on-demand air taxis than
scheduled part 135 operators, would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small operators in this sector of the
industry as well.
In addition, the FAA considered an alternative proposal for part
121 supplemental carriers that was proposed at an ARAC (Aviation
Regulatory Advisory Committee) meeting. Under this proposal, part 121
supplementals could develop alternative policies and procedures or
flight schedules that allow a flight crewmember to anticipate when a
flight time assignment might occur or that otherwise ensures a flight
crewmember will not be assigned to a flight unless that flight
crewmember is adequately rested for that flight assignment. However,
the FAA rejected this option because it does not provide one level of
safety for the industry. These different policies or procedures would
be ripe for abuse by both certificate holders and pilots and they would
be very difficult for the FAA to enforce. In short the FAA believes
this alternative would not provide the same level of safety as the
proposal. The FAA do
FR Doc. 95-30547 Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements
es, however request comments on other possible
alternatives.
Initial Trade Impact Analysis
The FAA believes that in specific foreign countries, including
Great Britain, Germany, and some other European countries, pilot,
flight, and duty regulations are more restrictive because they make use
of more variables as constraints than in the United States. These
variables include 1) take-offs and landings, 2) day or night flights,
3) cumulative duty hours per week and month, 4) the number of flights
in a duty period, 5) whether the flight crew is ``acclimated'' to the
local time. The net impact of the proposal on the U.S. firms' operating
costs is likely to be considerably less than the compliance costs with
current rules because of the projected gains in productivity. Foreign
air carriers may already be burdened with similar or higher costs to
the extent the applicable regulations are as strict or more strict than
the proposal. The FAA solicits information from commenters regarding
these policies.
Any impacts should be limited to the part 121 air carriers. Most of
the nation's 65 commuter airlines operate almost exclusively on
domestic routes, with only limited international operations and no
transoceanic routes. Similarly, air taxi operators seldom fly outside
of domestic airspace.
Federalism Implications
The proposed regulations do not have substantial direct effects on
the states, on the relationship between national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order
12612, it is determined that such a regulation does not have federalism
implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this
proposed rule remain the same as under the current rules and have
previously been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-
511) and have been assigned OMB Control Numbers 2120-0585. The FAA
believes that this proposed rule would not impose any additional
recordkeeping or reporting requirements. If, however, a commenter finds
that this notice would require additional recordkeeping or reporting,
the FAA solicits specific information on the volume, type, and costs of
the additional records or reports.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth under the heading ``Regulatory
Analysis,'' the FAA has determined that this proposed regulation is a
significant rule under Executive Order 12866, and is a significant rule
under Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). Also, for the reasons stated under
the headings ``Trade Impact Statement'' and ``Regulatory Flexibility
Determination,'' the FAA certifies that the proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
[[Page 65971]]
substantial number of small entities. A copy of the full regulatory
evaluation is filed in the docket and may also be obtained by
contacting the person listed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Airplanes,
Aviation Safety, Safety.
14 CFR Part 135
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation Safety, Pilots, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR parts 121 and 135) as follows:
PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE
AIRCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105. 46103, 46105.
2. Section 121.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) to read
as follows
Sec. 121.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(g) As specified in Sec. 121.487, the duty period limitations,
flight time limitations and rest requirements of this part are also
applicable to duty periods and flight time performed for a certificate
holder conducting operations under part 91 or part 135 of this chapter.
Subpart R--[Removed and reserved]
3. Subpart R (Secs. 121.480 through 121.493) is removed, and the
subpart heading is reserved.
4. Subpart Q is revised to read as follows:
Subpart Q--Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time
Limitations and Rest Requirements
Sec.
121.471 Applicability and terms.
121.473 Pilot duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and
rest requirements.
121.475 Flight engineer duty period limitations, flight time
limitations, and rest requirements.
121.477 Reserve and standby assignments.
121.479 Additional flight crewmember duty period and flight time
scheduling limitations.
121.481 Weekly and monthly flight crewmember flight time
limitations.
121.483 Additional flight crewmember rest requirements.
121.485 Deadhead transportation.
121.487 Duty period and flight time limitations: Other flying for a
certificate holder.
Subpart Q--Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time
Limitations and Rest Requirements
Sec. 121.471 Applicability and terms.
(a) This subpart prescribes duty period limitations, flight time
limitations and rest requirements for flight crewmembers in domestic,
flag, and supplemental operations.
(b) For the purpose of this subpart the following terms and
definitions apply:
(1) Approved sleeping quarters means an area designated for the
purpose of flight crewmembers obtaining sleep as approved by the
Administrator.
(2) Assigned time means a period of time when the flight crewmember
is assigned by the certificate holder to activities other than flight
duties or reserve time. Assigned time may include activities such as
deadhead transportation, training, loading baggage, taking tickets,
administrative tasks, or any other assignments at the direction of the
certificate holder. Assigned time may be considered part of a duty
period or not part of a duty period, at the discretion of the
certificate holder.
(3) Calendar day means a period of elapsed time, using Coordinated
Universal Time or local time, that begins at midnight and ends 24 hours
later at the next midnight.
(4) Duty period means a period of elapsed time between reporting
for an assignment involving flight time and release from that
assignment by the certificate holder. The time is calculated using
either Coordinated Universal Time or the local time of the flight
crewmember's home base, to reflect the total elapsed time.
(5) Operational delays means delays due to operational conditions
and requirements that are beyond the control of the certificate holder
such as adverse weather, aircraft equipment malfunctions, and air
traffic control. It does not include late arriving passengers, late
food service, late fuel trucks, delays in handling baggage, freight or
mail, or similar events.
(6) Protected time means a period of time during which a
certificate holder may not contact the flight crewmember and the
crewmember has no responsibility for work. Protected time occurs only
during a reserve assignment pursuant to Sec. 121.477(b)(2).
(7) Reserve time means a period of time when a flight crewmember
must be available to report upon notice for duty involving flight time
and the certificate holder allows the flight crewmember at least 1 hour
to report. Reserve time is not considered part of a rest period and is
not considered part of a duty period involving flight time. Reserve
time ends when the flight crewmember reports for a duty period, when
the flight crewmember is notified of a future flight assignment and
released from all further responsibilities until report time for that
assignment, or when the flight crewmember has been relieved for a rest
period. Reserve time does not include activities defined as ``assigned
time.''
(8) Rest period means a period of time free of all restraint or
duty for a certificate holder and free of all responsibility for work
or duty should the occasion arise. A flight crewmember is not ``free of
all restraint'' or ``free of all responsibility'' if that person must,
among other things, accept phone calls, carry a beeper, or contact the
air carrier. If a flight crewmember is not serving in assigned time,
reserve time, standby duty or a duty period, that crewmember would be
in a rest period.
(9) Standby duty means any period of time when a flight crewmember
is required to report for a flight assignment in less than 1 hour from
the time of notification. It also includes time when a flight
crewmember is required to report to and remain at a specific facility
(e.g. airport, crew lounge) designated by a certificate holder. Standby
duty is considered part of a duty period. Standby duty commences when
the flight crewmember is placed on standby duty. Standby duty ends when
the flight crewmember is relieved from duty associated with an actual
flight or is otherwise relieved from duty.
Sec. 121.473 Pilot duty period limitations, flight time limitations,
and rest requirements.
(a) A certificate holder may assign a scheduled duty period or
reserve assignment to a pilot and a pilot may accept that assignment
only when the applicable duty period limitations, flight time
limitations, and rest requirements of this section are met.
(b) Except as required in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this
section, no certificate holder may assign a flight crew consisting of
two pilots, and no pilot may accept, a scheduled duty period of more
than 14 hours. The duty period may not include more than 10 scheduled
hours of flight time. Each pilot must be scheduled for a subsequent
rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours. This rest period
[[Page 65972]]
must occur between the completion of the scheduled duty period and the
commencement of the next duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (b) may be reduced to no fewer than 9 consecutive hours if
the pilot has not actually exceeded the maximum 14-hour duty period and
if the pilot's next rest period is at least 11 hours. This subsequent
rest period must be scheduled to begin no later than 24 hours after the
beginning of the reduced rest period and must occur between the
completion of the scheduled duty period and the commencement of the
next duty period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (b) may be
extended to 16 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 10 hour rest period may not be reduced.
(c) A certificate holder may assign a flight crew consisting of 3
pilots, and a pilot may accept, a scheduled duty period of up to 16
hours. The duty period may not include more than 12 scheduled hours of
flight time. Each pilot must be scheduled for a subsequent rest period
of at least 14 consecutive hours. This rest period must occur between
the completion of the scheduled duty period and the commencement of the
next duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (c) may be reduced to no fewer than 12 consecutive hours if
the pilot has not actually exceeded the maximum 16-hour duty period and
if the pilot's next rest period is at least 16 hours. This subsequent
rest period must be scheduled to begin no later than 24 hours after the
beginning of the reduced rest period and must occur between the
completion of the scheduled duty period and the commencement of the
next duty period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (c) may be
extended to 18 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 14 hour rest period may not be reduced.
(d) A certificate holder may assign a flight crew consisting of 3
pilots, and a pilot may accept, a scheduled duty period of more than 16
hours, but no more than 18 hours. The duty period may not include more
than 16 scheduled hours of flight time. Each pilot must be given an
opportunity to rest in-flight in approved sleeping quarters. Each pilot
must be scheduled for a subsequent rest period of at least 18
consecutive hours. This rest period must occur between the completion
of the scheduled duty period and the commencement of the next
subsequent duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (d) may be reduced to no fewer than 16 consecutive hours if
the pilot has not actually exceeded the maximum 18-hour duty period and
if the pilot's next rest period is at least 20 hours. This subsequent
rest period must be scheduled to begin no later than 24 hours after the
beginning of the reduced rest period and must occur between the
completion of the scheduled duty period and the commencement of the
next subsequent duty period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (d) may be
extended to 20 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 18 hour rest period may not be reduced.
(e) If the scheduled duty period includes one or more flights that
land or take off outside the 48 contiguous states and the District of
Columbia, a certificate holder may assign a flight crew consisting of 4
pilots, and a pilot may accept, a scheduled duty period of more than 18
hours but not more than 24 hours. The duty period may not include more
than 18 scheduled hours of flight time. Each pilot must be given an
opportunity to rest in-flight in approved sleeping quarters. Each pilot
must be scheduled for a subsequent rest period of at least 22
consecutive hours. This rest period must occur between the completion
of the scheduled duty period and the commencement of the next
subsequent duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (e) may be reduced to no fewer than 20 consecutive hours if
the pilot has not actually exceeded the maximum 24 hour duty period and
if the pilot's next rest period is at least 24 hours. This subsequent
rest period must be scheduled to begin no later than 24 hours after the
beginning of the reduced rest period and must occur between the
completion of the scheduled duty period and the commencement of the
next subsequent duty period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (e) may be
extended to 26 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 22 hour rest period may not be reduced.
Sec. 121.475 Flight engineer duty period limitations, flight time
limitations, and rest requirements.
(a) A certificate holder may assign a scheduled duty period or
reserve assignment to a flight engineer, and a flight engineer may
accept, a scheduled duty period only when the applicable duty period
limitations, flight time limitations, and rest requirements of this
section are met.
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this
section, no certificate holder may assign a flight engineer, and no
flight engineer may accept, a scheduled duty period of more than 14
hours. The duty period may not include more than 10 scheduled hours of
flight time. Each flight engineer must be scheduled for a subsequent
rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours. This rest period must
occur between the completion of the scheduled duty period and the
commencement of the next subsequent duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (b) may be reduced to no fewer than 9 consecutive hours if
the flight engineer has not actually exceeded the maximum 14-hour duty
period and if the flight engineer is provided with a subsequent rest
period of at least 11 hours. This subsequent rest period must be
scheduled to begin no later than 24 hours after the beginning of the
reduced rest period and must occur between the completion of the
scheduled duty period and the commencement of the next subsequent duty
period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (b) may be
extended to 16 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 10 hour rest period may not be reduced.
(c) A certificate holder may assign a flight engineer, and a flight
engineer may accept, a scheduled duty period of more than 14 hours, but
no more than 16 hours. The duty period may not include more than 12
scheduled hours of flight time. Each flight engineer must be scheduled
for a subsequent rest period of at least 14 consecutive hours. This
rest period must occur between the completion of the scheduled duty
period and the commencement of the next subsequent duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (c) may be reduced to no fewer than 12 consecutive hours if
the flight engineer has not actually exceeded the maximum 16-hour duty
period and if the flight engineer is provided with a subsequent rest
period of at least 16 hours. This subsequent rest period must be
scheduled to begin no later than 24 hours after the beginning of the
reduced rest period and must occur between the completion of the
scheduled duty period and the commencement of the next subsequent duty
period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (c) may be
extended to 18 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 14 hour rest period may not be reduced.
(d) A certificate holder may assign a flight engineer, and a flight
engineer
[[Page 65973]]
may accept, a scheduled duty period of more than 16 hours, but no more
than 18 hours. The duty period may not include more than 16 scheduled
hours of flight time. The certificate holder must assign to the flight
or flights in that duty period at least two flight engineers. Each
flight engineer must be given an opportunity to rest in flight in
approved sleeping quarters. Each flight engineer must be scheduled for
a subsequent rest period of at least 18 consecutive hours. This rest
period must occur between the completion of the scheduled duty period
and the commencement of the next subsequent duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (d) may be reduced to no fewer than 16 consecutive hours if
the flight engineer has not actually exceeded the maximum 18-hour duty
period and if the flight engineer is provided with a subsequent rest
period of at least 20 hours. This subsequent rest period must be
scheduled to begin no later than 24 hours after the beginning of the
reduced rest period and must occur between the completion of the
scheduled duty period and the commencement of the next subsequent duty
period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (d) may be
extended to 20 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 18 hour rest period may not be reduced.
(e) If the scheduled duty period includes one or more flights that
land or take off outside the 48 contiguous states and the District of
Columbia, the certificate holder may assign a flight engineer, and a
flight engineer may accept, a scheduled duty period of more than 18
hours but not more than 24 hours. The duty period may not include more
than 18 scheduled hours of flight time. The certificate holder must
assign to the flight or flights in that duty period at least two flight
engineers. Each flight engineer must be given an opportunity to rest
in-flight in approved sleeping quarters. Each flight engineer must be
scheduled for a subsequent rest period of at least 22 consecutive
hours. This rest period must occur between the completion of the
scheduled duty period and the commencement of the next subsequent duty
period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (e) may be reduced to no fewer than 20 consecutive hours if
the flight engineer has not actually exceeded the maximum 24-hour duty
period and if the flight engineer is provided with a subsequent rest
period of at least 24 hours. This subsequent rest period must be
scheduled to begin no later than 24 hours after the beginning of the
reduced rest period and must occur between the completion of the
scheduled duty period and the commencement of the next subsequent duty
period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (e) may be
extended to 26 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 22 hour rest period may not be reduced.
Sec. 121.477 Reserve and standby assignments.
(a) Standby duty. Standby duty commences when a flight crewmember
is placed on standby duty. Standby duty periods must be scheduled in
accordance with Secs. 121.473 or 121.475. Standby duty periods end when
the duty period associated with a subsequent flight assignment ends or
the flight crewmember is relieved from standby duty for a scheduled
rest period.
(b) Reserve time. A certificate holder may assign a reserve
assignment to a flight crewmember and a flight crewmember may accept
that assignment only when the applicable provisions of this section are
met. Each flight crewmember must be given a 10-hour rest period before
being assigned to reserve time. Reserve time may be assigned under
either of the following options and the flight crewmember must be
notified of which option has been selected before the beginning of the
reserve time assignment:
(1) A certificate holder may schedule a flight crewmember assigned
to reserve time and a flight crewmember may accept any duty period if
the flight crewmember receives at least 10 hours notice and if the duty
period is scheduled in accordance with Secs. 121.473 or 121.475. If a
flight crewmember does not receive at least 10 hours notice, the
following limitations apply:
(i) If at least 8 hours notice is given, the scheduled duty period
is limited to no more than 12 hours. The duty period required under
this paragraph (b)(1) may be extended to 14 hours when the extension is
due to operational delays.
(ii) If at least 6 hours notice is given, the scheduled duty period
is limited to no more than 10 hours. The duty period required under
this paragraph (b)(1) may be extended to 12 hours when the extension is
due to operational delays.
(iii) If at least 4 hours notice is given, the scheduled duty
period is limited to no more than 8 hours. The duty period required
under this paragraph (b)(1) may be extended to 10 hours when the
extension is due to operational delays.
(iv) If fewer than 4 hours notice is given, the scheduled duty
period is limited to no more than 6 hours. The duty period required
under this paragraph (b)(1) may be extended to 8 hours when the
extension is due to operational delays.
(2) A certificate holder may assign a flight crewmember to a
reserve assignment, and a flight crewmember may accept a duty period,
if, for each 24-hour period, the flight crewmember receives at least a
regularly scheduled 6-hour period that is protected from any contact by
the certificate holder. The hours of the 6-hour protected time period
must be assigned before the flight crewmember begins the reserve time
assignment and must occur at the same time during each 24-hour period
during a reserve time assignment. Any duty period assignment must be
scheduled to be completed within the 18 hour reserve period. The length
of the duty period and the subsequent rest period must be in accordance
with Secs. 121.473 or 121.475.
Sec. 121.479 Additional flight crewmember duty period and flight time
scheduling limitations.
(a) A flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for a
duty period in excess of the scheduled duty period limitations if the
duty periods to which he or she is assigned are scheduled and normally
terminate within the limitations, but, due to operational delays, the
flights to which he or she is assigned are not at block out time
expected to reach their destination within the scheduled duty period.
However, no air carrier may assign a flight crewmember, nor may a
flight crewmember accept, a flight that at block out time would extend
the flight crewmembers scheduled duty period maximum more than two
hours, as provided in Secs. 121.473 and 121.475.
(b) A flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for
flight time in excess of the flight time limitations if the flights to
which he or she is assigned are scheduled and normally terminate within
the limitations, but due to operational delays are not at block out
time expected to reach their destination within the scheduled time.
Sec. 121.481 Weekly and monthly flight crewmember flight time
limitations.
No certificate holder may schedule any flight crewmember, and no
flight crewmember may accept, an assignment for flight time under this
part if that flight crewmember's total flight time for a certificate
holder under parts 91, 121, and 135 of this chapter will exceed--
(a) 32 hours in any 7 consecutive calendar days.
(b) 100 hours in any calendar month.
[[Page 65974]]
Sec. 121.483 Additional flight crewmember rest requirements.
(a) No certificate holder may assign any flight crewmember, and no
flight crewmember may accept, any duty period or flight time with the
certificate holder unless the flight crewmember has had at least the
minimum rest required under this subpart.
(b) No certificate holder may assign any flight crewmember and no
flight crewmember may accept any duty with the certificate holder
during any required rest period. For example the flight crewmember may
not be required to contact the certificate holder, answer the
telephone, carry a beeper, remain at a specific location or in any
other way be responsible to the air carrier during a rest period.
(c) Rest periods that are required under this subpart can occur
concurrently with any other rest period.
(d) The reduced rest periods allowed under Secs. 121.473 and
121.475 may only be used due to operational delays and may not be
scheduled in advance.
(e) Each certificate holder shall provide each flight crewmember
who is assigned to one or more duty periods, standby duty, or reserve
time a rest period of at least 36 consecutive hours during any 7
consecutive calendar days.
(f) Each certificate holder must provide each flight crewmember
assigned to assigned time, when the assigned time is not part of a duty
period, a rest period of at least 10 hours before the commencement of a
subsequent duty period.
(g) Each certificate holder must provide each flight crewmember at
least 48 consecutive hours of rest upon return to the flight
crewmember's home base after completion of one or more duty periods
that contain flights that terminate in a time zone or zones that
differs from the time zone of the flight crewmember's home base by 6 or
more hours and the flight crewmember remains in that time zone or zones
for at least 48 consecutive hours. The flight crewmember must receive
this rest before beginning a subsequent duty period. The home base is
determined by the certificate holder and is where that crewmember is
based and receives schedules.
Sec. 121.485 Deadhead transportation.
Time spent in transportation, not local in character, that a
certificate holder requires of a flight crewmember and provides to
transport the crewmember to an airport at which he or she is to serve
on a flight as a crewmember, or from an airport at which he or she was
relieved from duty to return to his or her home station is not
considered part of a rest period. For duty period limitation purposes
the certificate holder and flight crewmember must consider deadhead
time as assigned time or as part of a duty period associated with
flight.
Sec. 121.487 Duty period and flight time limitations: Other flying for
a certificate holder.
No flight crewmember who is employed by a certificate holder
conducting operations under this part may do any other duty or flying
for any certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or 135
of this chapter if that duty or flying for a certificate holder plus
his or her duty or flying under this part will exceed any duty period
or flight time limitation in this part. This section applies to any
other duty or flying under part 91, part 121 or part 135 of this
chapter for any certificate holder whether the duty or flying precedes
or follows the flight crewmember's flying under this part.
Subpart S--[Removed and reserved]
5. Subpart S (Secs. 121.500 through 121.525) is removed, and the
subpart heading is reserved.
PART 135--AIR TAXI OPERATORS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS
6. The authority citation for part 135 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113,
44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906,
44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.
7. Section 135.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b) to read
as follows
Sec. 135.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) As specified in Sec. 135.275, the duty period limitations,
flight time limitations and rest requirements of this part are also
applicable to duty periods and flight time performed for a certificate
holder conducting operations under part 91 or part 121 of this chapter.
8. The heading for subpart F is revised to read as follows:
Subpart F--Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time
Limitations, and Rest Requirements
9. Sections 135.261, 135.263, 135.265, 135.267, 135.269, and
135.273 are revised and 135.275 is added.
Sec. 135.261 Applicability and terms.
(a) This subpart prescribes duty period limitations, flight time
limitations and rest requirements for flight crewmembers in commuter
and on-demand operations.
(b) For the purpose of this subpart the following terms and
definitions apply:
(1) Approved sleeping quarters means an area designated for the
purpose of flight crewmembers obtaining sleep as approved by the
Administrator.
(2) Assigned time is time when the flight crewmember is assigned by
the certificate holder to activities other than flight duties or
reserve time. Assigned time may include activities such as deadhead
transportation, training, loading baggage, taking tickets,
administrative tasks, or any other assignments at the direction of the
certificate holder. Assigned time may be considered part of a duty
period or not part of a duty period, at the discretion of the
certificate holder.
(3) Calendar day means the period of elapsed time, using
Coordinated Universal Time or local time, that begins at midnight and
ends 24 hours later at the next midnight.
(4) Duty period means the period of elapsed time between reporting
for an assignment involving flight time and release from that
assignment by the certificate holder. The time is calculated using
either Coordinated Universal Time or the local time of the flight
crewmember's home base, to reflect the total elapsed time.
(5) Operational delays means delays due to operational conditions
and requirements that are beyond the control of the certificate holder
such as adverse weather, aircraft equipment malfunctions, and air
traffic control. It does not include late arriving passengers, late
food service, late fuel trucks, delays in handling baggage, freight or
mail, or similar events.
(6) Protected time means a period of time during which a
certificate holder may not contact the flight crewmember and the
crewmember has no responsibility for work. Protected time occurs only
during a reserve assignment pursuant to Sec. 121.477(b)(2).
(7) Reserve time means a period of time when a flight crewmember
must be available to report upon notice for duty involving flight time
and the certificate holder allows the flight crewmember at least 1 hour
to report. Reserve time is not considered part of a rest period and is
not considered part of a duty period involving flight time. Reserve
time ends when the flight crewmember reports for a duty period, when
the flight crewmember is notified of a future flight assignment and
released from all further responsibilities until report time for that
assignment, or when the flight crewmember has been relieved for a rest
[[Page 65975]]
period. Reserve time does not include activities defined as ``assigned
time.''
(8) Rest period means the time period free of all restraint or duty
for a certificate holder and free of all responsibility for work or
duty should the occasion arise. ``Free of all restraint'' and ``free of
all responsibility'' would include, but not be limited to, accepting
phone calls, being required to carry a beeper, or being required to
contact the air carrier. If a flight crewmember is not serving in
assigned time, reserve time, standby duty or a duty period, that
crewmember would be in a rest period.
(9) Standby duty means any period of time when a flight crewmember
is required to report for a flight assignment in less than 1 hour from
the time of notification. It also includes time when a flight
crewmember is required to report to and remain at a specific facility
(e.g. airport, crew lounge) designated by a certificate holder. Standby
duty is treated like any other duty associated with flight. Standby
duty commences when the flight crewmember is placed on standby duty.
Standby duty ends when the flight crewmember is relieved from duty
associated with an actual flight or is otherwise relieved from duty.
Sec. 135.263 Pilot duty period limitations, flight time limitations,
and rest requirements.
(a) A certificate holder may assign a scheduled duty period or
reserve assignment to a pilot and a pilot may accept that assignment
only when the applicable duty period limitations, flight time
limitations, and rest requirements of this section are met.
(b) For aircraft for which only one pilot is required, no
certificate holder may assign a pilot and no pilot may accept a
scheduled duty period of more than 14 hours. The duty period may not
include more than 8 scheduled hours of flight time. The pilot must be
scheduled for a rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours. This rest
period must occur between the completion of the scheduled duty period
and the commencement of the next subsequent duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (b) may be reduced to no fewer than 9 consecutive hours if
the pilot has not actually exceeded the maximum 14-hour duty period and
if the pilot is provided with a subsequent rest period of at least 11
hours. This subsequent rest period must be scheduled to begin no later
than 24 hours after the beginning of the reduced rest period and must
occur between the completion of the scheduled duty period and the
commencement of the next duty period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (b) may be
extended to 16 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 10 hour rest period may not be reduced.
(c) Except as required in paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this
section, no certificate holder may assign a flight crew consisting of
two pilots and no pilot may accept a scheduled duty period of more than
14 hours. The duty period may not include more than 10 scheduled hours
of flight time. Each pilot must be scheduled for a rest period of at
least 10 consecutive hours. This rest period must occur between the
completion of the scheduled duty period and the commencement of the
next duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (c) may be reduced to no fewer than 9 consecutive hours if
the pilot has not actually exceeded the maximum 14-hour duty period and
if the pilot is provided with a subsequent rest period of at least 11
hours. This subsequent rest period must be scheduled to begin no later
than 24 hours after the beginning of the reduced rest period and must
occur between the completion of the scheduled duty period and the
commencement of the next duty period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (c) may be
extended to 16 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 10 hour rest period may not be reduced.
(d) A certificate holder may assign a flight crew consisting of 3
pilots and a pilot may accept a scheduled duty period of more than 14
hours, but no more than 16 hours. The duty period may not include more
than 12 scheduled hours of flight time. Each pilot must be scheduled
for a rest period of at least 14 consecutive hours. This rest period
must occur between the completion of the scheduled duty period and the
commencement of the next duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (d) may be reduced to no fewer than 12 consecutive hours if
the pilot has not actually exceeded the maximum 16-hour duty period and
if the pilot is provided with a subsequent rest period of at least 16
hours. This subsequent rest period must be scheduled to begin no later
than 24 hours after the beginning of the reduced rest period and must
occur between the completion of the scheduled duty period and the
commencement of the next duty period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (d) may be
extended to 18 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 14 hour rest period may not be reduced.
(e) A certificate holder may assign a flight crew consisting of 3
pilots, and a pilot may accept a scheduled duty period of more than 16
hours, but no more than 18 hours. The duty period may not include more
than 16 scheduled hours of flight time. Each pilot must be given an
opportunity to rest in-flight in approved sleeping quarters. Each pilot
must be scheduled for a rest period of at least 18 consecutive hours.
This rest period must occur between the completion of the scheduled
duty period and the commencement of the next subsequent duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (e) may be reduced to no fewer than 16 consecutive hours if
the pilot has not actually exceeded the maximum 18-hour duty period and
if the pilot is provided with a subsequent rest period of at least 20
hours. This subsequent rest period must be scheduled to begin no later
than 24 hours after the beginning of the reduced rest period and must
occur between the completion of the scheduled duty period and the
commencement of the next subsequent duty period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (e) may be
extended to 20 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 18 hour rest period may not be reduced.
(f) If the scheduled duty period includes one or more flights that
land or take off outside the 48 contiguous states and the District of
Columbia, a certificate holder may assign a flight crew consisting of 4
pilots and a pilot may accept a scheduled duty period of more than 18
hours but not more than 24 hours. The duty period may not include more
than 18 scheduled hours of flight time. Each pilot must be given an
opportunity to rest in-flight in approved sleeping quarters. Each pilot
must be scheduled for a rest period of at least 22 consecutive hours.
This rest period must occur between the completion of the scheduled
duty period and the commencement of the next subsequent duty period.
(1) Due to operational delays, the rest period required under this
paragraph (f) may be reduced to no fewer than 20 consecutive hours if
the pilot has not actually exceeded the maximum 24 hour duty period and
if the pilot is provided with a subsequent rest period of at least 24
hours. This subsequent rest period must be scheduled to begin no later
than 24 hours after the beginning of the reduced rest period and must
occur between the completion of the
[[Page 65976]]
scheduled duty period and the commencement of the next subsequent duty
period.
(2) The duty period required under this paragraph (f) may be
extended to 26 hours when the extension is due to operational delays.
In this case the 22 hour rest period may not be reduced.
Sec. 135.265 Reserve and standby assignments.
(a) Standby duty. Standby duty commences when a flight crewmember
is placed on standby duty assignment. Standby duty periods must be
scheduled in accordance with Sec. 135.263. Standby duty periods end
when the duty period associated with a subsequent flight assignment
ends or the flight crewmember is relieved from standby duty for a
scheduled rest period.
(b) Reserve time. A certificate holder may assign a reserve
assignment to a flight crewmember and a flight crewmember may accept
that assignment only when the applicable provisions of this section are
met. Each flight crewmember must be given a 10-hour rest period before
being assigned to reserve time. Reserve time may be assigned under
either of the following options and the flight crewmember must be
notified of which option has been selected before the beginning of the
reserve time assignment:
(1) A certificate holder may schedule a flight crewmember assigned
to reserve time and a flight crewmember may accept any duty period if
the flight crewmember receives at least 10 hours notice and if the duty
period is scheduled in accordance with Sec. 135.263. If a flight
crewmember does not receive at least 10 hours notice, the following
limitations apply:
(i) If at least 8 hours notice is given the scheduled duty period
is limited to no more than 12 hours. The duty period required under
this paragraph (b)(1) may be extended to 14 hours when the extension is
due to operational delays.
(ii) If at least 6 hours notice is given the scheduled duty period
is limited to no more than 10 hours. The duty period required under
this paragraph (b)(1) may be extended to 12 hours when the extension is
due to operational delays.
(iii) If at least 4 hours notice is given the scheduled duty period
is limited to no more than 8 hours. The duty period required under this
paragraph (b)(1) may be extended to 10 hours when the extension is due
to operational delays.
(iv) If fewer than 4 hours notice is given the scheduled duty
period is limited to no more than 6 hours. The duty period required
under this paragraph (b)(1) may be extended to 8 hours when the
extension is due to operational delays.
(2) A certificate holder may assign a flight crewmember to a
reserve assignment and a flight crewmember may accept a duty period if,
for each 24-hour period, the flight crewmember receives at least a
regularly scheduled 6-hour period that is protected from any contact by
the certificate holder. The hours of the 6-hour protected time period
must be assigned before the flight crewmember begins the reserve time
assignment and must occur at the same time during each 24-hour period
during a reserve time assignment. Any duty period assignment must be
scheduled to be completed within the 18 hour reserve period. The length
of the duty period and the subsequent rest period must be in accordance
with Sec. 135.263.
Sec. 135.267 Additional flight crewmember duty period and flight time
scheduling limitations.
(a) A flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for a
duty period in excess of the scheduled duty period limitations if the
duty periods to which he or she is assigned are scheduled and normally
terminate within the limitations, but, due to operational delays, the
flights to which he or she is assigned are not at block out time
expected to reach their destination within the scheduled duty period.
However, no air carrier may schedule a flight crewmember, nor may a
flight crewmember accept a flight that at block out time would extend
the flight crewmembers scheduled duty period maximum more than two
hours, as provided in Sec. 135.263.
(b) A flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for
flight time in excess of the flight time limitations if the flights to
which he or she is assigned are scheduled and normally terminate within
the limitations, but due to operational delays are not at block out
time expected to reach their destination within the scheduled time.
Sec. 135.269 Weekly and monthly flight crewmember flight time
limitations.
No certificate holder may schedule any flight crewmember and no
flight crewmember may accept an assignment for flight time under this
part if that flight crewmember's total flight time for a certificate
holder under parts 91, 121, and 135 of this chapter will exceed--
(a) 32 hours in any 7 consecutive calendar days.
(b) 100 hours in any calendar month.
Sec. 135.271 Additional flight crewmember rest requirements.
(a) No certificate holder may assign any flight crewmember and no
flight crewmember may accept any duty period or flight time with the
certificate holder unless the flight crewmember has had at least the
minimum rest required under this subpart.
(b) No certificate holder may assign any flight crewmember and no
flight crewmember may accept any duty with the certificate holder
during any required rest period. For example the flight crewmember may
not be required to contact the certificate holder, answer the
telephone, carry a beeper, remain at a specific location or in any
other way be responsible to the air carrier during a rest period.
(c) Rest periods that are required under this subpart can occur
concurrently with any other rest period.
(d) The reduced rest periods allowed under Sec. 135.263 may only be
used due to operational delays and may not be scheduled in advance.
(e) Each certificate holder shall provide each flight crewmember
who is assigned to one or more duty periods, standby duty, or reserve
time a rest period of at least 36 consecutive hours during any 7
consecutive calendar days.
(f) Each certificate holder must provide each flight crewmember
assigned to assigned time, when the assigned time is not part of a duty
period, a rest period of at least 10 hours before the commencement of a
subsequent duty period.
(g) Each certificate holder must provide each flight crewmember at
least 48 consecutive hours of rest upon return to the flight
crewmember's home base after completion of one or more duty periods
that terminate in a time zone or zones that differs from the time zone
of the flight crewmember's home base by 6 or more hours and the flight
crewmember remains in that time zone or zones for at least 48
consecutive hours. The flight crewmember must receive this rest before
beginning a subsequent duty period. The home base is determined by the
certificate holder and is where that crewmember is based and receives
schedules.
Sec. 135.273 Deadhead transportation.
Time spent in transportation, not local in character, that a
certificate holder requires of a flight crewmember and provides to
transport the crewmember to an airport at which he or she is to serve
on a flight as a crewmember, or from an airport at which he or she was
relieved from duty to return to his or her home station is not
considered part of a rest period. For
[[Page 65977]]
duty period limitation purposes the certificate holder and flight
crewmember must consider deadhead time as assigned time or as part of a
duty period associated with flight.
Sec. 135.275 Duty period and flight time limitations: Other flying for
a certificate holder.
No flight crewmember who is employed by a certificate holder
conducting operations under this part may do any other duty or flying
for a certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or part
135 of this chapter if that duty or flying for a certificate holder
plus his or her duty or flying under this part will exceed any duty
period or flight time limitation in this part. This section applies to
any other duty or flying under part 91, part 121, or part 135 of this
chapter for a certificate holder whether the duty or flying precedes or
follows the flight crewmember's flying under this part.
Sec. 135.271 [Redesignated as Sec. 135.277]
10. Section 135.271 is redesignated as Sec. 135.277 and revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 135.277 Additional flight crewmember rest requirements.
(a) No certificate holder may assign any flight crewmember and no
flight crewmember may accept any duty period or flight time with the
certificate holder unless the flight crewmember has had at least the
minimum rest required under this subpart.
(b) No certificate holder may assign any flight crewmember and no
flight crewmember may accept any duty with the certificate holder
during any required rest period. For example the flight crewmember may
not be required to contact the certificate holder, answer the
telephone, carry a beeper, remain at a specific location or in any
other way be responsible to the air carrier during a rest period.
(c) Rest periods that are required under this subpart can occur
concurrently with any other rest period.
(d) The reduced rest periods allowed under Sec. 135.263 may only be
used due to operational delays and may not be scheduled in advance.
(e) Each certificate holder shall provide each flight crewmember
who is assigned to one or more duty periods, standby duty, or reserve
time a rest period of at least 36 consecutive hours during any 7
consecutive calendar days.
(f) Each certificate holder must provide each flight crewmember
assigned to assigned time, when the assigned time is not part of a duty
period, a rest period of at least 10 hours before the commencement of a
subsequent duty period.
(g) Each certificate holder must provide each flight crewmember at
least 48 consecutive hours of rest upon return to the flight
crewmember's home base after completion of one or more duty periods
that terminate in a time zone or zones that differs from the time zone
of the flight crewmember's home base by 6 or more hours and the flight
crewmember remains in that time zone or zones for at least 48
consecutive hours. The flight crewmember must receive this rest before
beginning a subsequent duty period. The home base is determined by the
certificate holder and is where that crewmember is based and receives
schedules.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 11, 1995.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30547 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30546 The Age 60 Rule
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65977-65986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30546]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 121
[Docket No. 27264]
RIN 2120-AF96
The Age 60 Rule
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Disposition of comments and notice of agency decisions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action announces FAA's decisions on a number of issues
regarding the FAA's ``Age 60 Rule''. The issues include: responding to
the comments requested in 1993 regarding various aspects of the Age 60
Rule, including the ``Age 60 Project, Consolidated Database
Experiments, Final Report'', and issues raised by pilots seeking
exemptions from the Age 60 Rule, issues raised by a petition for
rulemaking by the Professional Pilots Federation (PPF), requesting the
FAA to remove the Age 60 Rule.
After review of all comments, studies, and other pertinent
information, the FAA has determined not to initiate rulemaking to
change the Age 60 Rule at this time. The FAA also has decided not to
grant any of the pending petitions for exemption or rulemaking.
ADDRESSES: The complete docket containing recent comments on the Age 60
Rule, including copies of studies related to the Age 60 issue, may be
examined at the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief
Counsel (AGC-200), Rules Docket, Room 915-G, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, weekdays (except Federal holidays) between
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Availability of Disposition
Any person may obtain a copy of this Disposition by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public
Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-220, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484.
Requests should be identified by the docket number of this Disposition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel V. Meier, Jr., AFS-240, Regulations Branch, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,
Telephone (202) 267-3749 or (202) 267-8086.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 121.383(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14
CFR Sec. 121.383(c)) prohibits any air carrier from using the services
of any person as a pilot, and prohibits any person from serving as a
pilot, on an airplane engaged in operations under part 121 if that
person has reached his or her 60th birthday. The FAA adopted the ``Age
60 Rule'', as it has come to be known, in 1959 (24 FR 9767, December 5,
1959).
In late 1990, the FAA initiated a study aimed at consolidating
available accident data and correlating it with the amount of flying by
pilots as a function of their age. This resulted in a document entitled
``Age 60 Project, Consolidated Database Experiments, Final Report'',
dated March 1993 (the ``Hilton Study''). The FAA held a public meeting
and requested comments regarding various issues related to the Age 60
Rule, including the Hilton Study (58 FR 21336, April 20, 1993). The FAA
has reviewed the written comments received in the docket (Docket No.
27264) and to the comments presented at the public meeting. The FAA is
also responding to a number of pending petitions from pilots seeking an
exemption from the Age 60 Rule. Finally, the FAA is responding to a
petition for rulemaking submitted by the Professional Pilots Federation
(PPF).
This document describes the history and basis for the rule, the
major events during the history of the rule, the FAA's response to the
issues raised above, and the FAA's rationale for maintaining the Age 60
Rule.
I(a). Basis for the 1959 Rule
The FAA promulgated the Age 60 Rule in 1959 because of concerns
that a hazard to safety was presented by utilization of aging pilots in
air carrier operations. As noted in that rulemaking,
[[Page 65978]]
the agency found ``that there is a progressive deterioration of certain
important physiological and psychological functions with age, that
significant medical defects attributable to this degenerative process
occur at an increasing rate as age increases, and that sudden
incapacity due to such medical defects becomes more frequent in any
group reaching age 60.'' 24 FR 9767. It also found that ``[s]uch
incapacity, due primarily to heart attacks and strokes, cannot be
predicted accurately as to any specific individual on the basis of
presently available scientific tests and criteria.'' 24 FR 9767. The
FAA noted ``[o]ther factors, even less susceptible to precise
measurement as to their effect but which must be considered in
connection with safety in flight, result simply from aging alone and
are, with some variations, applicable to all individuals. These relate
to loss of ability to perform highly skilled tasks rapidly, to resist
fatigue, to maintain physical stamina, to perform effectively in a
complex and stressful environment, to apply experience, judgment and
reasoning rapidly in new, changing and emergency situations, and to
learn new techniques, skills and procedures.'' 24 FR 9767. While the
FAA recognized that such losses generally start well before age 60, the
agency determined that beyond age 59 the risks associated with these
losses become unacceptable for pilots in part 121 operations.
The agency noted that, due to seniority, older pilots tend to ``fly
the largest, highest-performance aircraft, carrying the greatest number
of passengers over the longest non-stop distances,'' in the highest
density traffic. 24 FR 9767. The FAA concluded that, because of the
high risks involved, persons should be precluded from piloting aircraft
in part 121 operations after reaching age 60.
While the Age 60 Rule prohibits pilots from operating aircraft
under part 121 after reaching their 60th birthdays, it does not impose
mandatory retirement for affected pilots. A pilot may work as a flight
engineer or flight instructor in operations conducted under part 121 or
may work as a pilot in operations outside of part 121. The pilot also
may function as an instructor or evaluator in simulators, an area that
has expanded over the years.
I(b). Subsequent Rulemaking Actions
In the early 1980's, the FAA explored possible changes to the Age
60 Rule, stemming from direction from Congress in 1979 that the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) study the desirability of mandatory
age retirement for certain pilots. (P.L. 96-171). The NIH assigned the
National Institute on Aging (NIA) the primary responsibility for
implementing the legislation. In the report from this study, ``Report
of the National Institute on Aging Panel on the Experienced Pilot
Study'' (August 1981) (NIH report), NIA recommended that the age 60
limit be retained. Among other things, the panel concluded that, while
no medical significance could be attached to age 60 as a mandatory
retirement age, age-related health changes endanger aviation safety and
no medical or performance appraisal system could be identified that
would single out pilots who would pose a hazard to safety. The
conclusions reached by the NIA panel and the supporting statements
contained in the report pointed to an inability to distinguish those
persons who, as a consequence of aging, present a threat to air safety
from those who do not. The following recommendations were made:
1. The age 60 limit should be retained for pilots in command and
first officers.
2. The FAA or some other appropriate Federal agency should be
requested to engage in a systematic program to collect the medical and
performance data necessary to consider relaxing the age 60 rule.
3. In view of the growing importance of commuter air carriers, the
age 60 limit should be extended to cover all pilots engaged in carrying
passengers for hire, specifically including operations under part 135
to provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided in part 121
operations.
As part of its study, NIA looked at information on functional
decline with age and the increased frequency of a number of medical
disorders (including cardiovascular disease, neurological and mental
disorders, and changes in perceptual, psychomotor and intellectual
functions) associated with aging. In addition, NIA looked at death and
disability rates in air carrier pilots and flight engineers, death
rates in the general population, and accident rates for pilots.
In response to the NIH recommendations, in 1982 the FAA published
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the Age 60 Rule (47
FR 29782, July 8, 1982). The FAA was considering identifying a select
group of pilots who would continue flying in part 121 operations in
order to allow the FAA to collect data on selected pilots, age 60 and
over, flying in actual operations under part 121. The FAA was also
considering establishing age limits for flight engineers serving on
airplanes operated under part 121. The FAA withdrew the ANPRM in 1984
(49 FR 14692, April 12, 1984). The FAA found that valid tests did not
exist for selecting a group of pilots age 60 and over who could act as
the test group for collecting data. The FAA was concerned that without
valid selection tests these pilots would create an unacceptable safety
risk to part 121 operations. The FAA also stated that it was not
appropriate to establish an age limit for flight engineers at that
time.
I(c). 1993 Request for Comments on Age 60 Rule and Hilton Study
In late 1990 the FAA contracted for the Hilton Study, a 2-year
study to consolidate accident data and correlate it with flying
experience and age of pilots. This study analyzed accident data between
1976 and 1988. Although the focus of the study was on part 121 pilots,
the study analyzed the accident rates for pilots in part 91, 121, and
135 operations holding Class I, Class II, and Class III medical
certificates. The authors of the study found ``no hint of an increase
in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared
their 60th birthday'' but noted that there were no data available on
scheduled air carrier pilots beyond age 60. Observing a ``hint, and a
hint only,'' of an increase in accident rates for Class III pilots
older than 63 years of age, they concluded that ``one could cautiously
increase the retirement age to age 63.''
In addition, on April 20, 1993, the FAA published a notice of
public meeting and request for comments regarding various aspects of
the Hilton Study. (58 FR 21336; April 20, 1993.) The public meeting was
held on September 29 and 30, 1993, and the comment period closed on
October 15, 1993. In response to the FAA's notice of public meeting and
request for comments, 46 members of the public made presentations at
the public meeting, and the FAA received approximately 1,200 written
comments on the Hilton Study and the Age 60 Rule in general before the
close of the comment period.
I(d). Commuter Rule
The FAA addressed the Age 60 Rule in a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Notice 95-5, 60 FR 16230, March 29, 1995) that would
require certain commuter operators that now conduct operations under
part 135 to conduct those operations under part 121 (the ``Commuter
Rule''). In that notice, the FAA proposed to apply all part 121 rules,
including the Age 60 Rule, to those pilots currently employed in
certain part 135 scheduled operations who would be affected by the
Commuter Rule. In response to Notice 95-5 the FAA received many
comments dealing
[[Page 65979]]
with the question, not raised by Notice 95-5, of whether there should
be an age limitation for part 121 pilots and what that age should be.
To that extent those comments have been considered in this Disposition.
I(e). Public Comment
1993 Meeting and Request for Comments
In addition to the comments at the 1993 public meeting and received
during the comment period, the FAA received over 2,000 comments after
the comment period closed. The issues raised in the comments by both
sets of commenters are similar and will be discussed together. The
majority of the commenters at the public meeting and those submitting
written comments before the close of the comment period are in favor of
raising the age limit, while the majority of commenters submitting
written comments after the close of the comment period are against
raising the age limit. Commenters in favor of raising the age limit
offer several different alternatives, ranging from age 62 to no age
limit. Some commenters opposed to a rule change state that the age
limit should be decreased to age 55.
Commuter Rule
In addition to the above comments, over 2,000 comments on the age
60 issue (including about 1,000 postcards from members of an airline
pilot organization) were received in the docket established for the
Commuter Rule. The overwhelming majority of these comments support
maintaining the Age 60 Rule and do not express opinions that are
different from other comments received in response to the public
meeting and request for comments in Docket 27264.
The issues raised at the public meeting, the written comments, and
the Commuter Rule are discussed below.
I(f). Professional Pilots Federation Petition for Rulemaking To Repeal
the Age 60 Rule
The PPF, an organization whose membership is composed of pilots who
oppose the Age 60 Rule, filed a petition for rulemaking in July 1993
(Docket 27375; 58 FR 46585, September 2, 1993) that requests the
removal of Sec. 121.383(c). PPF believes that Federal law and policy,
operational and regulatory developments since promulgation of the rule,
and the results of the Hilton Study warrant the removal.
In its petition, the PPF states that the Age 60 Rule has no basis
in fact; refusal to repeal the rule would constitute arbitrary and
capricious action by the FAA, contrary to the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act; refusal to repeal the rule without
evidence of a need to retain it in the interest of public safety is
inconsistent with Federal policy against age discrimination; and repeal
of the rule would have a positive economic impact on the U.S. air
carrier industry.
In addition, the PPF states that the FAA should exercise leadership
in the international community and repeal the Age 60 Rule; the Age 60
standard in ICAO Annex 1 is ready for change; and the JAA has proposed
increasing the maximum age limit for air transport pilots to 65. (The
FAA notes that JAA's proposal is to allow pilots to operate in multi-
pilot operations up to the age of 65, provided no more than one pilot
in the cockpit is over the age of 60.)
The major issues brought up in the PPF's petition for rulemaking
(such as age discrimination, the Hilton Study, economic impacts of the
Age 60 Rule, etc.) are discussed below in connection with the
disposition of comments in Docket No. 27264. Because the FAA has
determined that there is insufficient justification to change the Age
60 Rule at this time and that the rule is consistent with Federal law,
PPF's petition for rulemaking will be denied in a separate document.
I(g). Petitions for Exemption From the Age 60 Rule
Over the years the FAA has received numerous petitions for
exemption from the Age 60 Rule. The FAA consistently has denied these
petitions. Some petitioners have sought review in the United States
Courts of Appeals, and the Courts have upheld the denials. However, in
1992 when the Hilton Study was underway, the FAA delayed action on the
pending petitions for exemption and those newly received. Most of the
issues raised by the petitions were so intertwined with the underlying
Age 60 Rule issues, the FAA chose to defer action pending deliberation
of the broader issues involving the Age 60 Rule itself. There are
currently over 100 petitions for exemption pending. Summaries of the
petitions were published in the Federal Register, and comments were
received for some of the petitions. These comments expressed opinions
and did not provide the FAA with new information. The issues raised by
commenters are discussed in sections II, III, and V below.
Overall, the petitioners provide similar information and arguments
that they contend justify exemptions. Part of their assertions involve
their personal fitness (see section II(a)) and the ability of the FAA
to test them individually with simulators (see section III(a)). They
state that they hold or are qualified to hold first-class airman
medical certificates (see section III(b)). Some state that they have
extensive skill and experience as pilots (see section II(c)). They also
note that the FAA gives many exemptions to younger pilots for various
medical conditions (see section III(b)).
The petitioners also contend that the Age 60 Rule is discriminatory
(see section V(b)). In addition, the petitioners state that the Age 60
Rule is an arbitrary age and that the age of 60 has not scientifically
been shown to be an accurate predictor of health or ability (see
section II(a)). They state that studies used by the FAA in the past to
justify the rule are flawed, including the NIH Study and the reports
prepared by Richard Golaszewski (Acumenics Research and Technology,
Incorporated, The Influence of Total Flight Time, Recent Flight Time
and Age on Pilot Accident Rates, Final Report (1983) (First Golaszewski
Report); General Aviation Safety Studies: Preliminary Analysis of Pilot
Proficiency (1991) and his subsequent work, Additional Analysis of
General Aviation Pilot Proficiency (1993) (Second Golaszewski Report)
(section II(b)). They state that pilots at age 60 are in the safest age
group and that forcing them to retire results in individuals with less
experience serving as pilots, resulting in lower safety (sections II(c)
and V(f)). They state that sudden incapacitation is not a cause of
accidents in Part 121 operations (section II(a)). They state that the
rule was promulgated for economic reasons alone (section V(a)). They
state that the rule is contrary to the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (section V(b)). They point out that other countries have higher
retirement ages for their pilots (section V(c)). They state that
deleting the rule would save the air carriers money (section IV(a)).
Under 49 U.S.C. 44701(e) the FAA, in its discretion, may grant
exemptions from the requirements of a regulation if it finds that such
an exemption is in the public interest. Section 11.25 (14 CFR
Sec. 11.25) provides procedures for petitioning for an exemption.
Section 11.25(b)(5) provides that such a petition must--
Contain any information, views, or arguments available to the
petitioner to support the action sought, the reasons why the
petition would be in the public interest and, * * * the reason why
the exemption would not adversely affect safety or the action to be
taken by the petitioner to provide a level of safety equal to that
provided by the rule from which the exemption is sought.
[[Page 65980]]
The petitioners have the burden of showing that the exemption is
justified.
The FAA does not doubt that the petitioners, in general, are well-
qualified, experienced, and safe pilots. However, no petitioner has
suggested or shown how he or she is unique compared to others who are
subject to the rule.
To the extent that petitioners' comments involve the justification
for the Age 60 Rule itself, these issues are discussed in sections II,
III, and V below.
As to individual petitioners' fitness to serve as pilots past the
age of 60, which petitioners assert can be demonstrated by
individualized testing or evaluation, no petitioner has submitted a
protocol, nor is the FAA aware of a protocol, that would permit the FAA
to adequately assess an aging individual's relative risks of
incapacitation, either sudden or subtle. They have not shown how their
circumstances are different in a significant way from others subject to
the rule. For instance, there is nothing unique in petitioners holding
first-class airman medical certificates; all pilots who exercise the
privileges of an Air Transport Pilot certificate are required to hold a
first-class airman medical certificate. Numerous pilots operating under
part 121, who are approaching age 60, have long, distinguished careers.
Indeed, the FAA considered these issues in response to the comments in
Docket 27264, and they are further responded to below.
The FAA has determined that the petitioners have not shown their
circumstances to be unique compared with those who comply with the
rule, and that the issues they raise are more appropriately considered
in connection with whether the FAA should propose to change the general
rule. The FAA will in separate documents deny the pending petitions for
exemption from the Age 60 Rule.
In addition, the FAA intends to handle future petitions for
exemptions for the Age 60 Rule differently. The normal procedures for
handling petitions for exemption are set forth in Secs. 11.25 and
11.26. They include publishing a summary of the petition, reviewing any
comments received, and issuing an individualized grant or denial of the
petition that recites the basis for the petition and the FAA's analysis
as to why it is granted or denied. This process can take a substantial
amount of time. It appears not to be necessary, however, to carry out
all these steps for future petitions for exemption from the Age 60 Rule
that are substantially similar to those discussed here. In the future,
the FAA will deny any petition for exemption from the Age 60 Rule
without first publishing it for comment unless it contains a proposed
technique, not discussed in this Disposition, to assess an individual
pilot's abilities and risks of subtle and sudden incapacitation.
Petitions that do not contain new information or a protocol that may
allow the FAA to accurately assess the individual will be summarily
denied. A copy of this disposition will be attached to the denial to
explain the basis for the FAA's denial. Any petition that does contain
such a proposal will be processed and evaluated as provided in
Secs. 11.25 and 11.26.
II. Concerns Regarding Aging Pilots
After considering all comments and known studies, FAA concludes
that concerns regarding aging pilots and underlying the original rule
have not been shown to be invalid or misplaced.
II(a). Physical Degradation with Age
As noted above, the Age 60 Rule was promulgated in 1959 to address
the progressive deterioration of physiological and psychological
functions with age and an increasing occurrence of significant medical
defects and sudden incapacitation associated with this degenerative
process. While emphasizing heart attacks and strokes, the agency also
noted ``other'' factors, less susceptible to precise measurement,
resulting from aging alone. Major emphasis was placed on the
difficulties in attempting to predict incapacity.
Several commenters state that the death rate in general and the
cardiovascular death rate in particular for men in the relevant age
groups declined dramatically between 1960 and 1989. The commenters
believe, therefore, that the age limit could be raised. Other
commenters, however, state that insurance statistics show a dramatic
rise in cardiovascular disease in people over age 50.
In the 35 years since the rule was introduced, there has been
remarkable progress in medicine, particularly in the ability to
evaluate cardiovascular fitness and in the diagnosis and treatment of
cardiac and cerebrovascular illness. For example, cardiovascular
disease rises with age, steeply, beginning between ages 55 and 65, and,
though mortality has dropped since 1960, cardiovascular disease remains
the most frequent cause of death in pilots and the general population.
With this increased incidence of cardiovascular disease in the older
population, the risk for unexpected threatening events is raised.
Cardiac events (e.g., heart attacks, sudden death) during flight have
continued to occur in low but fairly consistent numbers over the years
and have caused general aviation accidents.
Other conditions are known to increase in incidence or to become
more complicated with aging. Many present greater difficulties of
detection and risk assessment than does cardiovascular disease. Among
these are cerebrovascular disease; malignancies; endocrine dysfunction;
neurological disorders; psychiatric diagnoses including depression; and
decline in sensory and motor capabilities. There has been an increasing
awareness of the more subtle adverse conditions affecting performance,
those related to cognitive functioning.
The concepts of ``age-related cognitive decline'' or ``age-
associated memory impairment'' describe objective impairment of
cognitive function (e.g., attention; language; some visuospatial
skills; and, particularly, memory), as a result of aging. These
concepts are applied to describe a longitudinal decline in performance
that is age appropriate, i.e., a normal outcome of aging (Petersen, RC;
Normal Aging, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Early Alzheimer's Disease;
The Neurologist; 1:000-000, 1995 [in press]). Since there now is
general agreement that a functional decline occurs with normal aging,
on-going research seeks tools for its identification and quantification
and to determine its significance for individuals. A condition of
``mild cognitive impairment'' also is recognized and appears to be the
herald of degenerative disease or dementia. Again, research looks for
diagnostic tools and for predictor variables of the ultimate outcome
for the individual.
Dementia in the adult population is a major and growing medical and
social problem. It occurs at all ages, but its incidence increases with
advancing age so that the largest group of demented patients is in the
older age groups (Differential Diagnosis of Dementing Diseases;
National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference Statement; Volume 6,
Number 11; July 6-8, 1987). One in 10 persons over age 65 and nearly
half of those over 85 have Alzheimer's disease alone, and increasingly
it is found in people in their 40's and 50's.
Many of the dementing diseases can be confirmed or denied with
certainty only at autopsy. The history includes a decline from the
individual's previously attained intellectual level and usually
involves defects in memory, other cognitive capacities, and adaptive
behavior. Usually, it is marked by significant deterioration of memory
and
[[Page 65981]]
of one or more other intellectual functions such as language, spatial
or temporal orientation, judgment, and abstract thought. Onset is
usually but not always insidious, and the patient may or may not be
aware of the dementia. Deterioration may vary from subtle changes that
are overlooked by coworkers, family, and friends, to totally
incapacitating.
Is there a level of cognitive dysfunction acceptable in a part 121
pilot? On a particular basis, can pilots be screened for mild cognitive
deficits or for the ``normal'' age-related cognitive decline? Can early
dementia be identified before the affected pilot becomes a risk? How do
we know when the pilot becomes a risk? How specifically are the
deficits identified through currently available neuropsychological
testing related to performance and to the real requirements of
piloting? What is an acceptable level of risk in aviation? When does
the incidence of cognitive deficit become unacceptable? Are current
proficiency evaluations adequate for determination of a pilot's ability
to perform adequately under every reasonably anticipated circumstance
regardless of age? At present, adequate answers to these questions have
not been provided.
In its 1981 report, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National
Academy of Science (on which the NIH report is based) noted that in
addition to the increased incidence of cardiovascular disease and
degradation in cognitive functions associated with aging, other effects
of aging become more prevalent. For example, diabetes, thyroid disease,
pulmonary dysfunction, and gastrointestinal malignancy are more common
with advancing age.
There is other deterioration with age. For instance, research
points to a decline with age in the speed and/or quality of many
aspects of perceptual and motor functioning. In the general population,
the ability to see fine details declines slightly in adulthood until
about 60, and more markedly thereafter. With age, there is typically
some loss in ability to hear effectively; the higher the frequency
beyond about 1,000 hertz, the greater the loss.
Clearly, there is progressive anatomic, physiological, and
cognitive decline associated with aging, albeit variable in severity
and onset among individuals. Physicians, psychologists, physiologists,
and scientists of other disciplines have identified many age-associated
variables, some easily measurable, some not, that may be important to
human function. There may be other variables, not yet identified, that
play an equally significant role. We know that, at some age, everyone
reaches a level of infirmity or unreliability that is unacceptable in a
pilot in air transportation. That age will vary from person to person
but cannot yet be predicted in a specific individual. Because it is
unacceptable for these pilots to work until failure or until there is
obvious impairment, the age of 60 has served well as a regulatory limit
since 1959. Many commenters state that the Age 60 Rule is arbitrary and
there is no scientific basis for it. Others would choose a different
arbitrary age. For instance, the Acting Chief, Adult Psychological
Development, Behavioral and Social Research Program, NIA, submitted a
comment in 1993 on behalf of the NIA. He states the view that the age
limit could be increased ``to an age closer to the mid-sixties.''
However, the studies he cites do not point to an age closer to the mid-
sixties any more definitively than they point to the age of 60 as an
appropriate age limit.
While science does not dictate the age of 60, that age is within
the age range during which sharp increases in disease mortality and
morbidity occur.
II(b). Hilton Study and Other Accident Rate Studies
Over the years, several reports have examined the rate of accidents
as they relate to age in various populations groups, in an effort to
better understand how aging may affect safety. As discussed above, the
Hilton Study was initiated by the FAA to look at accident rates in
pilots. Many commenters state that the report provides justification
for a rule change. They point out that the report shows the same
accident rate for pilots who are 50 and pilots who are 65. They state
that the report finds that accident rates of part 121 pilots decrease
with age. Some other commenters, however, state that the report does
not provide justification for a rule change. They state that the report
is not meaningful since correlating accident rates solely with total
flying hours and recent flying hours is not a valid measurement. They
also state that it is not meaningful to compare private pilots who fly
beyond age 60 with pilots who fly a lot of hours per year in part 121
operations.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Associate Professor of Epidemiology,
The City University of New York Medical School, submitted comments on
the Hilton Study. He points out that accident rates are a very crude
tool to examine the relationship between pilot age, health, and
performance. The IOM, he notes, ``recognized the existence of a
fundamental problem: since there are no Class I pilots flying Part 121
flights beyond age 60, there are no medical, performance or even
accident data on the group of greatest interest. Needed are data on
vision, reaction time, judgment, circadian rhythm and many other
neurobehavioral and physiological measures.'' This problem led to the
IOM's recommendation that extensive additional data be collected and
analyzed to better understand the relationship of aging and pilot
performance. Dr. Michaels notes that the Hilton Study did not take the
approach recommended by the IOM. Rather than examining the
neurobehavioral and physiological measures detailed by the IOM, the
authors of the Hilton Study examined only accident rates. (However, the
authors of the Hilton Report fully carried out the work statement of
their research contract with the agency which asked only that accidents
be studied.)
Dr. Michaels further noted that numerous studies have demonstrated
that, among various groups of pilots examined, increasing accident risk
is associated with increasing age. He includes papers by Golaszewski
(1983); Mortimer (1991); and an analysis by the Office of Technology
Assessment (1990) which support this finding. He also invites attention
to the citation by the NIA Report of studies by Harper (1964);
Lategola, et al (1970); Rohde and Ross (1966); and Booze (1977), all
demonstrating increasing risk with increasing age. Dr. Michaels warns
that it would be contrary to customary epidemiologic practice to accept
unconditionally and definitively findings from a single study that are
substantially different from those of previous studies.
There is contention regarding the Hilton Study's grouping of pilots
for comparison purposes. Richard Golaszewski, the author of two papers
on the relationship between pilot age and accident rates, belives that
the Hilton Study's conclusions are based on the use of a group of
pilots (holders of Class III medical certificates who have more than
500 hours of total flight time and 50 hours of flight time in the last
year), inappropriate for inferences about the likely accident rate
performance of airline pilots of age 60 and above. He believes this
group is least like airline pilots and suggests his own alternative:
Professional pilots who did not fly for airlines but who held Class I
or II medical certificates. Mr. Golaszewski cites the Second
Golaszewski Report for conclusions opposite to the Hilton Study--
increases in accident rates with age for professional pilots.
[[Page 65982]]
The Hilton Study provides a discussion of the First Golaszewski
Report, noting those researchers' disagreement with Mr. Golaszewski's
methodology and questioning his conclusions. The study also notes
methodological concerns regarding the cited works by the Office of
Technology Assessment; Mortimer; and Guide and Gibson (1991).
Dr. Michaels concludes that (1) the Hilton Study does not present
convincing evidence that pilots holding Class I medical certificates
past the age of 60 are not at increased risk of accidents, and (2) that
the study is a methodologically invalid foundation for rulemaking. He
suggests that the analyses performed are not valid because of the small
size of the study (very few accidents and a very large number of flight
hours), because the study is insensitive to the real concerns (whether
aging is associated with increased risk for incapacitation), and
because the study does not have well-documented exposure data. The
later refers the fact that the Hilton Study calculated accident rates
by comparing the total hours flown. However, because most accidents
occur during take offs and landings, Dr. Michaels states that hours
flown is not a useful measure in calculating the risk of accidents. He
believes that the methods used in the Hilton Study would obscure any
increased rate of accidents among older pilots in the analyses
presented.
The First Golaszewski Report concluded that pilots with Class I
medical certificates (required for part 121 air carrier pilots in
command) and Class II medical certificates (required for other
commercial pilots) had a substantially higher accident rate after age
60 than at younger ages. This report was cited by the FAA in denying a
petition for exemption from Sec. 121.383(c) submitted by Courtney Y.
Bennett et al., and John H. Baker, et al., in 1986. Golaszewski, in the
study report itself, noted and resolved to the FAA's satisfaction
various sources of potential error and provided rationale for the
choices made. Because the study viewed the accident experience of
holders of Class III medical certificates (required for non-commercial
operations) and of all classes of medical certificate combined rather
than that of identified airline pilots, however, and because of
disagreement with Golaszewski's selection of numerators and
denominators for calculating accident rates, the study findings and
methodology were disputed by the petitioners in their later legal
action in a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the court
identified limitations in the study, it upheld the FAA's denial of the
petition. Baker v. FAA, 917 F.2d 318 (7th Cir. 1990).
The Second Golaszewski Report indicated similar findings. These
studies were based on data contained in the National Transportation
Safety Board Accident Records Database and the FAA Comprehensive Airman
Information System medical database.
It should be noted that increasing accident rates with age is not
found just in aviation. The National Research Council (NRC) has found
increasing car accident rates with increasing driver age. In a report
published in 1988, the NRC concluded that ``older drivers show an
involvement in crashes that is more extensive than that of middle-age
drivers, * * *'' Transportation in an Aging Society, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1988. While
safely piloting an airplane is more complex than driving an automobile,
both require knowledge, quick reflex actions, good judgment, long-and
short-term recall, and many other skills and abilities. Accident rate
data represent a quantitative compilation of occurrences where skills
and abilities were, for one reason or another, inadequate to cope with
a specific situation.
Because statistical analysis of over-age-60 pilots in part 121
operations cannot be done (because there are no such pilots) studies
must use surrogate data. As has been the case in both the Hilton Study
and the Golaszewski reports, such analyses are subject to the criticism
that the data used do not reflect reality and, therefore, are flawed.
This is even truer with the consideration of accident rate data in car
crashes. Unfortunately, accurate counts of all pilots flying in
scheduled air carrier operations during a given time period and their
age, current and total flight time, and accident experience are not
available. Accidents in air carrier operations are, fortunately, rare,
and there are other factors (e.g., seniority bidding for routes) that
compound the difficulties encountered in developing meaningful
statistics regarding the effects of aging. Further, flying by non-part
121 pilots generally involves aircraft, equipment, airports,
operational conditions, and operating procedures that are quite
different than part 121 operations. Nevertheless, these studies and the
efforts of earlier researchers provide a foundation for this current
consideration of the issue.
The Hilton Study, the First Golaszewski Report, and the Second
Golaszewski Report sought to define the effects of aging on older
pilots in terms of accident rates. While conclusions may differ as to
the effect of aging on pilots, the studies are similarly limited by the
rule itself since data cannot be gathered on pilots over age 60
operating in part 121 operations. Factors that may have contributed to
the contradictory conclusions are that the accident rates for pilots
over age 60 can be determined only in operations outside of part 121
and, therefore, may not be fully useful in drawing conclusions about
pilot performance in operations conducted under part 121; and grouping
the data differently may lead to different conclusions. While we
believe the studies all tend to support a regulatory age limit, they
provide no consensus as to precisely what that age limit should be.
In the NIH Study, the most comprehensive study yet performed of the
issues involved in age-related retirement of airline pilots, the Panel
found that ``age-related changes in health and performance influence
adversely the ability of increasing numbers of individuals to perform
as pilots with the highest level of safety and, consequently, endanger
the safety of the aviation system as a whole.'' In response to the
question, ``What is the effect of aging on the ability of individuals
to perform the duties of pilots with the highest level of safety?'',
the Panel responded, in part, that--
Undoubtedly, the number of individuals experiencing substantial
decline in performance does increase with advancing age * * *
Variability in performance appears to increase, and average
performance to decrease, with increasing age * * * the risk of an
accident increases in the later life of a pilot, and * * * such risk
probably accelerates with advancing age * * * The duties of pilots
embrace not only maneuvering skill but also decision-making, crew
coordination and resource management. Decline in cognitive and
psychomotor performance, as well as in physiological performance,
occurs with increasing age and will affect how these duties are
executed. The health status of the pilot is apt to affect his/her
flying performance. In this regard, subtle decrements in performance
due to aging processes or subclinical functional impairment are more
likely to pose a problem than is complete failure of performance due
to sudden incapacitation.
The Hilton Study has not provided answers to these basic concerns.
After careful deliberation, the FAA has determined that the Hilton
Study does not provide an acceptable basis warranting proposing to
change the Age 60 Rule. Supporters of both the Hilton Study and the
First and Second Golaszewski Reports have good points. The subgroups
studied by each is to some extent limited, in that they necessarily do
not mirror the subgroup
[[Page 65983]]
of part 121 pilots to which the Age 60 Rule applies. The studies do not
look at pilot performance, indeed, they count all accidents regardless
of cause (not just those caused by pilot error), and do not count
incidents of pilot incapacitation that did not result in accidents.
Debate surrounding the reliance to be placed on these studies
illustrates the difficulty of the task. The changes in accident rates
identified in the Hilton Study were small, and its conclusions,
therefore, were appropriately cautious. In view of the lack of
consensus among the best experts who have looked at this matter, the
FAA considers caution appropriate in declining to consider the Hilton
Study warranting a change to the Age 60 Rule at this time.
II(c). Performance
Many commenters assert that older pilots have more experience and
better performance capability than younger pilots, while other
commenters state that older pilots lose performance ability. First, age
does not necessarily imply quantity or quality of experience.
Experience is valuable, but it does not offset all risks or decrements
associated with aging. Also, at some point, the law of diminishing
returns comes into play. Once a pilot achieves a certain level of
expertise, additional flight time will not significantly improve pilot
performance.
It must also be pointed out that reference to ``younger'' pilots
may be misleading in this context. It is the FAA's experience in the
industry that retiring age 60 pilots (who generally are captains) are
not replaced by very young and inexperienced pilots. Rather, they are
replaced by pilots who have substantial experience as pilots in the
first officer position, and often as flight engineers before that.
In addition, some commenters state that pilots near age 60 have
performed heroically, proving that performance does not degrade with
age and experience, while other commenters state that courageous
performances by pilots who were near age 60 are not reasons for
abandoning the rule. While the FAA recognizes that certain older pilots
have performed heroically in specific circumstances, the decision to
change the Age 60 Rule cannot be based on isolated commendable acts.
The FAA must make a decision on whether change to the rule is called
for based on the totality of evidence available on the safety
implications of aging.
II(d). Health and Technology
Many commenters state that since the rule was issued medical
technology has advanced and life expectancy has increased; hence, they
conclude, the rule is obsolete. In addition, they reference that
medical technology is now more capable of screening out pilots with
medical risks and that fatigue is no longer an issue due to more modern
aircraft that reduce workload and stress levels. Many commenters also
state that the aging process can vary markedly among individuals and
that some individuals are in worse physical or mental condition at age
40 than others are at age 60. Hence, these commenters do not believe
that age should be a means for determining capability. Many other
commenters, however, state that older pilots are not in good physical
shape and improvements in medical screening do not detect the subtle
impairments with age that can undermine the margin of safety.
As noted earlier, the incidence of cardiovascular disease rises
with age, and it remains that most frequent cause of death in pilots
and the general population. Though the FAA relies on sophisticated
medical assessment and monitoring to permit the certification of
carefully selected pilots with known heart disease, the need for the
highest level of safety in air carrier operations has required that the
increasing, unpredictable danger associated with aging be limited.
In addition, there has been an increasing awareness of the more
subtle adverse conditions affecting performance, those related to
cognitive functioning. Current medical certification procedures
identify those individuals who are at most risk and are adequate for
assessing many medical problems in pilots. The significance of the
known as well as the potential unknown or unmeasurable adverse factors
increases with aging, however, and reduces confidence in the
sensitivity of the medical certification process. The Age 60 Rule
recognizes this reduction of sensitivity in the context of the
statutory recognition that the highest possible degree of safety is
required in air carrier operations. As both the incidence of
incapacitation risk factors and other adverse effects increase with
age, the Age 60 Rule provides additional confidence in air
transportation safety.
II(e). Multicrew Concept
Some commenters point out that operations under part 121 use 2-
pilot crews, and some also have a flight engineer on board. They state
that if one pilot becomes incapacitated, the other crew member(s) can
take over. The FAA agrees that the multicrew concept provides an
additional measure of safety. Indeed, redundancy in safety features is
an important part of the overall safety benefits in part 121
operations, including not only pilots but also other personnel,
aircraft structures, and procedures. The safety benefits of redundancy
would be reduced, however, if the level of safety of any of the
elements were to degrade. The sudden incapacitation of a pilot is not
without risk even in a multiple-member crew and is to be avoided. Of
equal concern is the prospect of subtle degradation in the judgment,
cognitive function, and crew coordination that may accompany advancing
age. Unlike the case of sudden incapacitation, such degradation may not
be readily apparent to the other crew, and it may be difficult for the
crew to deal with the results.
The FAA does not consider the fact that part 121 operations have
multiple pilots to be a basis for permitting one (or both) of those
pilots to be at unacceptable risk for age-related problems.
III. Alternatives to an Age Limitation
III(a). Performance Checks
Some commenters suggested that the FAA can do performance checks
for pilots past age 60 in simulators to ensure that they meet the
performance standards. Periodic proficiency and competency checks are
intended to detect a pilot's performance deficiency and to correct
those deficiencies before the pilot is returned to flight operations.
These checks only verify the state of a pilot's performance at the time
of the checks. They are not useful for detection of early or
subclinical cognitive defects that may subtly degrade performance or
which, in time, may progress to risks for errors in judgment or other
actions that may jeopardize safety. The checks do not predict whether
an individual pilot's performance will degrade at any time in the
future as a result of age. In addition, in its 1981 report, NIA noted
that proficiency checks and simulator checks usually are designed to
train pilots to meet standards of proficiency under optimal testing
conditions using known routines and maneuvers. Although the proficiency
checks suffice for pilot performance purposes, they are not suitable
for testing complex cognitive functions under actual conditions, such
as fatigue and stress; nor are they used to determine at what rate the
skills learned in the training sessions decline between two consecutive
checks. Standard maneuvers used in proficiency tests are inappropriate
for measuring any but obvious decrements in pilot performance. Their
inadequacy stems
[[Page 65984]]
from the fact that the maneuvers are well-known in advance; they may be
well-practiced and over-learned by experienced pilots; and they may
give no indication of the pilot's ability to perform them under
particular levels of stress, fatigue, or unexpected decision-making
requirements. Furthermore, the pass/fail nature of the testing program;
the probable wide variability among testers; and the train-to-
proficiency nature of these tests make them inadequate as a screening
mechanism.
III(b). Class I Medical Certificates and Special Issuance Certificates
Some commenters state that part 121 pilots are required to hold FAA
medical certificates, and that the medical certification process tests
their medical fitness. Commenters also point out that the FAA issues
waivers to pilots and permits them to fly with various medical
conditions, including cardiovascular problems. They state that if such
pilots can be evaluated, older pilots can too.
The question of operational privileges for aging pilots is not
comparable to the question of assessment of younger airmen with
specific medical conditions. Although individuals with known medical
conditions have been returned to air carrier duties, their
circumstances are not comparable with those of an individual who has
reached an advanced age. For the person with known disease, the
prognosis for the disease can normally be assessed and specific tests
or evaluations identified to monitor the condition. Special issuance
medical certificates are granted to airmen who have certain known
medical conditions or static defects that are disqualifying under the
established standards of the Federal Aviation Regulations. This
practice does not compromise safety and does not demand similar
consideration with respect to the Age 60 Rule. When a special issuance
medical certificate is granted, the condition in question has been
clearly identified, and the agency has been able to develop a means of
assessment and surveillance specially designed to demonstrate the
individual's capabilities and to identify any adverse changes. If that
is not possible, certification is not granted. Such is not the case in
aging, since there are no generally applicable medical tests that can,
at this time, adequately determine which individual pilots are subject
to incapacitation secondary to either acute cardiovascular or
neurological events or to more subtle adverse conditions related to
decline of cognitive functioning.
III(c). Suggested Protocol for Gathering Additional Data
One commenter states that data from actual part 121 pilots under 60
and over 60 are needed. The commenter suggested that a pilot group
should be established that can fly over age 60. He believes that a
cohort of over age 60 pilots can be identified with a quantifiable five
year cardiovascular risk that is lower than the risk in the 50 to 59
year age group. Also this group can be tested by serial performance
testing to ensure that there has not been subtle incapacitation. The
kind of data that is needed to change the rule could then be collected
and analyzed.
The commenter recommends that a consensus working group of experts,
appointed by the Federal Air Surgeon, deliver a document that describes
a battery of state-of-the-art testing to identify a group of age 60 or
older pilots who have the attributes for continued safe flying. A
second group of non-flying crew age 60 or older would also be
considered. The document would include all testing, follow up,
methodology, etc. The Federal Air Surgeon would then review the
protocol, obtain additional expert help as needed, and produce the
final protocol. Finally, the FAA would choose the sites for
participants in the long term surveillance program.
FAA Response: While the FAA appreciates the proposed protocol that
the commenter submitted, the FAA does not find it an acceptable basis
for initiating a rule change at this time. The FAA's ANPRM in 1982
proposed identification of a select group of aged 60 and over pilots
who would continue flying in part 121 operations to permit FAA to
collect data. The FAA withdrew the ANPRM in 1984 because valid
selection tests for the group did not exist. The FAA was concerned
that, without valid selection tests, these pilots would create an
unacceptable safety risk in part 121 operations. The commenter does not
suggest any data that indicates that a group described would be able to
identify any such tests. The FAA has the same concerns today.
IV. Financial Impact of the Age 60 Rule
IV(a). Costs
Some commenters stated that raising the age limit will reduce
costs, while other commenters stated that raising the age limit will
increase costs.
FAA Response: For the reasons discussed in this Disposition, the
FAA has determined that an amendment to the Age 60 Rule should not be
proposed at this time. Therefore, the FAA has not evaluated the
economic impact of a proposed change.
IV(b). Hiring of Pilots
Some commenters state that increasing the age limit would result in
the hiring of fewer new pilots, while others state that there would be
no change in hiring and no increase in furloughs because economic
success rather than retirements determines hiring and furloughs.
Commenters estimate that between 10 and 50 percent of pilots would
continue to fly if the age limit is extended.
FAA Response: The FAA believes that the primary determinant of new
pilot hiring and furlough is general economic conditions rather than
retirements. The effects of increasing the age of mandatory retirement
would depend on the number of pilots opting to delay their retirement,
which may vary considerably among air carriers. Pilots with long
tenures at a single carrier would be less inclined to delay their
retirement than pilots who began their service at a relatively late age
and may not have sufficient years of service at their present employer
to qualify for full vesting in pension plans. In addition, the hiring
and furlough plans of those air carriers that permit pilots over age 60
to serve as flight engineers would be less affected. Any effects on
furlough and new hires would be temporary as retirements would not be
delayed by more than the difference between the existing and the
amended mandatory retirement age.
V. Other Comments
V(a). Original Promulgation of Age 60 Rule
Several commenters contend that the Age 60 Rule was promulgated for
economic reasons in response to an improper personal request from the
chairman of American Airlines to the Administrator of the FAA and
question the FAA's recent actions in reviewing the rule.
FAA Response: When the Age 60 Rule was first promulgated in 1959,
the FAA followed standard rulemaking procedures. Notices were published
in the Federal Register (draft releases 59-4, 5, and 6, 24 FR 5249,
5248, and 5247, June 27, 1959), the public was given an opportunity to
comment on the proposal, and then the final rule was issued. The rule
was not issued to facilitate the operations of any air carrier. The
rule was promulgated in order to maintain a high level of safety in
part 121 operations, and that remains the FAA objective at the present
time.
[[Page 65985]]
V(b). Age Discrimination
Many commenters state that the current rule discriminates against
pilots 60 years of age or older and that the Age 60 Rule is not in
compliance with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In addition,
many commenters state that the original establishment of the age 60
limit discriminated against people 60 years and older. However, many
commenters who are opposed to changing the rule state that since pilots
knew about the age 60 limit when they were hired, it is not
discriminatory.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that limitations based on age are to
be avoided if possible. However, safety in air transportation is
paramount. As discussed above, the FAA has not found a way to
acceptably evaluate the inevitable deterioration that occurs with age.
Considering that the consequences of a pilot's subtle or sudden
incapacitation potentially are so severe, the FAA has determined that
at this time safety requires the Age 60 Rule to remain unchanged.
The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission suggests that the FAA
use special testing or screening to identify those pilots over age 60
who should be required to stop serving in part 121 operations. They
note that some employers of pilots in non-part 121 operations have
resolved age discrimination litigation by agreeing to use such
additional testing to develop data about pilots' health. However, the
FAA has not been apprised of the testing protocols or of the results of
any such testing, has not seen them discussed in the medical
literature, and has not been party to the agreements. Accordingly,
these are not a basis to determine that such testing can be used
instead of an age limitation.
V(c). Foreign Pilots Over Age 60
Many commenters reference ICAO standards, the JAA proposal, and the
foreign countries that permit pilots to be over age 60, with varying
restrictions. In addition, many commenters point out that the FAA
allows foreign carriers to operate in U.S. airspace and airports with
over age 60 pilots and questioned why U.S. pilots over 60 can't operate
in U.S. airspace and airports.
FAA Response: Following the FAA's promulgation of the Age 60 Rule,
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopted changes to
international safety standards that established an age limit of 60 for
the pilot in command of large transport aircraft operating in
international air transport service. ICAO standards do not limit the
age of the second in command, although an age limit of 60 is
recommended. In October 1994, a working group of ICAO's Air Navigation
Commission prepared a working paper on the upper age limits for flight
crewmembers. The group, acknowledging the lack of medical statistical
information, recommended that the age limit not be changed. Some
countries such as France and Germany have an Age 60 Rule similar to the
United States, while other countries such as the United Kingdom and
Switzerland have adopted rules that allow pilots to fly after their
60th birthdays. If foreign airlines operate in the U.S., the FAA
requires that the carrier adhere to the ICAO standard. In addition, the
Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) in Europe has proposed to harmonize
the European rule to allow pilots who have not reached the age of 65 to
operate in multi-pilot operations, provided no more than one pilot in
the cockpit is over the age of 60. (JAR-FCL 2-1.11.)
Accordingly, not all countries have dealt with the issue of age
limitations in the same manner, and for the reasons discussed elsewhere
in this Disposition, the FAA has determined that the Age 60 Rule should
be maintained in the United States.
V(d). Inconsistency With Other Regulations
Many commenters point out that pilots who operate under other than
part 121 can fly after reaching age 60. They believe, therefore, that
there should not be an age limit in part 121 operations.
FAA Response: The Age 60 Rule, like many other safety rules that
apply to part 121 operations and not others, provides an increased
level of safety appropriate to the operations conducted under part 121.
The Commuter Rule proposal, as discussed above, looked at enhancing the
level of safety for certain operations now under part 135. The FAA
proposed one age limit on all pilots employed in part 121 operations,
including those pilots currently employed in the part 135 operations
covered by the proposal (60 FR 16230; March 29, 1995). The final
Commuter Rule is being issued concurrently with this Disposition.
The FAA's statute requires the Administrator to give consideration
to the duty resting upon air carriers to perform their services with
the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest and to
make rules appropriate to the differences between air transportation
and other air commerce. The Age 60 Rule is responsive to this mandate.
V(e). Pilot Union Membership
Many commenters state that pilot unions and employers may favor
retirement at age 60 and write this into their labor contracts, but
pilots who do not belong to those unions should not be penalized by
actions that benefit union members. In addition, commenters state that
some union members disagree with their union's position and they
question their union's motivation for changing their position on the
question of raising the age limit.
FAA Response: The Age 60 Rule is a safety rule that must apply to
all pilots, regardless of union membership or labor contracts. The FAA
cannot speculate as to the basis for union or management positions.
V(f). Experienced Pilot Shortages
Many commenters state that new pilots have a shorter time for
gaining experience as second and first officer because of the rapid
expansion of the major carriers and the increasing numbers of two-
person cockpits. The commenters state that carriers that allow rapid
promotion to Captain have poor safety records. Commenters also point
out that industry forecasts project a shortage of pilots between 1995
and 2010 due to sharply reduced military pilot training, thus the
airlines' most experienced pilots should be retained.
FAA Response: The FAA has not been apprised of data that shows that
the Age 60 Rule will create a shortage of experienced pilots and
thereby compromise safety.
VI. Conclusion
While the FAA considered each comment in its evaluation of the Age
60 Rule, for the most part the comments made assertions and expressed
opinions but did not provide the FAA with additional facts or analysis
sufficient to support changing the rule. The FAA's overriding
regulatory concern is safety. Before issuing a regulation, the FAA must
be satisfied that it will maintain or raise the current level of
safety.
The Civil Aviation Medical Association's (CAMA) comments are
particularly relevant. CAMA noted that medical conditions are degraded
by age and that the aging process accelerates with time. It took a
neutral position as to the Age 60 Rule, however, stating that the basic
question is one of public policy and determining how much risk is
acceptable.
The only things that are clear from review of all of the comments
and relevant literature is that there is no one obviously ``right
answer'' discovered through scientific or medical studies,
[[Page 65986]]
and, as CAMA states, the basic question is one of public policy and
determining how much risk is acceptable. The FAA must evaluate all the
varied evidence that indicates what those risks are, and determine
where the public interest lies. At this time, the FAA cannot be assured
that raising the age 60 limit will maintain or raise the level of
safety that the Age 60 Rule offers.
Although the Hilton Study provides useful information on accident
rates for pilots as a function of their age, it does not provide a
satisfactory basis for changing the Age 60 Rule.
Therefore, after carefully considering the written comments
submitted to the docket, the comments presented at the public meeting,
and analysis of the Hilton Study, the FAA has determined for the
reasons stated above that no change to the Age 60 Rule should be
proposed at this time.
Issued in Washington, DC on December 11, 1995.
William J. White,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30546 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30402 Adoption of Industry Standards
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65988-66011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30402]
[[Page 65987]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
46 CFR Part 26 et al.
Adoption of Industry Standards; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244, Wednesday, December 20, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 65988]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 26, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 54, 56, 61, 72, 76, 77, 78,
92, 95, 96, 97, 108, 109, 153, 160, 162, 164, 167, 168, 169, 190,
193, and 196
[CGD 95-027]
RIN 2115-AF09
Adoption of Industry Standards
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of the President's Regulatory Reinvention, the Coast
Guard is proposing to amend its regulations governing both inspected
and uninspected commercial vessels by removing or revising obsolete and
unnecessary provisions and incorporating industry standards and
practices. The provisions proposed for removal or revision are
categorized as: Regulations discussing equipment which is no longer
manufactured or used; Regulations imposing requirements that are
repeated in another, more useful section; Regulations imposing
requirements which make a negligible contribution to shipboard safety;
Regulations which can be replaced by an appropriate industry consensus
standard or practice; and, Regulations which merely repeat statutory
language.
The Coast Guard expects these amendments will reduce the regulatory
burden to the maritime industry, reduce the administrative burden to
government and industry, reduce government printing costs, and provide
a more concise and useful Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received not later than February 20, 1996. A
public meeting will be held on February 9, 1996 to discuss this
rulemaking.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW,
Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may be delivered to room 3406 at the same
address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
A public meeting scheduled for February 9, 1996 will be held in
Room 2415 at Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW,
Washington, DC 20593-0001.
A copy of the material listed in ``Incorporation by Reference'' of
this preamble is available for inspection at Room 1300, U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Design and Engineering Standards
Division (G-MMS), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington,
DC 20593-0001, telephone (202) 267-2206--LCDR R. K. Butturini, Project
Manager; LTJG Jaqueline Twomey, Project Engineer; Ms. Shereen Bell,
Project Assistant. Regulations and Administrative Law Division (G-LRA),
U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001,
telephone (202) 267-1534--LT Rachel Goldberg, Project Counsel,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses,
identify this rulemaking (CGD 95-027) and the specific section of this
proposed rule to which each comment applies, and give the reason for
each comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of
receipt of comments should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposal in view of the comments.
A public meeting was held on April 20, 1995 (60 FR 16423) to
discuss Coast Guard regulations and the regulatory process. The
relevant comments received at the hearing or in writing have been
considered for the changes included in this document. The Coast Guard
will hold another public meeting on February 9, 1996 from 9 a.m. to 3
p.m. to discuss these proposed rules and to solicit other suggestions
or comments for regulatory reform. The meeting will be held at the site
indicated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments received at the hearing
will be considered as part of the review of this proposal and the Coast
Guard may change this proposal in view of these comments.
Background and Purpose
This proposal has been sparked by several recent calls for
regulatory review and reform. For example, on March 4, 1995, the
President issued a memorandum calling on executive agencies to review
regulations with the goals of--
(1) Cutting obsolete regulations;
(2) Focusing on results instead of process and punishment;
(3) Convening meetings with the regulated community; and,
(4) Expanding efforts to promote consensual rulemaking.
The President's memorandum coincides with U.S. maritime industry
requests for greater alignment of Coast Guard regulations with
international marine safety standards to reduce cost disadvantages
incurred by the U.S. maritime industry and thereby improve the
competitiveness of the U.S. industry. The ongoing National Performance
Review effort, which stresses reducing red tape and maximizing results,
provides further justification for identifying excessive requirements
in Coast Guard regulations and for streamlining government processes.
Also, the Coast Guard recognizes the need to explore regulatory reform
where it provides an opportunity to reprogram Coast Guard resources to
focus more attention on human factors and port state control activities
to ensure other nations are conscientiously implementing international
safety agreements.
The Coast Guard held a public meeting on April 20, 1995, announced
in the March 30, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 16423), to discuss the
Coast Guard's regulatory development process and the President's
Regulatory Review Initiative. During the public meeting, the Coast
Guard announced its goals of purging obsolete and outdated regulations
and eliminating any Coast Guard induced differences between
requirements that apply to U.S. vessels in international trade and
those that apply to similar vessels in international trade that fly the
flag of other responsible foreign nations. In the May 31, 1995 Federal
Register (60 FR 28376), the Coast Guard reiterated its intention to
harmonize Coast Guard regulations with international safety standards.
To accomplish all of these goals, the Coast Guard is considering
alternative compliance methods, examining ways to make existing
regulations more efficient and comparing U.S. marine safety regulations
with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Rules and the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (SOLAS '74).
An initial rulemaking removing or amending obsolete and unnecessary
provisions was published in the September 18, 1995 Federal
[[Page 65989]]
Register (60 FR 48044). That rulemaking focused on regulations for
which no adverse public comment was expected, such as removal of the
requirements for nuclear vessels, ocean incinerator ships and ocean
thermal energy conversion facilities and plantships. This proposal
removes or amends obsolete or unnecessary regulations of a more
significant nature and seeks to incorporate industry consensus
standards and practices. The broader scope of this proposal and the
nature of the proposed changes, when compared to the previous
rulemaking, make increased public involvement desirable.
In compiling the list of CFR sections included in this proposed
rule, the Coast Guard did not consider parts of Title 46 Code of
Federal Regulations (46 CFR) that are under review as part of other,
ongoing regulatory projects.
In this proposal, sections of the CFR were identified for removal
or revision by comparing the section subject matter to the following
list of selection criteria:
(a) Equipment discussed in a section is no longer manufactured or
used:
(b) Requirements imposed by a section are repeated in another
section;
(c) Requirements imposed by a section make a negligible
contribution to shipboard safety;
(d) An appropriate industry consensus standard or practice exists
which can be referenced instead of publishing detailed requirements in
a regulation; or,
(e) The text of a regulation merely repeats statutory language.
Discussion of Proposed Rules
The following discussion summarizes the changes proposed by this
rule:
1. The requirement addresses equipment that is no longer
manufactured or used. The following sections are being removed or
revised because they impose requirements for equipment that is no
longer manufactured, that is technologically obsolete, or is no longer
used in the marine industry.
Section 31.10-15(a) of Title 46 CFR contains requirements for
nuclear vessels. This section was inadvertently omitted from an earlier
rulemaking entitled Removal of Obsolete and Unnecessary Regulations (60
FR 48044) which focused on removing regulations for nuclear vessels,
ocean incinerator vessels and ocean thermal energy conversion
facilities and plantships. Therefore, this section which pertains to
nuclear vessels is proposed for removal.
Section 34.05-5 and Subparts 34.13, 76.13 and 95.13 of Title 46 CFR
contain requirements for steam smothering systems used for fire
fighting purposes. The Coast Guard has prohibited installation of steam
smothering systems on vessels since 1962. Existing steam smothering
systems may be retained as long as they are kept in good condition to
the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. As no new
installation of steam smothering systems are allowed and the designs of
existing installations have already been approved, the design
requirements for steam smothering systems are no longer necessary and
are proposed for removal. The Coast Guard is retaining the regulations
pertaining to testing and inspection of installed systems.
Subparts 35.70, 78.80, 97.70 and Sec. 108.613 of Title 46 CFR
contain requirements for power-operated industrial trucks. Power-
operated industrial trucks have historically been used on break-bulk
ships for handling cargo in the holds. Only 66 U.S. flag break-bulk
ships are currently inspected by the Coast Guard. Well over half of
these ships are maintained by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), but
are not operating. Of MARAD's ships, only 7 will eventually carry
power-operated industrial trucks as ship's equipment. On the remaining,
privately owned break-bulk ships, few trucks are still carried as
ship's equipment because dockside trucks are readily available. Trucks
are also used on mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) to move
palletized stores such as bagged cement. Efficient cargo handling
systems are increasingly replacing trucks aboard MODUs for this
purpose. The demand for faster loading methods and the evolution of
container ships, lighter-aboard ships (LASH) and roll-on/roll-off
(RORO) ships has also reduced the use of power-operated industrial
trucks. Additionally, there have been no reported accidents involving
power-operated industrial trucks in the last fifteen years. Therefore,
regulations for power-operated industrial trucks are no longer
necessary and are proposed for removal.
Sections 32.15-10, 77.27-1, 96.27-1 and 167.40-20 of Title 46 CFR
contain requirements for sounding equipment, including deep-sea hand
leads. Reliable, inexpensive electronic sounding equipment and position
fixing equipment are available from numerous manufacturers. It is
unlikely that a hand lead would be necessary to determine the water
depth. Therefore, the requirements for deep sea hand leads are not
necessary and are proposed for removal.
Section 32.02-5 and Subparts 78.35, 97.33 and 196.33 require cable
travelers between fore and aft deck houses separated by more than 46 m
(150 ft) to protect crewmembers needing to cross the weather decks.
Cable travelers have been replaced by raised fore and aft bridges and
side tunnels as safer means of moving between the deckhouses.
Additionally, modern vessel designs have abandoned the two deck house
arrangement in favor of a single deckhouse. Therefore, these sections
are being revised to remove the requirement for installation of cable
travelers between separated deckhouses and merely require a fixed means
of facilitating movement between both ends of the vessel.
Sections 34.05-15, 76.05-30, 95.05-20, 167.45-40, 193.05-20 and
Subpart 34.55 of 46 CFR require sand, sawdust impregnated with soda or
other appropriate dry materials, and a scoop or shaker for
distribution, to be located in the machinery spaces for fire fighting
purposes. Sand is inferior to other, common fire fighting means, such
as portable extinguishers, and this burdensome requirement is no longer
appropriate. Therefore, regulations requiring sand in the engine room
are proposed for removal.
Subparts 35.12, 78.53, 97.43, 196.43 and Section 167.65-50 of 46
CFR require instructions for the use of breeches buoys. Modern
communications and lifesaving equipment have made the use of breeches
buoys for lifesaving purposes obsolete. Therefore, the requirement for
an instruction placard for the use of breeches buoys is no longer
necessary and these sections are proposed for revision to remove this
requirement.
Sections 35.30-45, 72.05-60, 167.40-35 and 169.321 and Subparts
78.75, 97.60 and 196.60 of Title 46 CFR contain requirements for motion
picture film. Subpart 78.75 also contains a requirement that motion
picture projectors comply with the requirements in the electrical
engineering regulations. With the exception of large passenger vessels,
video cassette recorders and televisions have replaced motion picture
projectors on most vessels. Large passenger vessels use motion picture
projectors in their movie theaters. Slow-burning film is the only type
of film currently available in reel format for use with movie
projectors. Section 111.89-1 of Title 46 in the electrical engineering
regulations requires all motion picture projectors to meet Article 540
of the National Electrical Code. Therefore, as the risks previously
associated with motion picture film no longer exist, the regulations
for motion picture film are not necessary and are proposed for removal.
[[Page 65990]]
Sections 180.403 and 167.45-55 of Title 46 CFR allow the
installation of water spray systems for fire fighting purposes in
boiler spaces of mobile offshore drilling units (MODU) and public
nautical school ships. Other fire fighting media, such as carbon
dioxide, have shown to be more effective, reliable and practical than
water spray systems and no MODU or public nautical school ship
currently uses a water spray system in a boiler space for fire fighting
purposes. Therefore, these provisions are not necessary and are
proposed for removal.
Subpart 160.018 of Title 46 CFR contains specifications for rigid
liferafts. Rigid liferafts are no longer manufactured for use in the
marine industry. Therefore, the specifications for rigid liferafts in
46 CFR 160.018 are no longer necessary and are proposed for removal.
Subpart 160.034 of Title 46 CFR contains specifications for
lifeboat hand propelling gear. Hand propelled lifeboats have largely
been replaced by reliable, engine-driven lifeboats and are no longer
manufactured for use in the marine industry. Therefore, the
specifications for hand propelling gear in 46 CFR 160.034 are no longer
necessary and are proposed for removal.
Section 164.016 of Title 46 CFR contains specifications for
microcellular nylon used in the construction of lifesaving equipment.
Microcellular nylon has been replaced by more effective materials and
is no longer manufactured for use in Coast Guard approval lifesaving
equipment. Therefore, the specifications for microcellular nylon are no
longer needed and are proposed for removal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cite (46 CFR) Proposed change Subject addressed by regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 31.10-15..................... Revision................... Nuclear vessels.
Sec. 32.02-5...................... Revision................... Cable traveler.
Sec. 32.15-10..................... Revision................... Deep-sea hand leads.
Sec. 34.05-5...................... Revision................... Steam smothering systems.
Sec. 34.05-15..................... Removal.................... Sand in the engineroom.
Subpart 34.13...................... Revision................... Steam smothering systems.
Subpart 34.55...................... Removal.................... Sand in the engineroom.
Subpart 35.12...................... Revision................... Breeches buoy placard.
Sec. 35.30-45..................... Revision................... Motion picture film.
Subpart 35.70...................... Removal.................... Power-operated industrial trucks.
Sec. 76.05-60..................... Removal.................... Motion picture film.
Sec. 76.05-20..................... Revision................... Fixed firefighting systems.
Sec. 76.05-30..................... Removal.................... Sand in the engineroom.
Subpart 76.13...................... Revision................... Steam smothering systems.
Sec. 77.27-1...................... Revision................... Deep-sea hand leads.
Subpart 78.35...................... Revision................... Cable traveler.
Subpart 78.53...................... Revision................... Breeches buoy placard.
Subpart 78.75...................... Removal.................... Motion picture film.
Subpart 78.80...................... Removal.................... Power-operated industrial trucks.
Sec. 95.05-10..................... Revision................... Fixed firefighting systems.
Sec. 95.05-20..................... Removal.................... Sand in boiler rooms.
Subpart 95.13...................... Revision................... Steam smothering systems.
Sec. 96.27-1...................... Revision................... Deep-sea hand leads.
Subpart 97.33...................... Revision................... Cable traveler.
Subpart 97.43...................... Revision................... Breeches buoy placard.
Subpart 97.60...................... Removal.................... Motion picture film.
Subpart 97,70...................... Removal.................... Power-operated industrial trucks.
Sec. 108.403...................... Revision................... Water spray systems.
Sec. 108.613...................... Removal.................... Power-operated industrial trucks.
Subpart 160.018.................... Removal.................... Rigid liferafts.
Subpart 160.034.................... Removal.................... Lifeboat hand propelling gear.
Subpart 164.016.................... Removal.................... Microcellular nylon.
Sec. 167.40-20.................... Revision................... Deep-sea hand leads.
Sec. 167.40-35.................... Removal.................... Motion picture film.
Sec. 167.45-40.................... Revision................... Sand in enginerooms.
Sec. 167.45-55.................... Revision................... Water spray systems.
Sec. 167.65-50.................... Revision................... Breeches buoy placard.
Sec. 169.321...................... Removal.................... Motion picture film.
Sec. 193.05-20.................... Removal.................... Sand in boiler rooms.
Subpart 196.33..................... Revision................... Cable traveler.
Subpart 196.43..................... Revision................... Breeches buoy placard.
Subpart 196.60..................... Removal.................... Motion picture film.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The requirement is repeated in another section. The following
provisions are being removed or revised because the requirements are
repeated in other, more useful locations in Title 33 CFR or Title 46
CFR.
Subparts 32.95, 78.85, 97.75, 196.18 and 196.75 and Section 109.583
of Title 46 CFR contain identical language regarding the requirement
that certain vessels operate in accordance with the requirements of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended, the Oil
Pollution Act (OPA), 1961, as amended and Parts 151, 155 and 156 of
Title 33 CFR. However, each of the requirements cited contain language
regarding their applicability. Therefore, the sections of Title 46 CFR
which merely restate the applicability of the FWPCA, OPA and Title 33
CFR are not necessary and are proposed for removal.
Sections 35.20-25 and 167.65-1 and Subparts 78.25, 97.23 and 196.23
of Title 46 prohibit carrying any light not required by law that will
interfere with
[[Page 65991]]
distinguishing signal lights. However, Rule 20 of both the Inland and
International Rules of the Road published in 33 U.S.C. 2020 and 33 CFR
81, Appendix A, respectively, contains the same requirement. It is more
logical to retain requirements pertaining to signal lights in the Rules
of the Road. Therefore, the sections of Title 46 CFR prohibiting
carrying lights that interfere with signal lights are not necessary and
are proposed for removal.
Sections 35.20-40, 78.21-1, 97.19-1 and 196.19-1 of Title 46 CFR
require ocean and coastwise vessels over 1600 gross tons to display
maneuvering information on a fact sheet in the pilothouse. These
sections include instructions for validating the information on the
fact sheet after the vessel begins operating. Section 164.35 of Title
33 CFR also contains a requirement to display maneuvering information
on a fact sheet in the pilothouse for vessels over 1600 gross tons on
all navigable waters of the U.S.
The intent of both Title 33 CFR and Title 46 CFR is to provide
information about the vessel's maneuvering characteristics for use in
piloting waters. However, there are slight differences in the language
of the requirements. Also, the requirement to display maneuvering
information in Title 33 CFR and Title 46 CFR apply to some of the same
vessels, but some vessels are only covered by one title. Under the
current regulations, both requirements apply to an oceangoing U.S.
vessel entering a U.S. port, resulting in a conflict between Title 33
CFR and Title 46 CFR.
As the information required to be displayed in Title 33 CFR and
Title 46 CFR is similar and the purpose is the same, the requirement
need not be printed in both locations. It is more useful and consistent
to retain the description of the maneuvering information required in
the navigation safety regulations of Title 33 CFR. Therefore, this
proposal, if adopted, would remove paragraphs repeating the maneuvering
information to be displayed from Title 46 CFR and retain the
instructions in Title 46 CFR for validating the maneuvering information
with an added reference to Title 33 CFR.
Section 56.50-100 of Title 46 CFR merely contains a one sentence
reference to Subpart 58.30 of Title 46 CFR for fluid power and control
system requirements. Subpart 58.30, Fluid Power and Control Systems,
contains the detailed requirements. Therefore, Sec. 56.50-100 is not
necessary and is proposed for removal.
Sections 92.01-13 and 190.01-13 of Title 46 CFR contain
requirements for the design and operation of sliding watertight door
assemblies on cargo and miscellaneous vessels and oceanographic
research vessels. Section 170.270 of the subdivision and stability
regulations in Title 46 CFR contains identical requirements. The
requirements for sliding watertight doors are included in Part 170
because the subdivision and stability regulations apply to all vessels
inspected under Title 46, including cargo and miscellaneous vessels and
oceanographic research vessels. For example, the passenger vessel and
tank vessel regulations do not contain specific provisions for the
design and operation of sliding watertight door assemblies because
Sec. 170.270 applies. Therefore, repeating the requirements for the
design and operation of sliding watertight door assemblies in
Secs. 92.01-13 and 190.01-13 is not necessary and these provisions are
proposed for removal.
In the following list of sections proposed for removal or revision,
the citation to the sections where duplicate requirements are being
retained is indicated in square brackets below the section being
removed or revised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cite (46 CFR) Proposed change Subject addressed by regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart 32.95 [33 CFR Subchapter Removal.................. Oil pollution.
O].
Sec. 35.20-25 [33 CFR 81 and 33 Removal.................. Unauthorized lights.
U.S.C. 2020].
Sec. 35.20-40 [33 CFR 164.35]... Revision................. Maneuvering characteristics.
Sec. 56.50-100 [Sec. 58.30].... Removal.................. Fluid power and control systems.
Sec. 78.21-1 [33 CFR 164.35].... Removal.................. Maneuvering characteristics.
Subpart 78.25 [33 CFR 81 and 33 Removal.................. Unauthorized lights.
U.S.C. 2020].
Subpart 78.85 [33 CFR Subchapter Removal.................. Pollution prevention.
O].
Sec. 92.01-13 [46 CFR Subchapter Removal.................. Watertight doors.
S, Subpart H] [33 CFR 164.35].
Sec. 97.19-1 [33 CFR 164.35].... Removal.................. Maneuvering characteristics.
Subpart 97.23 [33 CFR 81 and 33 Removal.................. Unauthorized lights.
U.S.C. 2020].
Subpart 97.75 [33 CFR Subchapter Removal.................. Pollution prevention.
O].
Sec. 109.583 [33 CFR Subchapter Removal.................. Pollution prevention.
O].
Sec. 167.65-10 [33 CFR 81 and 33 Removal.................. Unauthorized lights.
U.S.C. 2020].
Sec. 190.01-13 [46 CFR Removal.................. Watertight doors.
Subchapter S, Subpart H].
Subpart 196.18 [33 CFR Subchapter Removal.................. Pollution prevention.
O].
Sec. 196.19-1 [33 CFR 164.35]... Removal.................. Maneuvering characteristics.
Subpart 196.23 [33 CFR 81 and 33 Removal.................. Unauthorized lights.
U.S.C. 2020].
Subpart 196.75 [33 CFR Subchapter Removal.................. Pollution prevention.
O].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The requirement does not improve shipboard safety. The following
sections are being removed or revised because they make no significant
contribution to shipboard safety. This list includes provisions which
are typically exceeded by industry voluntarily, regulations which have
outlived their usefulness and requirements which result in inefficient
administrative procedures.
Sections 32.05-5, 78.47-67, 97.37-45, 169.742 and 196.37-45 of
Title 46 CFR contain requirements for marking fire hose and fire axes
with the vessel's name. Emergency equipment is typically marked with
instructions or identifying symbols, such as the ``E'' on emergency
lights, to aid in its identification and use. Lifesaving equipment that
floats and could be discovered during a search is marked with the
vessel's name to help identify the vessel in the event of a sinking.
However, fire hose and fire axes have no need for either of these types
of markings. These pieces of equipment do not float and are not
amenable to marking with instructions. Therefore, the requirement to
mark fire hoses and fire axes with the vessel's name is not necessary
and is proposed for removal.
Section 35.01-5 and Subparts 32.40, 72.20, 92.20, 167.50, 168.15
and 190.20 of Title 46 CFR contain requirements for on-board crew
accommodations. In some cases, the requirements contained in these
sections are unnecessarily detailed or exceed the requirements of the
International Labor Office Merchant
[[Page 65992]]
Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (ILO 147) to which the
United States is signatory. For example, ILO 147 requires a hospital
space be provided for tankships over 500 gross tons carrying a crew of
15 persons or more and on a voyage of over three days duration. Current
Sec. 32.40-50 requires a hospital space for all tankships carrying a
crew of 12 persons or more and on a voyage of over three days duration.
The changes proposed by this rulemaking would remove or revise
those sections of the regulations that are unnecessarily detailed or
exceed the requirements of ILO 147 in order to make the regulations
more concise and consistent with the international standard for on-
board crew accommodations.
Sections 35.10-5 and 35.20-30 of Title 46 CFR discuss the officer
in command's responsibility to conduct drills and the prohibitions
against unauthorized lights, flashing blinding lights and unauthorized
whistling. Section 35.25-1 of Title 46 CFR discusses the chief
engineer's responsibility to examine the boilers and report their
condition. Additionally, Sections 78.57-1, 97.47-1 and 167.65-15 of
Title 46 CFR require mariners to comply strictly with routing
instructions issued by competent naval authorities. Each of these
sections include phrases to indicate that the master or the other
licensed officers of a vessel may be held liable against their licenses
in suspension and revocation proceedings for failure to comply with the
provisions of these sections. Phrases of this type are inconsistent
with the President's memorandum of March 4, 1995 directing the federal
agencies to focus on results rather than process and punishment and do
not contribute to shipboard safety. The authority to proceed in
suspension and revocation proceedings against licensed or certificated
mariners that fail to obey a law or regulation is explained in Part 5
of this chapter. Reiterating a mariner's liability in other subchapters
is not necessary. Therefore, to meet the Coast Guard's goal of focusing
on results instead of process and punishment this proposal, if adopted,
would remove or revise sections that restate mariners' liability for
failure to obey laws or regulations, while retaining the prohibition
against the underlying conduct.
Sections 35.20-15 and 167.65-30 and Subparts 78.20, 97.17 and
196.17 of Title 46 CFR specify the words Right Rudder and Left Rudder
be used when it is intended that the wheel, rudder blade and the head
of the ship move to the right or left, respectively. Specifying the
direction of the wheel, rudder or ship intended by the commands Right
Rudder and Left Rudder is a detail that is not necessary for
professional seamen. Proper steering orders are ingrained in the
commercial maritime industry culture and need not be repeated in the
regulations. Therefore, these regulations are not necessary and are
proposed for removal.
Sections 61.05-5 and 61.30-5 of Title 46 CFR assign
responsibilities to the chief engineer to prepare the boilers and
thermal fluid heaters for inspection. Preparing machinery for
inspection reduces the time needed to conduct the required inspections
and determine the condition of the machinery. It is a matter of
convenience for the vessel and the attending marine inspectors or
classification society surveyors to have the machinery prepared in
advance, but is not a safety issue. Not preparing machinery for
inspections has no impact on safety because all required inspections
must eventually be conducted to the satisfaction of the attending
inspectors or surveyors. Therefore, regulations assigning the
responsibility to prepare machinery for inspection to the chief
engineer are proposed for removal.
Sections 54.01-1, 54.01-3 and 54.01-5 and Table 54.01-5 of Title 46
CFR reference the standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers
Association (TEMA) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Code for Boilers and Pressure Vessels (ASME Code) for the
construction of heat exchangers. Comments received from heat exchanger
manufacturers and shipyards indicate that referencing both the TEMA and
ASME standards has created confusion. The ASME Code is the primary
industry standard for pressure vessels of all types and is extensively
referenced in the regulations. The ASME Code is comprehensive and
includes updated requirements for design and construction of the heat
exchanger components for which a reference to TEMA standards was
previously necessary. The ASME Code requirements are equivalent to TEMA
requirements. Heat exchangers built solely in accordance with the ASME
Code have demonstrated their suitability for shipboard use. Referencing
only the ASME Code will result in simplified regulations and less
confusion. Therefore, the regulations referencing the TEMA standards
are no longer necessary and are proposed for removal.
Part 153 of Title 46 CFR contains the requirements for issuance of
a Certificate of Compliance (COC) and Subchapter O Endorsement (SOE).
Under the existing regulations, a COC and SOE are issued by the Coast
Guard to a foreign chemical tanker registered with a nation signatory
to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78).
Issuance of the COC and SOE are based primarily on a review of the
vessel's plans and possession of a valid Certificate of Fitness (COF)
issued by the flag state or an authorized third party.
The process to obtain a COC and SOE is initiated when a series of
documents are submitted to the Coast Guard for review. The required
submission of these documents to both the Coast Guard's Marine Safety
Center (MSC) and the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
(OCMI) often results in unnecessary delays in obtaining a COC and SOE.
Also, under current practices, after the COC and SOE have been issued,
if a Coast Guard marine inspector discovers that the COF has been
reissued by the flag state or its authorized third party, the COC
becomes invalid and cargo operations have to be stopped until the MSC
reviews the new COF and issues a new SOE.
A new proposed procedure would make the Coast Guard's regulations
more consistent with actual practice. Due to the large number of
cargoes typically authorized under a COF, currently the MSC does not
conduct a detailed review of the majority of a vessel's plans. Instead,
the MSC concentrates on identifying cargoes prohibited from bulk
carriage in U.S. waters and those cargoes for which the U.S. has
special requirements. The MSC accepts a valid COF issued by the flag
state or its authorized third party as documentation that the vessel
complies with the applicable international codes for carriage of bulk
chemicals. These codes are the Bulk Chemical Code (BCH Code) and the
International Bulk Chemical Code (IBC Code) developed by the
International Maritime Organization. Compliance with these codes is
mandatory for any vessel whose flag state is signatory to MARPOL 73/78.
Under this proposal, it would be only those chemical tankers whose flag
state is not signatory to MARPOL 73/78 that would require a detailed
plan review by the MSC to be issued an SOE. Following plan review, the
MSC would issue an SOE to these vessels with the notation that the flag
state is not signatory to MARPOL 73/78.
Therefore, this proposal, if adopted, would amend the review and
issuance
[[Page 65993]]
process found in 46 CFR Part 153 to allow the OCMI to issue the COC and
SOE without the MSC's involvement for those vessels whose flag states
are signatory to MARPOL 73/78. This proposal would also enable the SOE
to remain valid as long as the COF is valid even if the COF is revised.
The burden on the Coast Guard would also be reduced through streamlined
administrative procedures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cite (46 CFR) Proposed change Subject addressed by regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tank Vessels:
Sec. 32.05-5.................... Revision..................... Equipment marking.
Subpart 32.40.................... Revision..................... Accommodations.
Sec. 35.01-5.................... Revision..................... Accommodations.
Sec. 35.10-5.................... Revision..................... Emergency drills.
Sec. 35.20-15................... Revision..................... Steering orders.
Sec. 35.20-30................... Revision..................... Blinding lights.
Sec. 35.20-35................... Revision..................... Unnecessary whistling.
Sec. 35.25-1.................... Revision..................... Examination of boiler and machinery by
engineer.
Sec. 35.40-40................... Revision..................... Equipment marking.
Pressure Vessels:
Sec. 54.01-1.................... Revision..................... Heat exhangers.
Sec. 54.01-3.................... Removal...................... Heat exhangers.
Sec. 54.01-5.................... Revision..................... Heat exhangers.
Inspectins and Examinations:
Sec. 61.05-5.................... Revision..................... Preparing boilers for inspection.
Sec. 61.30-5.................... Revision..................... Preparing thermal fluid heater for
inspection.
Passenger Vessels:
Subpart 72.20.................... Revision..................... Accommodations.
Subpart 78.20.................... Removal...................... Steering orders.
Sec. 78.47-67................... Removal...................... Equipment marking.
Sec. 78.57-1.................... Revision..................... Routing instructions.
Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels:
Subpart 92.20.................... Revision..................... Accommodation.
Subpart 97.17.................... Removal...................... Steering orders.
Sec. 97.37-45................... Removal...................... Equipment marking.
Sec. 97.47-1.................... Revision..................... Routing instructions.
Hazardous Cargoes:
Part 153......................... Revision..................... Certificate of Compliance procedures.
Public School Ships:
Subpart 167.50................... Revision..................... Accommodations.
Sec. 167.55-5................... Revision..................... Special Markings.
Sec. 167.65-15.................. Revision..................... Routing instructions.
Sec. 167.65-30.................. Removal...................... Steering orders.
Civilian Nautical School Ships:
Subpart 168.15................... Revision..................... Accommodations.
Sailing School Vessels:
Sec. 169.742.................... Removal...................... Equipment marking.
Oceanographic Research Vessels:
Subpart 190.20................... Revision..................... Accommodations.
Subpart 196.17................... Removal...................... Steering Orders.
Sec. 196.37-45.................. Removal...................... Equipment marking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. An appropriate industry standard or practice exists which can be
referenced instead of publishing detailed requirements in the
regulations. The Coast Guard has been systematically replacing detailed
specifications in the regulations with industry consensus standards for
over 20 years. To date, over 250 regulatory provisions have been
replaced with adopted industry standards. Incorporation of industry
standards saves time and resources for both the Coast Guard and
industry by streamlining the shipboard equipment acceptance process.
Sections 34.10-10, 34.10-90, 76.10-10, 76.10-90, 95.10-10, 95.10-
90, 108.425, 167.45-40, 193.10-10 and 193.10-90 of Title 46 CFR contain
requirements for fire hose nozzles that are approved under 46 CFR
162.027. In 1994, the Coast Guard helped U.S. nozzle manufacturers
develop an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard
for fire fighting nozzles--ASTM F 1546-94, Standard Specification for
Marine Fire Fighting Nozzles. The standard was developed for modern
variable flow or variable pressure nozzle with the expectation that it
would eventually be incorporated into the regulations. Testing
conducted by the Coast Guard Research and Development Center in 1988
demonstrated these nozzles are superior to the currently approved all-
purpose nozzles. Two of the tested models were issued Coast Guard
approvals in 1990. Variable flow or variable pressure nozzles are used
by virtually every shoreside fire department in the United States.
Incorporation of this standard will make a superior product with a
long, successful service history available to the marine industry.
Therefore, this proposal, if adopted, would replace current
specifications for fire hose nozzles contained in Subpart 162.027
[[Page 65994]]
with a reference to ASTM F 1546-94 and would allow the use of nozzles
that meet the new Subpart 162.027 in lieu of nozzles previously
approved under Subpart 162.027.
Sections 56.30-35 and 56.30-40 of Title 46 CFR contain regulations
for gasketed mechanical couplings and mechanically attached fittings,
respectively. In 1993, the Coast Guard and ASTM developed ASTM
standards F 1387-93, Standard Specification for Performance of
Mechanically Attached Fittings, and F 1476-93, Standard Specification
for Performance of Gasketed Mechnical Couplings for Use in Piping
Applications, with the expectation that they would eventually be
incorporated into the regulations in lieu of Secs. 56.30-35 and 56.30-
40. This proposal, if adopted, would incorporate F 1387F-93 and F 1476-
93 into the regulations.
Section 61.20-17 of Title 46 CFR contains the requirements for
tailshaft examination intervals. The current requirements for tailshaft
examination intervals are based on the type of lubricant in the bearing
lubrication system. With some exceptions, water-lubricated tailshafts
must be drawn and examined at each drydocking. Oil-lubricated bearings
need not be drawn and examined if the bearing clearances are taken
during drydocking, the inboard seals are examined, the lubricating oil
is analyzed and nondestructive testing is conducted on the connection
between the propeller to the tailshaft. The differences in the scope
and frequency of inspection are due to the non-corrosive properties of
oil. Consequently, the use of an oil-lubricated tailshaft can translate
into substantial savings during drydock periods. However, a potential
drawback is liability for oil released from leaky seals. As a result,
industry demand has spurred development of water-miscible,
environmentally safe, non-corrosive lubricants.
The Coast Guard supports the development and use of non-polluting
lubricants and has evaluated the means for a manufacturer to
demonstrate a lubricant's equivalency to oil, based on the lubricant's
non-corrosive properties, for purposes of the tailshaft inspection
interval. Under this proposal, if adopted, a water-miscible lubricant
tested in accordance with ASTM D 665-92, Standard Test Method for Rust-
Preventing Characteristics of Inhibited Mineral Oil in the Presence of
Water, may be considered equivalent to oil for the purposes of the
tailshaft inspection interval. Therefore, this proposal, if adopted,
would incorporate ASTM D 665-92 into the regulations and add
appropriate text into Sec. 61.20-17 explaining the procedures for
accepting water-miscible lubricants as equivalent to oil. Additionally,
this proposal, if adopted, would clarify the purpose of the tailshaft
lubricating oil analysis by explaining that the analysis is to
determine the presence of bearing material or other contaminants.
Section 38.25-10 of Title 46 CFR contains the inspection
requirements for safety relief valves installed on pressure vessel type
cargo tanks used in the carriage of liquefied petroleum gas. Under the
current regulations, safety relief valves must be tested and adjusted,
if necessary, every four years. The ABS Rules require testing and
adjustment every five years. The ABS Rules, with the longer testing
interval, have shown to be adequate by the satisfactory performance of
safety relief valves on non-U.S. vessels classed by ABS. The Coast
Guard has amended the inspection intervals for vessel drydockings and
for various pieces of shipboard equipment to agree with the inspection
intervals in international standards and class society rules. These
amendments have been made after consideration for any possible
degradation in safety to allow major pieces of equipment to be tested
on a cycle that coincides with the normal drydock schedule for the
convenience of the vessel owner, class society and the Coast Guard.
Therefore, this proposal, if adopted, would change the testing interval
for safety valves installed on pressure vessel type cargo tanks from
four years to five years to be consistent with international standards
and classification society rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject addressed
Cite (46 CFR) Proposed change by regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 34.10-10.................. Revision......... Fire hose nozzles.
Sec. 34.10-90.................. Revision......... Fire hose nozzles.
Sec. 38.25-10.................. Revision......... Safety relief
valves.
Sec. 56.01-2................... Revision......... Incorporation by
reference.
Sec. 56.30-35.................. Revision......... Gasketed mechanical
couplings.
Sec. 56.30-40.................. Revision......... Mechanically
attached fittings.
Subpart 61.03................... New.............. Incorporation by
reference.
Sec. 61.20-17.................. Revision......... Tailshaft
inspections.
Sec. 76.10-10.................. Revision......... Fire hose nozzles.
Sec. 76.10-90.................. Revision......... Fire hose nozzles.
Sec. 95.10-10.................. Revision......... Fire hose nozzles.
Sec. 95.10-90.................. Removal.......... Fire hose nozzles.
Sec. 108.425................... Revision......... Fire hose nozzles.
Subpart 162.027................. Revision......... Fire hose nozzles.
Sec. 167.45-40................. Revision......... Fire hose nozzles.
Sec. 193.10-10................. Revision......... Fire hose nozzles.
Sec. 193.10-90................. Revision......... Fire hose nozzles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Statutory language repeated. The regulatory text of the
following provisions repeats language or restates requirements from
self-executing statutes without any additional regulatory provisions.
Section 26.15-1 of Title 46 CFR repeats the statutory language of
46 U.S.C. 527e authorizing the Coast Guard to board numbered,
uninspected commercial vessels. Section 527e of Title 46 U.S.C. was
repealed on August 10, 1971 (P.L. 92-75; 85 Stat. 228). The authority
for the Coast Guard to conduct boardings on uninspected vessels remains
in Title 14 U.S.C. 89. Therefore, Sec. 26.15-1 is no longer needed and
is proposed for revision.
Sections 35.07-5, 35.07-15, 78.37-3, 97.35-3, 97.35-10, 196.35-3
and 196.35-10 of Title 46 CFR either repeat statutory language or
paraphrase statutory requirements for making logbook entries. Subparts
78.03, 97.03 and 196.03 of Title 46 CFR repeat the possible
consequences of a violation of the provisions of Title 46 CFR and
mariners' liability under the suspension and revocation proceedings.
Sections 167.65-3 and 196.27-10 of Title 46 CFR repeat the statutory
language regarding negligent operations of a vessel.
Regulations which do not add meaning or additional requirements to
self-executing statutes are not useful. Therefore, regulations which
only repeat language or summarize requirements from self-executing
statutes are not necessary and are proposed for removal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject addressed
Cite (46 CFR) Proposed change by regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 26.15-1................... Revision......... Boarding by Coast
Guard.
Sec. 35.07-5................... Revision......... Logbook entries.
Sec. 35.07-15.................. Removal.......... Logbook entries.
Subpart 78.03................... Removal.......... Statutory
penalties.
[[Page 65995]]
Sec. 78.37-3................... Revision......... Logbook entries.
Subpart 97.03................... Removal.......... Statutory
penalties.
Sec. 97.35-3................... Revision......... Logbook entries.
Sec. 97.35-10.................. Removal.......... Logbook entries.
Sec. 167.65-3.................. Removal.......... Negligent
operations.
Subpart 196.03.................. Removal.......... Statutory
penalties.
Sec. 196.27-10................. Removal.......... Negligent
operations.
Sec. 196.35-3.................. Revision......... Logbook entries.
Sec. 196.35-10................. Removal.......... Logbook entries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporation by Reference
The following material would be incorporated by reference:
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Standard Specification for Performance of Mechanically Attached
Fittings, F 1387-93--Secs. 56.01-2, 56.30-35
Standard Specification for Performance of Gasketed Mechanical
Couplings for Use in Piping Applications, F 1476-93--Secs. 56.01-2,
56.30-40
Standard Specification for Marine Fire Fighting Nozzles, ASTM F
1546-93--Secs. 162.027-1, 162.027-2, 162.027-3
Copies of the material are available for inspection where indicated
under ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are available from the sources
listed in Secs. 56.01-2 and 162.027-1.
Before publishing a final rule, the Coast Guard will submit this
material to the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the
incorporation by reference.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal 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, nor
has it been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. It is not
significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Assessment is unnecessary.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider the economic impact on small entities of a
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required.
``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
This proposed rule will have no economic impact on small entities
because it amends portions of regulations that: (1) Are purely
administrative; (2) Do not reflect common marine industry practice; (3)
Do not have general applicability; or, (4) Are repeated in other
sections.
Therefore, the Coast Guard finds that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If, however, you think that your business or organization
qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant
economic impact on your business or organization, please submit a
comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and in
what way and to what degree this proposed rule will economically affect
it.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule imposes on the public no new or added
requirements for collecting information under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with
the principles and criteria of Executive Order 12612 and has determined
that this rule does not have sufficient implications for federalism to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
proposed rule and concluded that, under section 2.B.2.c of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is
available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
46 CFR Part 26
Marine safety, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 31
Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
46 CFR Part 32
Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Seamen.
46 CFR Part 34
Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Marine safety.
46 CFR Part 35
Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Occupational
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
46 CFR Part 38
Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Gases, Hazardous materials
transportation, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
46 CFR Part 54
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 56
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 61
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 72
Fire prevention, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health,
Passenger vessels, Seamen.
46 CFR Part 76
Fire prevention, Marine safety, Passenger vessels.
46 CFR Part 77
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Passenger vessels.
46 CFR Part 78
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Passenger vessels, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 92
Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Marine safety, Occupational safety
and health, Seamen.
46 CFR Part 95
Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Marine safety.
46 CFR Part 96
Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water).
[[Page 65996]]
46 CFR Part 97
Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 108
Fire prevention, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Oil
and gas exploration, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 109
Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Oil and gas
exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 153
Administrative practice and procedure, Cargo vessels, Hazardous
materials transportation, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control.
46 CFR Part 160
Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 162
Fire Prevention, Marine safety, Oil pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 164
Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
46 CFR Part 167
Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools, Seamen, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 168
Occupational safety and health, Schools, Seamen, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 169
Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 190
Fire prevention, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health,
Oceanographic research vessels.
46 CFR Part 193
Fire prevention, Marine safety, Oceanographic research vessels.
46 CFR Part 196
Marine safety, Oceanographic research vessels, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR Parts 26, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 54, 56, 61, 72, 76, 77,
78, 92, 95, 96, 97, 108, 109, 153, 160, 162, 164, 167, 168, 169, 189,
190, 193, and 196 as follows:
PART 26--OPERATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 26 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 4104, 6101, 8105; E.O. 12234, 45 FR
58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277.; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. In Sec. 26.15-1, paragraphs (a) and (b) are removed, paragraph
(c) is redesignated as paragraph (b), and a new paragraph (a) is added
to read as follows:
Sec. 26.15-1 May board at any time.
(a) To facilitate the boarding of vessels by the commissioned,
warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard in the exercise of
their authority, every uninspected vessel, as defined in 46 U.S.C.
2101(43), if underway and upon being hailed by a Coast Guard vessel,
shall stop immediately and lay to, or shall maneuver in such a way as
to permit the Coast Guard boarding officer to come aboard. Failure to
permit a Coast Guard boarding officer to board a vessel or refusal to
comply will subject the operator or owner of the vessel to the
penalties provided in law.
* * * * *
PART 31--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
3. The authority citation for Part 31 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; 49 U.S.C.
5103, 5106; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46. Section
31.10-21a also issued under the authority of Sect. 4109, Pub. L.
101-380, 104 Stat. 515.
Sec. 31.10-15 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 31.10-15, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words
``and in the case of nuclear vessels, at least once every year''.
PART 32--SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, AND HULL REQUIREMENTS
5. The authority citation for Part 32 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801,
3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46; Subpart 32.59 also under the
authority of Sect. 4109, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 515.
6. Section 32.02-5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 32.02-5 Communication between deckhouses--TB/OCLB.
On all tank vessels where the distance between deckhouses is more
than 46 m (150 ft), a fixed means of facilitating communication between
both ends of the vessel, such as a raised fore and aft bridge or side
tunnels, shall be provided. Previously approved arrangements may be
retained so long as they are maintained in satisfactory condition to
the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
Sec. 32.05-5 [Amended]
7. In Sec. 32.05-5, the words ``fire hose, fire axes,'' are
removed.
8. Section 32.15-10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 32.15-10 Sounding machines--T/OCL.
All mechanically propelled vessels in ocean or coastwise service of
500 gross tons and over, and all mechanically propelled vessels in
Great Lakes service of 500 gross tons and over certificated for service
on the River St. Lawrence eastward of the lower exit of the St. Lambert
Lock at Montreal, Canada, shall be fitted with an efficient electronic
deep-sea sounding apparatus.
9. Subpart 32.40 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 32.40--Accommodations for Officers and Crew
Sec.
32.40-1 Application--TB/ALL.
32.40-5 General--T/ALL.
32.40-10 Restrictions--T/ALL.
32.40-15 Location of crew spaces--T/ALL.
32.40-20 Arrangement of sleeping spaces--T/ALL.
32.40-25 Size of sleeping spaces--T/ALL.
32.40-30 Berths and lockers--T/ALL.
32.40-35 Wash spaces; toilet spaces; and shower spaces--T/ALL.
32.40-40 Messrooms--T/ALL.
32.40-45 Hospital spaces--T/ALL.
32.40-50 Miscellaneous accommodation spaces--T/ALL.
32.40-55 Heating requirements--T/ALL.
32.40-60 Inspect screens--T/ALL.
32.40-65 Crew accommodations on tankships of less than 100 gross
tons and manned tank barges--TB/ALL.
32.40-70 Crew accommodations on tankships constructed before June
15, 1987--T/ALL.
Sec. 32.40-1 Application--TB/ALL.
(a) The provisions of this subpart, with the exception of
Sec. 32.40-70 and Sec. 32.40-90, apply to all tankships of 100 gross
tons and over constructed on or after June 15, 1987.
(b) Tankships of less than 100 gross tons and manned tank barges
must meet the requirements of Sec. 32.40-70.
(c) Tankships of 100 gross tons and over constructed prior to June
15, 1987, must meet the requirements of Sec. 32.40-90.
Sec. 32.40-5 General--T/ALL.
The accommodations provided for the crew, including both officers
and
[[Page 65997]]
unlicensed members, on all tankships must be securely constructed,
properly lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located,
arranged, and insulated from undue noise, heat and odors.
Sec. 32.40-10 Restrictions--T/ALL.
(a) There must be no direct communication between the accommodation
spaces and any chainlocker, stowage, or machinery space, except through
solid, close-fitted doors or hatches.
(b) No access, vent, or sounding tube from a fuel or oil tank may
open into any accommodation space, except that accesses and sounding
tubes may open into corridors.
Sec. 32.40-15 Location of crew spaces--T/ALL.
Crew quarters must not be located forward of a vertical plane
located at five percent of the tankship's length aft of the stem at the
designated summer load line. However, for tankships in other than ocean
or coastwise service, this distance does not need to exceed 8.5 m (28
ft). For the purposes of this paragraph, the length defined in
Sec. 42.13-15 of Subchapter E (Load Lines) of this chapter is to be
used. No section of the deckhead of the crew spaces may be below the
deepest load line.
Sec. 32.40-20 Arrangement of sleeping spaces--T/ALL.
Each department head and watchstanding officer must be provided
with a separate stateroom.
Sec. 32.40-25 Size of sleeping spaces--T/ALL.
(a) No sleeping space may berth more than four persons.
(b) Without deducting any furnishings used by the occupants, each
sleeping space must have for each occupant--
(1) 2.78 m\2\ (30 ft\3\) of deck area: and
(2) 5.8 m\3\ (210 ft\2\) of volume.
(c) Each sleeping space must have at least 190 cm (75 in) of
headroom over clear deck areas.
Sec. 32.40-30 Berths and lockers--T/ALL.
(a) Each person shall have a separate berth and not more than one
berth shall be placed above another.
(b) Each berth must have a framework of hard, smooth, non-corrosive
material.
(c) Each berth must be at least 68 cm (27 in) wide by 190 cm (75
in) long.
(d) The bottom of the lower berth must be at least 30 cm (12 in)
above the deck. The bottom of an upper berth must be at least 76 cm (30
in) from the bottom of the berth below it and from the deck or any
pipe, ventilating duct, or other overhead installation.
(e) Each person accommodated in a room shall be provided a locker.
(f) Each berth must have a berth light.
Sec. 32.40-35 Wash spaces: toilet spaces; and shower spaces--T/ALL.
(a) Each tankship must have enough public facilities to provide at
least one toilet, one shower, and one washbasin for each eight persons
who occupy sleeping spaces that do not have private or semi-private
facilities.
(b) Each public toilet space and washing space must be convenient
to the sleeping space that it serves.
(c) Each washbasin, shower, and bathtub must have hot and cold
running water.
(d) Adjacent toilets must be separated by a partition that is open
at the top and bottom.
(e) Each washing space and toilet space must be constructed and
arranged so that it can be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and
the plumbing and mechanical appliances kept in good working order.
Sec. 32.40-40 Messrooms--T/ALL.
Each messroom must seat the number of persons expected to eat in
the messroom at one time.
Sec. 32.40-45 Hospital space--T/ALL.
(a) Except as specifically modified by paragraph (h) of this
section, each tankship, which in the ordinary course of its trade makes
voyages of more than three days duration between ports, other than on a
coastal voyage, and which carries a crew of twelve persons or more,
must have a hospital space.
(b) The hospital must be used only for the care of the sick.
(c) Each hospital space must have a toilet, washbasin, and bathtub
or shower accessible from the hospital space.
(d) Each hospital space must have a clothes locker, a table, and
seats.
(e) On tankships in which the entire crew is berthed in single
occupancy rooms, a hospital space is not required if one room is
designated and fitted for use as a treatment and isolation room, and
meets the following standards:
(1) The room must be available for immediate medical use;
(2) A washbasin with hot and cold running water must be installed
either in or immediately adjacent to the space and other required
sanitary facilities must be conveniently located.
Sec. 32.40-50 Miscellaneous accommodation spaces--T/ALL.
(a) Each tankship must have enough facilities for the crew to wash
and dry their own clothes, including at least one tub or sink that has
hot and cold running water.
(b) Each tankship must have an accommodation space that can be used
for recreation.
Sec. 32.40-55 Heating requirements--T/ALL.
(a) Radiators and other heating apparatus must be constructed,
located or shielded so as to avoid risk of fire or danger and
discomfort to the occupants of each accommodation space.
(b) Each exposed pipe in an accommodation space leading to a
radiator or other heating apparatus must be insulated.
Sec. 32.40-60 Insect screens--T/ALL.
Accommodation spaces must be protected against the admission of
insects.
Sec. 32.40-65 Crew accommodations on tankships of less than 100 gross
tons and manned tank barges--TB/ALL.
(a) The crew accommodations on all tankships of less than 100 gross
tons and all manned tank barges must have sufficient size and
equipment, and be adequately constructed to provide for the protection
of the crew in a manner practicable for the size, facilities, and
service of the tank vessel.
(b) The crew accommodations must be consistent with the principles
underlying the requirements for crew accommodations of tankships of 100
gross tons or more.
Sec. 32.40-70 Crew accommodations on tankships constructed before June
15, 1987--T/ALL.
All tankships of 100 gross tons and over constructed before June
15, 1987 may retain previously accepted or approved installations and
arrangements so long as they are maintained in good condition to the
satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
Subpart 32.95--[Removed]
10. Subpart 32.95 is removed.
PART 34--FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT
The authority citation for Part 34 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR,
1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
12. In Sec. 34.05-5, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(4)
are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 34.05-5 Fire-extinguishing systems--T/ALL.
(a) * * *
(1) Dry cargo compartments. A carbon
FR Doc. 95-30402 Adoption of Industry Standards
dioxide or water spray system
shall be installed for the protection of all dry cargo compartments.
Where such
[[Page 65998]]
compartments are readily accessible by means of doors such spaces need
be protected only by the fire main system.
(2) Cargo tanks. A deck foam system shall be installed for the
protection of all cargo tank spaces. Where a deck foam system is
installed, an approved inert gas, steam or other system may also be
installed for the purposes of fire prevention or inerting of cargo
tanks. For vessels under 100 feet in length, the semiportable equipment
required by footnote 1 of Table 34.05-5(a) will be considered as
meeting the requirements of this subparagraph.
(3) Lamp and paint lockers and similar spaces. A carbon dioxide or
water spray system shall be installed in all lamp and paint lockers,
oil rooms, and similar spaces.
(4) Pumprooms. A carbon dioxide, inert gas, foam or water spray
system shall be installed for the protection of all pumprooms.
* * * * *
Sec. 34.05-15 [Removed]
13. Section 34.05-15 is removed.
14. In Sec. 34.10-10, paragraphs (e), (e-1) and (n) are removed,
paragraphs (f) through (m) are redesignated as paragraphs (g) through
(n), respectively, and new paragraphs (e), (f) and (o) are added to
read as follows:
Sec. 34.10-10 Fire station hydrants, hose and nozzles--T/ALL.
* * * * *
(e) Each fire station hydrant must have at least one length of fire
hose. Each fire hose on the hydrant must have a combination solid
stream and water spray fire hose nozzle that meets the requirements in
Subpart 162.027 of this chapter. Fire hose nozzles previously approved
under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter may be retained so long as they
are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection. A suitable hose rack or other device shall
be provided. Hose racks on weather decks shall be located so as to
afford protection from heavy seas. The hose shall be stored in the open
or so as to be readily visible.
Table 34.10-10(E).--Hydrants with Coast Guard Approved Low-Velocity
Water Spray Applicators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of hydrants
Location with approved Approved applicator
applicators length (meters (feet))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Living spaces.................. 1 1.2(4)
Weather deck................... 4 3(10) or 3.7(12)
Machinery space................ 2 1.2(4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Each combination nozzle previously approved under Subpart
162.027 of this chapter in the locations listed in Table 34.10-10(E)
must have a low-velocity water spray applicator also previously
approved under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter that is of the length
listed in that table.
* * * * *
(o) Each low-velocity water spray applicator under paragraph (f) of
this section must have fixed brackets, hooks, or other means for
stowing next to the hydrant.
15. In Sec. 34.10-90, paragraphs (a)(12) and (a)(13) are removed,
paragraph (a)(14) is redesignated as (a)(12) and paragraphs (a)(10),
(a)(11) and (b)(2) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 34.10-90 Installations contracted for prior to May 26, 1965--T/
ALL.
(a) * * *
(10) Each fire station hydrant on a tankship of 500 gross tons or
more must have at least one length of firehose. Each firehose on the
hydrant must have a combination solid stream and water spray firehose
nozzle that meets the requirements of Subpart 162.027. Fire hose
nozzles previously approved under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter may
be retained so long as they are maintained in good condition to the
satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
(11) On each tankship of 1000 gross tons or more, the nozzle
required by paragraph (a)(10) on each of the following hydrants must
have a low velocity applicator that was previously approved under
Subpart 162.027 and that connects to that nozzle when the nozzle itself
was previously approved under Subpart 162.027;
(i) At least two hydrants in the machinery and boiler spaces.
(ii) At least 25 percent of other hydrants.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Each fire station hydrant must have at least one length of
firehose. Each firehose on the hydrant must have a combination solid
stream and water spray nozzle that meets the requirements of Subpart
162.027. Fire hose nozzles previously approved under Subpart 162.027 of
this chapter may be retained so long as they are maintained in good
condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection. If the fire hose nozzles were previously approved under
Subpart 162.027, each of the number of hydrants in the locations listed
in Table 34.10-10(E) must have a low velocity water spray applicator
that:
(i) Was previously approved under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter:
(ii) Is the length listed in Table 34.10-(E); and
(iii) Meets Sec. 34.10-10(o).
16. Subpart 34.13 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 34.13--Steam Smothering Systems
Sec. 34.13-1 Application--T/ALL.
Steam smothering fire extinguishing systems are not permitted on
vessels contracted for on or after January 1, 1962. Previously approved
installations may be retained as long as they are maintained in good
condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection.
Subpart 34.55--[Removed]
17. Subpart 34.55 is removed.
PART 35--OPERATIONS
18. The authority citation for Part 35 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 6101; 49
U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR
1.46.
Sec. 35.01-5 [Amended]
19. In Sec. 35.01-5, paragraphs (b) and (c) are removed and the
paragraph designation ``(a)'' is removed from paragraph (a).
20. Section 35.07-5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 35.07-5 Logbooks and records--TB/ALL.
(a) The master or person in charge of a vessel that is required by
46 U.S.C. 11301 to have an official logbook shall maintain the logbook
on Form CG-706. When the voyage is completed, the master or person in
charge shall file the logbook with the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection.
(b) The master or person in charge of a vessel that is not required
by 46 U.S.C. 11301 to have an official logbook, shall maintain, on
board, an unofficial logbook or record in any form desired
[[Page 65999]]
for the purposes of making entries therein as required by law or
regulations in this subchapter. Such logs or records are not filed with
the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, but shall be kept available
for review by a marine inspector for a period of one year after the
date to which the records refer. Separate records of tests and
inspections of firefighting equipment shall be maintained with the
vessel's logs for the period of validity of the vessel's certificate of
inspection.
Sec. 35.07-15 [Removed]
21. Section 35.07-15 is removed.
Sec. 35.10-5 [Amended]
22. In Sec. 35.10-5, paragraph (g) is removed and paragraphs (h)
and (i) are redesignated as paragraphs (g) and (h), respectively.
23. Subpart 35.12 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 35.12--Placard of Lifesaving Signals
Sec.
35.12-1 Application--T/OCLB.
35.12-5 Availability--T/OCLB.
Sec. 35.12-1 Application--T/OCLB.
The provisions of this subpart shall apply to all vessels on an
international voyage, and all other vessels of 150 gross tons or over
in ocean, coastwise or Great Lakes service.
Sec. 35.12-5 Availability--T/OCLB.
On all vessels to which this subpart applies there shall be readily
available to the deck officer of the watch a placard containing
instructions for the use of the lifesaving signals set forth in
Regulation 16, Chapter V, of the International Convention for Safety of
Life at Sea, 1974. These signals shall be used by vessels or persons in
distress when communicating with lifesaving stations and maritime
rescue units.
Sec. 35.20-15 [Removed]
24. Section 35.20-15 is removed.
Sec. 35.20-25 [Removed]
25. Section 35.20-25 is removed.
26. Section 35.20-30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 35.20-30 Flashing the rays of a searchlight or other blinding
light--T/ALL.
No person shall flash or cause to be flashed the rays of a search
light or other blinding light onto the bridge or into the pilothouse of
any vessel under way.
27. Section 35.20-35 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 35.20-35 Whistling--All.
The unnecessary sounding of a vessel's whistle is prohibited within
any harbor limits of the United States.
28. Section 35.20-40 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 35.20-40 Maneuvering characteristics--T/OC.
(a) Each ocean and coastwide tankship of 1,600 gross tons or over
must have the maneuvering information listed in 33 CFR 164.35(g)(1)
through (g)(7) prominently displayed in the pilot house on a fact
sheet.
(b) The information on the fact sheet must be:
(1) Verified by the owner or operator six months after the vessel
is placed in service; or
(2) Modified six months after the vessel is placed into service and
verified within three months thereafter.
(c) The information that appears on the fact sheet may be obtained
from:
(1) Trial trip observations;
(2) Model tests;
(3) Analytical calculations;
(4) Simulations;
(5) Information established from another vessel of similar hull
form, power, rudder and propeller; or
(6) Any combination of the above. The accuracy of the information
in the fact sheet required is that attainable by ordinary shipboard
navigation equipment.
(d) The requirement for information for fact sheets for vessels of
unusual design will be specified on a case by case basis.
29. Section 35.25-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 35.25-1. Examination of boilers and machinery by engineer--T/ALL.
It shall be the duty of an engineer when he assumes charge of the
boilers to examine the same forthwith and thoroughly. If he finds any
part thereof in bad condition, he shall immediately report the facts to
the master, owner, or agent, and to the nearest Officer in Charge,
Marine Inspection.
Sec. 35.30-45 [Removed]
30. Section 35.30-45 is removed.
Sec. 35.40-40 [Amended]
31. In Sec. 35.40-40, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the
words ``fire hoses, fire axes,''.
Subpart 35.70--[Removed]
32. Subpart 35.70 is removed.
PART 38--LIQUEFIED FLAMMABLE GASES
33. The authority citation for Part 38 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; 49 U.S.C. 5101, 5106;
E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
34. In Sec. 38.25-10, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 38.25-10 Safety relief valves--TB/ALL.
* * * * *
(b) The safety relief valve discs shall be lifted from their seats
in the presence of a marine inspector by either liquid, gas, or vapor
pressure at least once every 5 years to determine the accuracy of
adjustment and, if necessary, shall be reset.
PART 54--PRESSURE VESSELS
35. The authority citation for Part 54 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1509; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703;
E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
Sec. 54.01-1 [Amended]
36. In Sec. 54.01-1, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the
incorporation by reference entry for the Tubular Exchanger
Manufacturers Association.
Sec. 54.01-3 [Removed]
37. Section 54.01-3 is removed.
Sec. 54.01-5 [Amended]
38. In Sec. 54.01-5, paragraph (d)(5) is amended by adding the word
``and'' after the semicolon, paragraph (d)(6) is removed, paragraph
(d)(7) is redesignated as paragraph (d)(6) and footnote 8 is removed
from Table 54.01-5(b).
PART 56--PIPING SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANCES
39. The authority citation for Part 56 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 1509; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C.
3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46.
40. In Sec. 56.01-2, paragraph (b) is amended by adding in
numerical order of the standards incorporated by reference from the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) the following
additional standards:
Sec. 56.01-2 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
ASTM F 1387-93 Standard--56.30-40
Specification for Performance of Mechanically Attached Fittings
ASTM F 1476-93 Standard--56.30-35
Specification for Performance of Casketed Mechanical Couplings for
Use in Piping Applications
* * * * *
41. Section 56.30-35 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 66000]]
Sec. 56.30-35 Sleeve coupled and other proprietary joints.
Coupling type, mechanical gland type and other proprietary joints
may be used in certain locations (see Sec. 56.30-40(d) for limitations)
where experience or tests have demonstrated that the joint is safe for
the operating conditions, and where adequate provision is made to
prevent separation of the joint. Fittings of this type shall be
designed, constructed, tested and marked in accordance with ASTM F
1476-93.
42. In Sec. 56.30-40, paragraphs (b), (c), (e), and (h) are
removed, paragraph (d) is redesignated as paragraph (c), paragraphs (f)
and (g) are redesignated as paragraphs (d) and (e), respectively, and a
new paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 56.30-40 Flexible pipe couplings of the compression or slip-on
type.
* * * * *
(b) Couplings shall be designed, constructed, tested and marked in
accordance with ASTM F 1387-93.
* * * * *
Sec. 56.50-100 [Removed]
43. Section 56.50-100 is removed.
PART 61--PERIODIC TESTS AND INSPECTIONS
44. The authority citation for Part 61 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45
FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
45. Subpart 61.03 is added to read as follows:
Subpart 61.03--Incorporation of Standards
Sec. 61.03-1 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a). To enforce any edition other than that specified
in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice
of change in the Federal Register and make the material available to
the public. All approved material is on file at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,
DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard, Design and Engineering Standards
Division (G-MMS), 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 and
is available from the sources indicated in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) The material for incorporation by reference in this part and
the sections affected are:
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103
ASTM D 665-92, Standard Test Method for Rust-Preventing Characteristics
of Inhibited Mineral Oil in the Presence of Water, 1992--61.20-17
Sec. 61.05-5 [Amended]
46. In Sec. 61.05-5, paragraph (a) is removed and paragraphs (b)
and (c) are redesignated as paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively.
47. Section 61.20-17 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 61.20-17 Examination intervals.
(a) A lubricant that demonstrates the corrosion inhibiting
properties of oil when tested in accordance with ASTM D 665-92 is
considered to be equivalent to oil for the purposes of the tailshaft
examination interval.
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this
section, each tailshaft on a vessel must be examined twice within any
five year period. No more than three years may elapse between any two
tailshaft examinations.
(c) Tailshafts on vessels fitted with multiple shafts must be
examined once every five years.
(d) Tailshafts with inaccessible portions fabricated of materials
resistant to corrosion by sea water, or fitted with a continuous liner
or a sealing gland which prevents sea water from contacting the shaft,
must be examined once every five years if they are constructed or
fitted with a taper, keyway, and propeller designed in accordance with
the American Bureau of Shipping standards to reduce stress
concentrations or are fitted with a flanged propeller. Accessible
portions of tailshafts must be examined visually during each drydock
examination.
(e) Tailshafts with oil lubricated bearings, including bearings
lubricated with a substance considered to be equivalent to oil under
the provisions of paragraph (a), need not be drawn for examination--
(1) If tailshaft bearing clearance readings are taken whenever the
vessel undergoes a drydock examination or underwater survey;
(2) If the inboard seal assemblies are examined whenever the vessel
undergoes a drydock examination or underwater survey;
(3) If an analysis of the tailshaft bearing lubricant is performed
semiannually in accordance with the lubrication system manufacturer's
recommendations to determine bearing material content or the presence
of other contaminants; and
(4) If--
(i) For tailshafts with a taper, the propeller is removed and the
taper and the keyway (if fitted) are nondestructively tested at
intervals not to exceed five years; or
(ii) For tailshafts with a propeller fitted to the shaft by means
of a coupling flange, the propeller coupling bolts and flange radius
are nondestructively tested whenever they are removed or made
accessible in connection with overhaul or repairs.
(f) Tailshafts on mobile offshore drilling units are not subject to
examination intervals under paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section
if they are--
(1) Examined during each regularly scheduled drydocking; or
(2) Regularly examined in a manner acceptable to the Commandant (G-
MCO).
Sec. 61.30-5 [Amended]
48. In Sec. 61.30-5, paragraph (a) is removed and the paragraph
designation ``(b)'' is removed from paragraph (b).
PART 72--CONSTRUCTION AND ARRANGEMENT
49. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980
Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
Sec. 72.05-60 [Removed]
50. Section 72.05-60 is removed.
51. Subpart 72.20 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 72.20--Accommodations for Officers and Crew
Sec.
72.20-1 Application.
72.20-5 Intent.
72.20-10 Location of crew spaces.
72.20-15 Construction.
72.20-20 Sleeping accommodations.
72.20-25 Washrooms and toilet rooms.
72.20-30 Messrooms.
72.20-35 Hospital space.
72.20-40 Other spaces.
72.20-45 Lighting.
72.20-50 Heating.
72.20-55 Insect screens.
72.20-90 Vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952.
Sec. 72.20-1 Application.
The provisions of this subchapter, except Sec. 72.20-90, apply to
all vessels contracted for after November 18, 1952. Vessels contracted
for before November 19, 1952 shall meet the requirements of Sec. 72.20-
90.
Sec. 72.20-5 Intent.
It is the intent of this subpart that the accommodations provided
for officers and crew on all vessels shall be securely
[[Page 66001]]
constructed, properly lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped,
located, arranged, and where practicable, shall be insulated from undue
noise, heat and odors.
Sec. 72.20-10 Location of crew spaces.
(a) Crew quarters shall not be located farther forward in the
vessel than a vertical plane located at 5 percent of the vessel's
length abaft the forward side of the stem at the designed summer load
water line. However, for vessels in other than ocean or coastwise
service, this distance need not exceed 8.5 m (28 ft). For the purposes
of this paragraph, the length shall be as defined in Sec. 43.15-1 of
Subchapter E (Load Lines) of this chapter. No section of the deck of
the crew spaces shall be below the deepest load line, except that in
special cases, the Commandant may approve such an arrangement.
(b) There shall be no direct communication, except through solid,
close fitted doors or hatches between crew spaces and chain lockers, or
machinery spaces.
Sec. 72.20-15 Construction.
All crew spaces are to be constructed in a manner suitable to the
purpose for which they are intended. The accommodations provided for
officers and crew on all vessels shall be securely constructed,
properly lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located,
arranged, and, where practicable, shall be insulated from undue noise,
heat and effluvia.
Sec. 72.20-20 Sleeping accommodations.
(a) Where practicable, each licensed officer shall be provided with
a separate stateroom.
(b) Sleeping accommodations for the crew shall be divided into
rooms, no one of which shall berth more than four persons.
(c) Each room shall be of such size that there is at least 2.78 m
\2\ (30 ft \3\) of deck area and a volume of at least 5.8 m \3\ (210 ft
\2\) for each person accommodated. The clear head room shall be not
less than 190 cm (75 in). In measuring sleeping accommodations any
furnishings contained therein for the use of the occupants are not to
be deducted from the total volume or from the deck area.
(d) Each person shall have a separate berth and not more than one
berth shall be placed above another. The berth shall be composed of
materials not likely to corrode. The overall size of a berth shall not
be less than 68 cm (27 in) wide by 190 cm (75 in) long, except by
special permission of the Commandant. Where two tiers of berths are
fitted, the bottom of the lower berth must not be less than 30 cm (12
in) above the deck. The berths shall not be obstructed by pipes,
ventilating ducts, or other installations.
(e) A locker shall be provided for each person accommodated in a
room.
Sec. 72.20-25 Washrooms and toilet rooms.
(a) There shall be provided at least one toilet, one washbasin, and
one shower or bathtub for each eight members or portion thereof in the
crew to be accommodated. The crew to be accommodated shall include all
members who do not occupy rooms to which private or semi-private
facilities are attached.
(b) The toilet rooms and washrooms shall be located convenient to
the sleeping quarters of the crew to which they are allotted but shall
not open directly into such quarters except when they are provided as
private or semi-private facilities.
(c) All washbasins, showers, and bathtubs shall be equipped with
proper plumbing, including hot and cold running water. All toilets
shall be installed with proper plumbing for flushing. Where more than
one toilet is located in a space or compartment, each toilet shall be
separated by partitions.
Sec. 72.20-30 Messrooms.
Messrooms shall be located as near to the galley as is practicable
except where the messroom is equipped with a steam table. The messroom
shall be of such size as to seat the number of persons normally
scheduled to be eating at one time.
Sec. 72.20-35 Hospital space.
(a) Each vessel which in the ordinary course of its trade makes
voyages of more than 3 days duration between ports and which carries a
crew of twelve or more, shall be provided with a hospital space. This
space shall be situated with due regard to the comfort of the sick so
that they may receive proper attention in all weathers.
(b) The hospital shall be suitably separated from other spaces and
shall be used for the care of the sick and for no other purpose.
(c) The hospital shall be fitted with berths in the ratio of one
berth to every twelve members of the crew or portion thereof who are
not berthed in single occupancy rooms, but the number of berths need
not exceed six.
(d) The hospital shall have a toilet, washbasin, and bath tub or
shower conveniently situated. Other necessary suitable equipment of
such character as clothes locker, table, seat, etc., shall be provided.
(a) Sufficient facilities shall be provided where the crew may wash
and dry their own clothes. There shall be at least one sink supplied
with hot and cold fresh water.
(b) Recreation accommodations shall be provided.
(c) A space or spaces of adequate size shall be available on an
open deck to which the crew has access when off duty.
Sec. 72.20-45 Lighting.
Berth lights shall be provided for each member of the crew.
Sec. 72.20-50 Heating.
(a) All crew spaces shall be adequately heated in a manner suitable
to the purpose of the space.
(b) Radiators and other heating apparatus shall be so placed, and
where necessary shielded, as to avoid risk of fire, danger or
discomfort to the occupants. Pipes leading to radiators or heating
apparatus shall be lagged where those pipes create a hazard to persons
occupying the space.
Sec. 72.20-55 Insect screens.
Provisions shall be made to protect the crew quarters against the
admission of insects.
Sec. 72.20-90 Vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952.
(a) Vessels of 100 gross tons and over, contracted for prior to
March 4, 1915, shall meet the requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Existing structure, arrangements, materials, and facilities,
previously approved will be considered satisfactory so long as they are
maintained in a suitable condition to the satisfaction of the Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alterations may be made
to the same standard as the original construction provided that in no
case will a greater departure from the standards of Secs. 72.20-5
through 72.20-55 be permitted than presently exists.
(b) Vessels of 100 gross tons and over, contracted for on or after
March 4, 1915, but prior to January 1, 1941, shall meet the
requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Existing structure, arrangements, materials, and facilities,
previously accepted or approved will be considered satisfactory so long
as they are maintained in a suitable condition to the satisfaction of
the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alterations
may be made to the same standard as the original construction.
(2) Where reasonable and practicable, a minimum of 1 toilet,
shower, and washbasin shall be provided for each 10 members of the crew
or fraction thereof.
(3) Crew spaces shall have a volume of at least 3.4 m\3\ (120
ft\2\) and a deck
[[Page 66002]]
area of at least 1.5 m\2\ (16 ft\3\) for each person accommodated.
(4) Each crewmember shall have a separate berth, and berths may not
be placed more than two high.
(5) Each vessel, which in the ordinary course of its trade makes a
voyage of more than 3 days duration between ports and which carries a
crew of twelve or more persons, shall be provided with a suitable
hospital space for the exclusive use of the sick or injured. Berths
shall be provided in the ratio of 1 berth for each twelve members of
the crew or fraction thereof, but the number of berths need not exceed
6.
(6) The crew spaces shall be securely constructed, properly
lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located, and arranged,
and where practicable shall be insulated from undue noise and odors.
(d) Vessels of 100 gross tons and over, contracted for on or after
January 1, 1941, but prior to November 19, 1952, shall meet the
requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Existing structure, arrangements, materials, and facilities,
previously accepted or approved will be considered satisfactory so long
as they are maintained in a suitable condition to the satisfaction of
the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alterations
may be made to the same standard as the original construction.
(2) There shall be a minimum of one toilet, shower, and washbasin
for each eight members of the crew or fraction thereof who are not
accommodated in rooms having attached private or semi-private
facilities. Washbasins, showers, and bathtubs if substituted for
showers, shall be equipped with proper plumbing, including hot and cold
running water.
(3) Crew spaces shall have a volume of at least 3.4 m\3\ (120
ft\2\) and a deck area of at least 1.5 m\2\ (16 ft\3\) for each person
accommodated.
(4) Each crewmember shall have a separate berth, and berths may not
be placed more than two high.
(5) Each vessel, which in the ordinary course of its trade makes a
voyage of more than 3 days duration between ports and which carries a
crew of twelve or more persons, shall be provided with a suitable
hospital space for the exclusive use of the sick or injured. Berths
shall be provided in the ratio of 1 berth for each twelve members of
the crew or fraction thereof, but the number of berths need not exceed
6.
(6) The crew spaces shall be securely constructed, properly
lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located, and arranged,
and where practicable shall be insulated from undue noise and odors.
PART 76--FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT
52. The authority citation for Part 76 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, E.O. 12243, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980
Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
53. Section 76.05-20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.05-20 Fixed fire extinguishing systems.
Approved fire extinguishing systems shall be installed, as required
by Table 76.05-1(a) on all self-propelled vessels and on all barges
with sleeping accommodations for more than six persons.
Sec. 76.05-30 [Removed]
54. Section 76.05-30 is removed.
55. In Sec. 76.10-10, paragraphs (j-1) and (j-2) are removed,
paragraph (k) and (l) is redesignated as paragraphs (m) and (n),
paragraph (j) is revised and new paragraphs (k) and (l) are added to
read as follows:
Sec. 76.10-10 Fire hydrants and hose.
* * * * *
(j) Each fire hose on each hydrant must have a combination solid
stream and water spray fire hose nozzle that meets the requirements in
Subpart 162.027 of this chapter. Fire hose nozzles previously approved
under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter may be retained so long as they
are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection.
(k) Fire hose nozzles previously approved under Subpart 162.027 of
this chapter in the following locations must have low-velocity water
spray applicators also previously approved under Subpart 162.027 of
this chapter.
(1) In accommodation and service areas, two fire hoses.
(2) In each propulsion machinery space containing an oil-fired
boiler, internal combustion machinery, or oil fuel unit on a vessel on
an international voyage or of 1000 gross tons or more, each fire hose.
The length of each applicator must be not more than 1.8 m (6 feet).
(1) Fixed brackets, hooks, or other means for stowing an applicator
must be next to each fire hydrant that has an applicator under
paragraph (k) of this section.
* * * * *
56. In Sec. 76.10-90, paragraph (a)(7) is removed and paragraph
(a)(6) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.10-90 Installations contracted for prior to May 26, 1965.
(a) * * *
(6) Firehose nozzles and low velocity spray applicators must meet
the requirements of Secs. 76.10-10(j), 76.10-10(k) and 76.10-10(l).
57. Subpart 76.13 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 76.13--System Smothering Systems
Sec. 76.13-1 Application.
Steam smothering systems are not permitted on vessels contracted
for on or after January 1, 1962. Previously approved installations may
be retained as long as they are maintained in good condition to the
satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
PART 77--VESSEL CONTROL AND MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
58. The authority citation for Part 77 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980
Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
59. Section 77.27-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 77.27-1 When required.
All mechanically propelled vessels of 500 gross tons and over in
ocean or coastwise service, and all mechanically propelled vessels of
500 gross tons and over in Great Lakes service certificated for service
on the River St. Lawrence eastward of the lower exit of the St. Lambert
Lock at Montreal, Canada, shall be fitted with an efficient electronic
deep-sea sounding apparatus.
PART 78--OPERATIONS
60. The authority citation for Part 78 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 6101; 49
U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR
1.46.
Subpart 78.03--[Removed]
61. Subpart 78.03 is removed.
Subpart 78.20--[Removed]
62. Subpart 78.20 is removed.
63. In Sec. 78.21-1, paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are removed,
paragraphs, (e) and (f) are redesignated as paragraphs (b) and (c),
respectively, and a new paragraph (a) is added to read as follows:
[[Page 66003]]
Sec. 78.21-1 Data required.
(a) The information on the maneuvering characteristics fact sheet
required by 33 CFR 164.35(g) must be:
(1) Verified six months after the vessel is placed into service; or
(2) Modified six months after the vessel is placed into service and
verified within three months thereafter.
* * * * *
Subpart 78.25--[Removed]
64. Subpart 78.25 is removed.
65. Subpart 78.35 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 78.35--Communication between deckhouses
Sec. 78.35-1 When required.
On all vessels navigating in other than protected waters, where the
distance between deckhouses is more than 46 m (150 ft) a fixed means of
facilitating communication between both ends of the vessel, such as a
raised fore and aft bridge or side tunnels, shall be provided.
Previously approved arrangements may be retained so long as they are
maintained in satisfactory condition to the satisfaction of the Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection.
66. Section 78.37-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 78.37-3 Logbooks and records.
(a) The master or person in charge of a vessel that is required by
46 U.S.C. 11301 to have an official logbook shall maintain the logbook
on Form CG-706. When the voyage is completed, the master or person in
charge shall file the logbook with the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection.
(b) The master or person in charge of a vessel that is not required
by 46 U.S.C. 11301 to have an official logbook, shall maintain, on
board, an unofficial logbook or record in any form desired for the
purposes of making entries therein as required by law or regulations in
this subchapter. Such logs or records are not filed with the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection, but shall be kept available for review by a
marine inspector for a period of one year after the date to which the
records refer. Separate records of tests and inspections of
firefighting equipment shall be maintained with the vessel's logs for
the period of validity of the vessel's certificate of inspection.
Sec. 78.47-67 [Removed]
67. Section 78.47-67 is removed.
68. Subpart 78.53 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 78.53--Placard of Lifesaving Signals
Sec.
78.53-1 Application.
78.53-5 Availability.
Sec. 78.53-1 Application.
The provisions of this subpart shall to all vessels on an
international voyage, and all other vessels of 150 gross tons or over
in ocean, coastwise or Great Lakes service.
Sec. 78.53-5 Availability.
On all vessels to which this subpart applies there shall be readily
available to the deck officer of the watch a placard containing
instructions for the use of the lifesaving signals set forth in
Regulation 16, Chapter V, of the International Convention for Safety of
Life at Sea, 1974. These signals shall be used by vessels or persons in
distress when communicating with lifesaving stations and maritime
rescue units.
69. Section 78.57-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 78.57-1 All personnel must comply.
All licensed masters, officers, and certificated seamen on United
States vessels shall comply strictly with routing instructions issued
by competent naval authority.
Subpart 78.75--[Removed]
70. Subpart 78.75 is removed.
Subpart 78.80--[Removed]
71. Subpart 78.80 is removed.
Subpart 78.85--[Removed]
72. Subpart 78.85 is removed.
PART 92--CONSTRUCTION AND ARRANGEMENT
73. The authority citation for Part 92 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980
Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
Sec. 92.01-13 [Removed]
74. Section 92.01-13 is removed.
75. Subpart 92.20 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 92.20--Accommodations for Officers and Crew
Sec.
92.20-1 Application.
92.20-5 Intent.
92.20-10 Location of crew spaces.
92.20-15 Construction.
92.20-20 Sleeping accommodations.
92.20-25 Washrooms and toilet rooms.
92.20-30 Messrooms.
92.30-35 Hospital space.
92.20-40 Other spaces.
92.20-45 Lighting.
92.20-50 Heating.
92.20-55 Insect screens.
92.20-90 Vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952.
Sec. 92.20-1 Application.
(a) The provisions of this subpart, with the exception of Sec.
92.20.90, shall apply to all vessels of 100 gross tons and over
contracted for on or after November 19, 1952. Vessels of 100 gross tons
and over contracted for prior to November 19, 1952 shall meet the
requirements of Sec. 92.20-90.
(b) Vessels of less than 100 gross tons shall meet the applicable
requirements of this subpart insofar as is reasonable and practicable.
Sec. 92.20-5 Intent.
It is the intent of this subpart that the accommodations provided
for officers and crew on all vessels shall be securely constructed,
properly lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located,
arranged, and, where practicable, shall be insulated from undue noise,
heat and odors.
Sec. 92.20-10 Location of crew spaces.
(a) Crew spaces shall be located, where practicable, so that the
maximum amount of fresh air and light are obtainable.
(b) Crew quarters shall not be located farther forward in a vessel
than a vertical plane located at 5 percent of the vessel's length abaft
the forward side of the stem at the designed summer load waterline.
However, for vessels in other than ocean services, this distance need
not exceed 8.5 m (28 ft). For the purpose of this paragraph, the length
shall be as defined in Sec. 42.13-15 of Subchapter E (Load Lines) of
this chapter.
There shall be no direct communication, except through solid, close
fitted doors or hatches between crew spaces and chain lockers, cargo,
or machinery spaces.
(d) There shall be no access, vents, or sounding tubes from fuel or
cargo oil tanks opening into crew spaces, except that sounding tubes
and access openings may be located in corridors.
Sec. 92.20-15 Construction.
All crew spaces are to be constructed in a manner suitable to the
purpose for which they are intended. The accommodations provided for
officers and crew on all vessels shall be securely constructed,
properly lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located,
arranged, and, where practicable, shall be insulated from undue noise,
heat and odors.
[[Page 66004]]
Sec. 92.20-20 Sleeping accommodations.
(a) Each department head and watchstanding officer shall have a
separate stateroom.
(b) Sleeping accommodations for the crew shall be divided into
rooms, no one of which shall berth more than four persons.
(c) Each room shall be of such size that there is at least 2.78
m\2\ (30 ft\3\) of deck area and a volume of at least 5.8 m\3\ (210
ft\2\) for each person accommodated. The clear headroom shall be not
less than 190 cm (75 in). In measuring sleeping quarters allocated to
crews of vessels, any furnishings contained therein for the use of the
occupants are not to be deducted from the total volume or deck area.
(d) Each person shall have a separate berth and not more than one
berth shall be placed above another. The berths shall be composed of a
material not likely to corrode. The overall size of a berth shall not
be less than 68 cm (27 in) wide by 190 cm (75 in) long. Where two tiers
of berths are fitted, the bottom of the lower berth must not be less
than 30 cm (12 in) above the deck. The berths shall not be obstructed
by pipes, ventilating ducts, or other installations.
(e) A locker provided for each person accommodated in a room.
Sec. 92.20-25 Washrooms and toilet rooms.
(a) There shall be provided at least one toilet, one washbasin, and
one shower or bathtub for each eight members or portion thereof in the
crew to be accommodated. The crew to be accommodated shall include all
members who do not occupy rooms to which private or semiprivate
facilities are attached.
(b) The toilet rooms and washrooms shall be located convenient to
the sleeping quarters of the crew to which they are allotted but shall
not open directly into such quarters except when they are provided as
private or semiprivate facilities.
(c) All washbasins, showers, and bathtubs shall be equipped with
proper plumbing, including hot and cold running water. All toilets
shall be installed with proper plumbing for flushing.
(d) At least one washbasin shall be fitted in each toilet room,
except where private or semi-private facilities are provided and
washbasins are installed in the sleeping rooms.
(e) When more than one toilet is located in a space, each toilet
shall be separated by partitions.
Sec. 92.20-30 Messrooms.
Messrooms shall be located as near to the galley as practicable.
The messrooms shall be of such size as to seat the number of persons
normally scheduled to be eating at one time.
Sec. 92.20-35 Hospital space.
(a) Except as specifically modified by paragraph (f) of this
section, each vessel which in the ordinary course of its trade makes
voyages of more than 3 days duration between ports and which carries a
crew of twelve or more, shall be provided with a hospital space. This
space shall be situated with due regard to the comfort of the sick so
that they may receive proper attention in all weathers.
(b) The hospital shall be suitably separated from other spaces and
shall be used for the care of the sick and for no other purpose.
(c) The hospital shall be fitted with berths in the ratio of one
berth to every twelve members of the crew or portion thereof who are
not berthed in single occupancy rooms, but the number of berths need
not exceed six.
(e) The hospital shall have a toilet, washbasin, and bath tub or
shower conveniently situated. Other necessary suitable equipment of
such character as clothes locker, table, seat, etc., shall be provided.
(f) On vessels in which the crew is berthed in single occupancy
rooms a hospital space will not be required, provided, that one room
shall be designated and fitted for use as a treatment and isolation
room. Such room shall meet the following standards:
(1) The room must be available for immediate medical use; and,
(2) A washbasin with hot and cold running water must be installed
either in or immediately adjacent to the space and other required
sanitary facilities must be conveniently located.
Sec. 92.20-40 Other spaces.
(a) Sufficient facilities shall be provided where the crew may wash
and dry their own clothes. There shall be at least one sink supplied
with hot and cold fresh water.
(b) Recreation accommodations shall be provided.
Sec. 92.20-45 Lighting.
Berth lights shall be provided for each member of the crew.
Sec. 92.20-50 Heating.
(a) All crew spaces shall be adequately heated in a manner suitable
to the purpose of the space.
(b) Radiators and other heating apparatus shall be so placed, and
where necessary shielded, as to avoid risk of fire, danger or
discomfort to the occupants. Pipes leading to radiators or heating
apparatus shall be lagged where those pipes create a hazard to persons
occupying the space.
Sec. 92.20-55 Insect screens.
Provisions shall be made to protect the crew quarters against the
admission of insects.
Sec. 92.20-90 Vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952.
(a) Vessels of less than 100 gross tons, contracted for prior to
November 19, 1952 shall meet the general intent of Sec. 92.20-5 and in
addition shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Existing structure, arrangements, materials, and facilities,
previously accepted or approved will be considered satisfactory so long
as they are maintained in a suitable condition to the satisfaction of
the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and
alternations may be made to the same standard as the original
construction.
(b) Vessels of 100 gross tons and over, contracted for prior to
March 4, 1915, shall meet the requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Existing structure, arrangements, materials, and facilities,
previously approved will be considered satisfactory so long as they are
maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alterations may be made to
the same standard as the original construction: Provided, That in no
case will a greater departure from the standards of 92.20-5 through
92.20-55 be permitted than presently exists.
(c) Vessels of 100 gross tons and over, contracted for on or after
March 4, 1915, but prior to January 1, 1941, shall meet the
requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Existing structure, arrangements, materials, and facilities,
previously approved will be considered satisfactory so long as they are
maintained in a suitable condition to the satisfaction of the Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alternations may be
made to the same standard as the original construction.
(2) Each vessel, which in the ordinary course of its trade makes a
voyage of more than three days duration between ports and which carries
a crew of 12 or more persons, shall be provided with a suitable
hospital space for the exclusive use of the sick or injured.
(3) The crew spaces shall be securely constructed, properly
lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located, and arranged,
and where practicable, shall be insulated from undue noise and odors.
(d) Vessels of 100 gross tons and over, contracted for on or after
January 1,
[[Page 66005]]
1941, but prior to November 19, 1952, shall meet the requirements of
this paragraph.
Existing structure, arrangements, materials, and facilities,
previously approved will be considered satisfactory so long as they are
maintained in a suitable condition to the satisfaction of the Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alternations may be
made to the same standard as the original construction.
(2) Washbasins, showers, and bath tubs if substituted for showers,
shall be equipped with proper plumbing including hot and cold running
water.
(3) Each crewmember shall have a separate berth, and berths may not
be placed more than two high.
(4) Each vessel, which in the ordinary course of its trade makes a
voyage of more than three days duration between ports and which carries
a crew of twelve or more persons, shall be provided with a suitable
hospital space for the exclusive use of the sick or injured. Berths
shall be provided in the ratio of one berth for each twelve members of
the crew or fraction thereof, but the number of berths need not exceed
six.
(5) The crew spaces shall be securely constructed, properly
lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located and arranged,
and where practicable, shall be insulated from undue noise and odors.
PART 95--FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT
76. The authority citation for Part 95 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980
Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
77. In Sec. 95.05-10, paragraph (g) is removed and paragraphs (b)
and (c) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 95.05-10 Fixed fire extinguishing systems.
* * * * *
(b) A fixed carbon dioxide or other approved system shall be
installed in all cargo compartments and tanks for combustible cargo,
except that vessels engaged exclusively in the carriage of coal or
grain in bulk need not be fitted with such system. For cargo
compartments and tanks fitted with a fixed carbon dioxide or other
approved system a deck foam system is not required. In lieu of the
carbon dioxide system or other approved system, the following systems
may be used or required in special cases:
(1) A fixed foam system may be used in cargo tanks.
(2) In cases where a cargo is normally accessible and is considered
to be a part of the working or living quarters, a water sprinkling
system may be required, and the details of such system will be subject
to special approval.
(3) Spaces ``specially suitable for vehicles'' shall be fitted with
an approved carbon dioxide system. Alternately, the Commandant may
permit the installation of an approved water sprinkler system or other
suitable system.
(c) On vessels other than motorboats, a fixed carbon dioxide or
other approved system shall be installed in all lamp and paint lockers,
oil rooms, and similar spaces.
* * * * *
Sec. 95.05-20 [Removed]
78. Section 95.05-20 is removed.
79. In Sec. 95.10-10, paragraphs (i), (i-1), (i-2) and (1) are
removed, paragraphs (j) and (k) are redesignated as paragraphs (l) and
(m), respectively, and new paragraphs (i), (j), (k), (n), (n)(1),
(n)(2) an (n)(3) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 95.10-10 Fire hydrants and hose.
* * * * * * *
(i) Except as allowed in this paragraph, each fire hose on each
hydrant must have a combination solid stream and water spray fire hose
nozzle approved under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter. Fire hose
nozzles previously approved under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter may
be retained so long as they are maintained in good condition to the
satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
(j) In each propulsion machinery space containing an oil fired
boiler, internal combustion machinery, or oil fuel unit on a vessel on
an international voyage or of 1,000 gross tons or more, each fire hose
having a combination nozzle previously approved under Subpart 162.027
of this chapter must have a low-velocity water spray applicator that is
also previously approved under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter. The
length of the applicator must be less than 1.8 m (6 feet).
(k) Fixed brackets, hooks, or other means for stowing an applicator
must be next to each fire hydrant that has an applicator under
paragraph (j) of this section.
* * * * *
(n) Fire hose and couplings shall be as follows:
(1) Couplings shall be of brass, bronze, or other equivalent metal.
National Standard fire hose coupling threads shall be used for the 38
mm (1\1/2\ inch) and 64 mm (2\1/2\ inch) sizes.
(2) Where 19 mm (\3/4\ inch) hose is permitted by Table 95.10-5(a),
the hose and couplings shall be of good commercial grade.
(3) Each section of fire hose must be lined commercial fire hose
that conforms to Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. Standard 19 or
Federal Specification--H-451E. Hose that bears the label of
Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. as lined fire hose is accepted as
conforming to this requirement.
* * * * *
80. In Sec. 95.10-90, paragraph (a)(6) is removed and paragraph
(a)(5) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 95.10-90 Installations contracted for prior to May 26, 1965.
(a) * * *
(5) Firehose nozzles and low velocity spray applicators must meet
the requirements of 95.10-10(i), 95.10-10(j) and 95.10-10(k).
81. Subpart 95.13 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 95.13--Steam Smothering Systems
Sec. 95.13-1 Application.
Steam smothering systems are not permitted on vessels contracted
for on or after January 1, 1962. Previously approved installations may
be retained as long as they are maintained in good condition to the
satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
PART 96--VESSEL CONTROL AND MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
82. The authority citation for Part 96 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980
Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
83. Section 96.27-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 96.27-1 When required.
All mechanically propelled vessels of 500 gross tons and over in
ocean or coastwise service and all mechanically propelled vessels of
500 gross tons and over in Great Lakes service and certificated for
service on the River St. Lawrence eastward of the lower exit of the St.
Lambert Lock at Montreal, Canada, shall be fitted with an efficient
electronic sounding apparatus.
PART 97--OPERATIONS
84. The authority citation for Part 97 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 6101; 49
U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR
1.46.
[[Page 66006]]
Subpart 97.03--[Removed]
85. Subpart 97.03 is removed.
Subpart 97.17--[Removed]
86. Subpart 97.17 is removed.
87. In Sec. 97.19-1, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are removed,
paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) are redesignated as paragraphs (a), (b) and
(c), respectively, and the new paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 97.19-1 Data required.
* * * * *
(a) The information on the maneuvering characteristics fact sheet
required by 33 CFR 164.35(g) must be:
* * * * *
Subpart 97.23--[Removed]
88. Subpart 97.23 is removed.
89. Subpart 97.33 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 97.33--Communication Between Deckhouses
Sec. 97.33-1 When required.
On all vessels navigating in other than protected waters, where the
distance between deckhouses is more than 46 m (150 ft) a fixed means of
facilitating communication between both ends of the vessel, such as a
raised fore and aft bridge or side tunnels, shall be provided.
Previously approved arrangements may be retained so long as they are
maintained in satisfactory condition to the satisfaction of the Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection.
90. Section 97.35-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 97.35-3 Logbooks and records.
(a) The master or person in charge of a vessel that is required by
46 U.S.C. 11301 to have an official logbook shall maintain the logbook
on Form CG-706. When a voyage is completed, or after a specified period
of time, the master or person in charge shall file the logbook with the
Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
(b) The master or person in charge of a vessel that is not required
by 46 U.S.C. 11301 to have an official logbook, shall maintain, on
board, an unofficial logbook or record in any form desired for the
purposes of making entries therein as required by law or regulations in
this subchapter. Such logs or records are not filed with the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection, but shall be kept available for review by a
marine inspector for a period of one year after the date to which the
records refer. Separate records of tests and inspections of
firefighting equipment shall be maintained with the vessel's logs for
the period of validity of the vessel's certificate of inspection.
Sec. 97.35-10 [Removed]
91. Section 97.35-10 is removed.
Sec. 97.37-45 [Removed]
92. Section 97.37-45 is removed.
93. Subpart 97.43 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 97.43--Placard of Lifesaving Signals
Sec.
97.43-1 Application.
97.43-5 Availability.
Sec. 97.43-1 Application.
The provisions of this subpart shall apply to all vessels on an
international voyage, and all other vessels of 150 gross tons or over
in ocean, coastwise or Great Lakes service.
Sec. 97.43-5 Availability.
On all vessels to which this subpart applies there shall be readily
available to the deck officer of the watch a placard containing
instructions for the use of the lifesaving signals set forth in
Regulation 16, Chapter V, of the International Convention for Safety of
Life at Sea, 1974. These signals shall be used by vessels or persons in
distress when communicating with lifesaving stations and maritime
rescue units.
94. Section 97.47-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 97.47-1 All persons must comply.
All licensed masters, officers, and certificated seamen on United
States vessels must comply strictly with routing instructions issued by
competent naval authority.
Subpart 97.60--[Removed]
95. Subpart 97.60 is removed.
Subpart 97.70--[Removed]
96. Subpart 97.70 is removed.
Subpart 97.75--[Removed]
97. Subpart 97.75 is removed.
PART 108--DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT
98. The authority citation for Part 108 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3102, 3306; 49 CFR 1.46.
Sec. 108.403 [Amended]
99. In Sec. 108.403, the words ``, water spray,'' are removed from
paragraph (b).
100. In Sec. 108.425, paragraph (c) and the introductory text of
paragraph (d) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 108.425 Fire hoses and associated equipment.
* * * * *
(c) Each nozzle for a fire hose in a fire main system must be a
combination solid stream and water spray fire hose nozzle that is
approved under Subpart 162.027. Combination solid stream and water
spray nozzles previously approved under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter
may be retained so long as they are maintained in good condition to the
satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
(d) A combination solid stream and water spray fire hose nozzle
previously approved under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter installed in
the following locations must have a low-velocity spray applicator also
previously approved under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter----
* * * * *
Sec. 108.613 [Removed]
101. Section 108.613 is removed.
PART 109--OPERATIONS
102. The authority citation for Part 109 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 6101, 10104; 49 CFR
1.46.
Sec. 109.583 [Removed]
103. Section 109.583 is removed.
PART 153--SHIPS CARRYING BULK LIQUID, LIQUEFIED GAS, OR COMPRESSED
GAS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
104. The authority citation for Part 153 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3703; 49 CFR 1.46. Section 153.40 issued
under 49 U.S.C. 1804. Sections 153.470 through 153.491, 153.1100
through 153.1132, and 153.1600 through 153.1608 also issued under 33
U.S.C. 1903(b).
105. In Sec. 153.9, paragraph (a) introductory text is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 153.9 Foreign flag vessel endorsement application.
(a) Application for a vessel whose flag administration is signatory
to MARPOL 73/78 and issues IMO Certificates. A person who desires a
Certificate of Compliance endorsed to carry a cargo in Table 1 of this
part, as described in 153.900, must request the endorsement from the
cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection and have aboard the
vessel copies of IMO Certificates issued by the vessel's administration
and the following:
* * * * *
[[Page 66007]]
Sec. 153.16 [Amended]
106. In Sec. 153.16, the introductory text is amended by replacing
``Certificate of Compliance endorsed with the name of a cargo,'' with
``Certificate of Compliance endorsed to carry a cargo.''
Sec. 153.808 [Amended]
107. Section 153.808 is amended by replacing ``Certificate of
Compliance endorsed with the name of a cargo,'' with ``Certificate of
Compliance endorsed to carry a cargo''.
108. Section 153.809 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 153.809 Procedures for having the Coast Guard examine a vessel
for a Certificate of Compliance.
The owner of a foreign flag vessel wishing to have the Coast Guard
conduct a Certificate of Compliance examination, as required by
Sec. 153.808, must proceed as follows:
(a) Notify the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, for the port
where the vessel is to be inspected at least seven days before the
vessel arrives and arrange the exact time and other details of the
examination. This notification is in addition to any other pre-arrival
notice to the Coast Guard required by other regulations, but may be
concurrent with the endorsement application in 153.9, and must include:
(1) The name of the vessel's first U.S. port of call;
(2) The date the vessel is scheduled to arrive;
(3) The name and telephone number of the owner's local agent; and
(4) The names of all cargoes listed in Table 1 of this part that
are on board the vessel.
(b) Make certain that the following plans are on board the vessel
and available to the Marine Inspector before the examination required
by 153.808 is begun:
(1) A general arrangement (including the location of fire fighting,
safety and lifesaving gear);
(2) A capacity plan;
(3) A schematic diagram of cargo piping on deck and in tanks
(including the location of all valves and pumps); and
(4) A schematic diagram of cargo tank vent piping (including the
location of relief valves and flame screens).
109. In Sec. 153.902, paragraph (b) and (c) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 153.902 Expiration and invalidation of the Certificate of
Compliance.
* * * * *
(b) The endorsement of a Certificate of Compliance under this part
is invalid if the ship does not have a valid IMO Certificate of
Fitness.
(c) The endorsement on a Certificate of Compliance invalidated
under paragraph (b) of this section, becomes valid once again when the
ship has the IMO Certificate of Fitness revalidated or reissued.
PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT
110. The authority citation for Part 160 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, and 4302; E.O. 12234, 45
FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
Subpart 160.018--[Removed]
111. Subpart 160.018 is removed.
Subpart 160.034--[Removed]
112. Subpart 160.034 is removed.
PART 162--ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT
113. The authority citation for Part 162 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4104,
4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O.
11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793; 49 CFR 1.46.
114. Subpart 162.027 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 162.027--Combination Solid Stream and Water Spray Fire Hose
nozzle
Sec.
162.027-1 Incorporation by reference.
162.027-2 Design, construction, testing and marking requirements.
167.027-3 Approval procedures.
Sec. 162.027-1 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a). To enforce any edition other than that specified
in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice
of change in the Federal Register and make the material available to
the public. All approved material is on file at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington,
DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard, Design and Engineering Standards
Division (G-MMS), 2100 Second Street and is available from the sources
indicated in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this
part and the sections affected are:
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103
ASTM F 1546-94, Standard Specification for Fire Hose nozzles, 1994--
162.027-2, 162.027-3
Sec. 162.027-2 Design, construction, testing and marking requirements.
Each combination solid stream and water spray nozzle shall meet the
requirements of ASTM F 1546-94.
Sec. 162.027-3 Approval procedures.
(a) All inspections and tests required by ASTM F 1546-94 shall be
performed by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard
under subpart 159.010 of this chapter. A list of independent
laboratories accepted by the Coast Guard as meeting subpart 159.010 of
this chapter may be obtained by contacting the Commandant (G-MMS).
(b) Upon completion of the testing required by ASTM F 1546-94, the
independent laboratory shall prepare a report on the results of the
testing and shall furnish the manufacturer with a copy of the test
report.
PART 164--MATERIALS
115. The authority citation for part 164 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801,
3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
Subpart 164.016--[Removed]
116. Subpart 164.016 is removed.
PART 167--PUBLIC NAUTICAL SCHOOL SHIPS
117. The authority citation for part 167 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 6101, 8105; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801,
3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
Sec. 167.40-20 [Amended]
118. In Sec. 167.40-20, the words ``in addition to the ordinary
deep-sea hand lead'' are removed.
Sec. 167.40-35 [Removed]
119. Section 167.40-35 is removed.
120. In Sec. 167.45-40, paragraphs (c-1) and (c-2) are removed and
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 167.45-40 Fire fighting equipment on nautical schoolships using
oil as fuel.
* * * * *
(a) In each boiler room and in each of the machinery spaces of a
nautical school ship propelled by steam, in which a part of the fuel-
oil installation is situated, two or more approved fire extinguishers
of the foam type of not less than 9.5 L (2\1/2\ gallons) each or two or
more approved fire extinguishers of the carbon dioxide type of not less
than 33 kg (15 pounds) each shall be placed where accessible and ready
for
[[Page 66008]]
immediate use: Provided, That on a nautical school ship of 1,000 gross
tons and under only one of the fire extinguishers may be required.
(b) In boiler and machinery spaces, at least two fire hydrants must
have a fire hose of a length that allows each part of the boiler and
machinery spaces to be reached by the combination nozzle.
(c) Each fire hose under paragraph (b) of this section must have a
combination solid stream and water spray nozzle that meets subpart
162.027 of this chapter. A combination nozzle and a low-velocity spray
applicator previously approved under subpart 162.027 of this chapter
may remain so long as they are maintained in good condition to the
satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
* * * * *
Sec. 167.45-55 [Removed]
121. Section 167.45-55 is removed.
Subpart 167.50--[Removed]
122. Subpart 167.50 is removed.
123. In Sec. 167.55-5, paragraph (i) is removed, paragraph (j) is
redesignated as paragraph (i) and the new paragraph (i)(1) is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 167.55-5 Marking of fire and emergency equipment, etc.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) All lifeboats, rigid type oars and paddles, life preservers,
EPIRB and life buoys shall be painted or branded with the name of the
nautical school ship.
* * * * *
Sec. 167.65-3 [Removed]
124. Section 167.65-3 is removed.
Sec. 167.65-10 [Removed]
125. Section 167.65-10 is removed.
126. Section 167.65-15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 167.65-15 Routing instructions; strict compliance with.
All licensed masters, officers, and certificated seamen on nautical
school ships must comply strictly with routing instructions issued by
competent naval authority.
Sec. 167.65-30 [Removed]
137. Section 167.65-30 is removed.
Sec. 167.65-45 [Amended]
128. In Sec. 167.65-45, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are removed
and the paragraph designation ``(d)'' is removed from paragraph (d).
129. Section 167.65-50 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 167.65-50 Posting placards of lifesaving signals.
On all vessels to which this subpart applies there shall be readily
available to the deck officer of the watch placard containing
instructions for the use of the lifesaving signals set for in
Regulation 16, Chapter V, of the International Convention for Safety of
Life at Sea, 1974. These signals shall be used by vessels or persons in
distress when communicating with lifesaving stations and maritime
rescue units.
PART 168--CIVILIAN NAUTICAL SCHOOL VESSELS
130. The authority citation for Part 168 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3305, 3306; 48 CFR 1.46.
131. Subpart 168.15 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 168.15--Accommodations
Sec.
168.15-1 Intent.
168.15-5 Locations.
168.15-10 Construction.
168.15-15 Size.
168.15-20 Equipment.
168.15-25 Washrooms.
168.15-30 Toilet rooms.
168.15-35 Hospital space.
168.15-40 Lighting.
168.15-45 Heating.
168.15-50 Ventilation.
168.15-55 Screening.
168.15-60 Inspection.
Sec. 168.15-1 Intent.
It is the intent of this subpart to provide minimum standards for
the size, ventilation, plumbing, and sanitation of quarters assigned to
the members of the crew, passengers, cadets, students, instructors, or
any other persons at any time quartered on board any such vessel.
Sec. 168.15-5 Location.
(a) Quarters shall be located so that sufficient fresh air and
light are obtainable compatible with accepted practice or good
arrangement and construction.
(b) Quarters shall not be located forward of the collision
bulkhead, nor shall such section or sections of any deck occupied by
quarters be below the deepest load line except in special case.
Sec. 168.15-10 Construction.
(a) The accommodations provided must be securely constructed,
properly lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located,
arranged, and insulated from undue noise, heat and odors.
(b) All accommodations shall be constructed and arranged so that
they can be kept in a clean, workable, and sanitary condition.
Sec. 168.15-15 Size.
(a) Sleeping accommodations shall be divided into rooms, no one of
which shall berth more than 6 persons. The purpose for which each space
is to be used and the number of persons it may accommodate, shall be
marked.
(b) Each room shall be of such size that there is at least 1.8 m\2\
(20 ft \3\) of deck area and a volume of at least 4.2 m\3\ (150 ft \2\)
for each person accommodated. In measuring sleeping quarters, any
furnishings contained therein are not to be deducted from the total
volume or from the deck area.
Sec. 168.15-20 Equipment.
(a) Each person shall have a separate berth and not more than 1
berth shall be placed above another. The berths shall be of metal
framework. The overall size of a berth shall not be less than 68 cm (27
in) wide by 190 cm (75 in) long. Where 2 tiers of berths are fitted,
the bottom of the lower berth must not be less than 30 cm (12 in) above
the deck, and the bottom of the upper must not be less than 76 cm (30
in) both from the bottom of the lower and from the deck overhead. The
berths shall not be obstructed by pipes, ventilating ducts, or other
installations.
(b) A metal locker shall be provided for each person accommodated
in a room.
Sec. 168.15-25 Washrooms.
(a) There shall be provided 1 shower for each 10 persons or
fraction thereof and 1 wash basin for each 6 persons or fraction
thereof to be accommodated. The persons to be accommodated shall
include all persons who do not occupy rooms to which private facilities
are attached.
(b) All wash basins and showers shall be equipped with proper
plumbing including hot and cold running fresh water.
Sec. 168.15-30 Toilet rooms.
(a) There shall be provided 1 toilet for each 10 persons or
fraction thereof to be accommodated. The persons to be accommodated
shall include all persons who do not occupy rooms to which private
facilities are attached.
(b) The toilet rooms shall be located convenient to the sleeping
quarters of the persons to which they are allotted but shall not open
directly into such quarters except when they are provided as private or
semiprivate facilities.
(c) Where more than one toilet is located in a space or
compartment, each toilet shall be separated by partitions.
[[Page 66009]]
Sec. 168.15-35 Hospital space.
(a) Each vessel shall be provided with a hospital space. This space
shall be situated with due regard for the comfort of the sick so that
they may receive proper attention in all weather.
(b) The hospital shall be suitably separated from other spaces and
shall be used for the care of the sick and for no other purpose.
(c) The hospital shall be fitted with berths in the ratio of 1
berth to every twelve persons, but the number of berths need not exceed
6.
(d) The hospital shall have a toilet, wash basin, and bath tub or
shower conveniently located. Other necessary suitable equipment of a
sanitary type such as clothes locker, table, seat, etc., shall be
provided.
Sec. 168.15-40 Lighting.
All quarters, to include washrooms, toilet rooms, and hospital
spaces, shall be adequately lighted.
Sec. 168.15-45 Heating.
All quarters shall be adequately heated in a manner suitable to the
purpose of the space.
Sec. 168.15-50 Ventilation.
(a) All quarters shall be adequately ventilated in a manner
suitable to the purpose of the space and route of the vessel.
(b) When mechanical ventilation is provided for sleeping rooms,
washrooms, toilet rooms, hospital spaces and messrooms, these spaces
shall be supplied with fresh air equal to at least 10 times the volume
of the room each hour.
Sec. 168.15-55 Screening.
Provision shall be made to protect the quarters against the
admission of insects.
Sec. 168.15-60 Inspection.
The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, shall inspect the
quarters of every such vessel at least once in each month or at such
time as the v
FR Doc. 95-30402 Adoption of Industry Standards
essel shall enter an American port and shall satisfy
himself that such vessel is in compliance with the regulations in this
part.
PART 169--SAILING SCHOOL VESSELS
132. The authority citation for Part 169 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 6101; E.O. 11735,
38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46;
Sec. 169.117 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Sec. 169.321 [Removed]
133. Section 169.321 is removed.
Sec. 169.569 [Removed]
134. Section 169.569 is removed.
Sec. 169.742 [Removed]
135. Section 169.742 is removed.
PART 189--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
PART 190--CONSTRUCTION AND ARRANGEMENT
136-138. The authority citation for Part 190 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2113, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR,
1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
Sec. 190.01-13 [Removed]
139. Section 190.01-13 is removed.
140. Subpart 190.20 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 190.20--Accommodations for Officers, Crew, and Scientific
Personnel
Sec.
190.20-1 Application.
190.20-5 Intent.
190.20-10 Location of crew spaces.
190.20-15 Construction.
190.20-20 Sleeping accommodations.
190.20-25 Washrooms and toilet rooms.
190.20-30 Messrooms.
190.20-35 Hospital space.
190.20-40 Other spaces.
190.20-45 Lighting.
190.20-50 Heating.
190.20-55 Insect screens.
190.20-90 Vessels contracted for prior to March 1, 1968.
Sec. 190.20-1 Application.
(a) The provisions of this subpart, with the exception of
Sec. 190.20-90, shall apply to all vessels contracted for on or after
March 1, 1968.
(b) Vessels contracted for prior to March 1, 1968, shall meet the
requirements of Sec. 190.20-90.
Sec. 190.20-5 Intent.
(a) It is the intent of this subpart that the accommodations
provided for officers, crew, and scientific personnel on all vessels
shall be securely constructed, properly lighted, heated, drained,
ventilated, equipped, located, arranged, and, where practicable, shall
be insulated from undue noise and free from odors.
(b) Provided the intent of this subpart is met, consideration may
be given by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection to relax the
requirements relating to the size and separation of accommodations for
scientific personnel.
Sec. 190.20-10 Location of crew spaces.
(a) Crew quarters shall not be located farther forward in the
vessel than a vertical plane located at 5 percent of the vessel's
length abaft the forward side of the stem at the designated summer load
water line. However, for vessels in other than ocean or coastwise
service, this distance need not exceed 8.5 m (28 ft). For purpose of
this paragraph the length shall be as defined in Sec. 43.15-1 of
Subchapter E (Load Lines) of this chapter. No section of the deck of
the crew spaces shall be below the deepest load line, except that in
special cases, the Commandant may approve such an arrangement.
(b) There shall be no direct communication, except through solid,
close fitted doors or hatches between crew spaces and chain lockers, or
machinery spaces.
Sec. 190.20-15 Construction.
All crew spaces are to be constructed in a manner suitable to the
purpose for which they are intended. The accommodations provided for
officers and crew on all vessels shall be securely constructed,
properly lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located,
arranged, and, where practicable, shall be insulated from undue noise,
heat and odors.
Sec. 190.20-20 Sleeping accommodations.
(a) Where practicable, each licensed officer shall be provided with
a separate stateroom.
(b) Sleeping accommodations for the crew shall be divided into
rooms, no one of which shall berth more than four persons.
(c) Each room shall be of such size that there are at least 2.78
m\2\ (30 ft\3\) of deck area and a volume of at least 5.8 m\3\ (210
ft\2\) for each person accommodated. The clear head room shall be not
less than 190 cm (75 in). In measuring sleeping accommodations any
furnishings contained therein for the use of the occupants are not to
be deducted from the total volume or from the deck area.
(d) Each person shall have a separate berth and not more than one
berth shall be placed above another. The berth shall be composed of
materials not likely to corrode. The overall size of a berth shall not
be less than 68 cm (27 in) wide by 190 cm (75 in) long, except by
special permission of the Commandant. Where two tiers of berths are
fitted, the bottom of the lower berth must not be less than 30 cm (12
in) above the deck. The berths shall not be obstructed by pipes,
ventilating ducts, or other installations.
(e) A locker shall be provided for each person accommodated in a
room.
Sec. 190.20-25 Washrooms and toilet rooms.
(a) There shall be provided at least one toilet, one washbasin, and
one
[[Page 66010]]
shower or bathtub for each eight members or portion thereof in the crew
to be accommodated. The crew to be accommodated shall include all
members who do not occupy rooms to which private or semi-private
facilities are attached.
(b) The toilet rooms and washrooms shall be located convenient to
the sleeping quarters of the crew to which they are allotted but shall
not open directly into such quarters except when they are provided as
private or semi-private facilities.
(c) All washbasins, showers, and bathtubs shall be equipped with
proper plumbing, including hot and cold running water. All toilets
shall be installed with proper plumbing for flushing. Where more than
one toilet is located in a space or compartment, each toilet shall be
separated by partitions.
Sec. 190.20-30 Messrooms.
Messrooms shall be located as near to the galley as is practicable
except where the messroom is equipped with a steam table. The messroom
shall be of such size as to seat the number of persons normally
scheduled to be eating at one time.
Sec. 190.20-35 Hospital space.
(a) Except as specifically modified by paragraph (f) of this
section, each vessel which in the ordinary course of its trade makes
voyages of more than 3 days duration between ports and which carries a
crew of twelve or more, shall be provided with a hospital space. This
space shall be situated with due regard to the comfort of the sick so
that they may receive proper attention in all weathers.
(b) The hospital shall be suitably separated from other spaces and
shall be used for the care of the sick and for no other purpose.
(c) The hospital shall be fitted with berths in the ratio of one
berth to every twelve members of the crew or portion thereof who are
not berthed in single occupancy rooms, but the number of berths need
not exceed six. Where all single occupancy rooms are provided, the
requirement for a separate hospital may be withdrawn: Provided, That
one stateroom is fitted with a bunk accessible from both sides.
(e) The hospital shall have a toilet, washbasin, and bath tub or
shower conveniently situated. Other necessary suitable equipment of
such character as clothes locker, table, seat, etc., shall be provided.
(f) On vessels in which the crew is berthed in single occupancy
rooms a hospital space will not be required, Provided, That one room
shall be designated and fitted for use as a treatment and isolation
room. Such room shall meet the following standards:
(1) The room must be available for immediate medical use; and
(2) A washbasin with hot and cold running water must be installed
either in or immediately adjacent to the space and other required
sanitary facilities must be conveniently located.
Sec. 190.20-40 Other spaces.
(a) Sufficient facilities shall be provided where the crew may wash
and dry their own clothes. There shall be at least one sink supplied
with hot and cold fresh water.
(b) Recreation accommodations shall be provided.
Sec. 190.20-45 Lighting.
Berth lights shall be provided for each member of the crew.
Sec. 190.20-50 Heating.
(a) All crew spaces shall be adequately heated in a manner suitable
to the purpose of the space.
(b) Radiators and other heating apparatus shall be so placed, and
where necessary shielded, as to avoid risk of fire, danger or
discomfort to the occupants. Pipes leading to radiators or heating
apparatus shall be lagged where those pipes create a hazard to persons
occupying the space.
Sec. 190.20-55 Insect screens.
Provisions shall be made to protect the crew quarters against the
admission of insects.
Sec. 190.20-90 Vessels contracted for prior to March 1, 1968.
Existing structures, arrangements, materials, and facilities
previously approved will be considered satisfactory so long as they are
maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alterations may be made to
the same standards as the original construction: Provided, That in no
case will a greater departure from the standards of Sec. 190.20-5
through 190.20-55 be permitted than presently exists.
PART 193--FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT
141. The authority citation for Part 193 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2213, 3102, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801,
3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
Sec. 193.05-20 [Removed]
142. Section 193.05-20 is removed.
143. In Sec. 193.10-10, paragraphs (j) and (k) are redesignated
paragraphs (l) and (m), respectively, paragraphs (i-1) and (i-2) are
removed, paragraphs (d) and (i) are revised and new paragraphs (j) and
(k) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 193.10-10 Fire hydrants and hose.
* * * * *
(d) Fire hydrants shall be of sufficient number and so located that
any part of the vessel, other than main machinery spaces, may be
reached with at least 2 streams of water from separate outlets, at
least one of which shall be from a single length of hose. In main
machinery spaces, all portions of such spaces shall be capable of being
reached by at least 2 streams of water, each of which shall be from a
single length of hose from separate outlets; however, this requirement
need not apply to shaft alleys containing no assigned space for the
stowage of combustibles. Fire hydrants shall be numbered as required by
Sec. 196.37-15 of this subchapter.
* * * * *
(i) Each fire hydrant shall have at least one length of fire hose.
Each fire hose must have a combination solid stream and water spray
nozzle that is approved under Subpart 162.027 of this subchapter,
except 19 mm (\3/4\ inch) hose may have a garden hose nozzle that is
bronze or metal with strength and corrosion resistance equivalent to
bronze. Combination solid stream and water spray nozzles previously
approved under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter may be retained so long
as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the
Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
(j) Each of the following must have a low-velocity water spray
applicator previously approved under Subpart 162.027 of this chapter
when the fire hose nozzle was also previously approved under Subpart
162.027 of this chapter.
(1) At least one length of fire hose on each fire hydrant outside
and in the immediate vicinity of each laboratory.
(2) Each fire hose in each propulsion machinery space containing an
oil-fired boiler, internal combustion machinery, or oil fuel unit on a
vessel of 1000 gross tons or more. The length of each applicator must
be 1.2 m (4 feet).
(k) Fixed brackets, hooks, or other means for stowing an applicator
must be next to each fire hydrant that has an applicator under
paragraph (j) of this section.
* * * * *
144. Section 193.10-90 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 66011]]
Sec. 193.10-90 Installations contracted for prior to March 1, 1968.
Installations contracted for prior to March 1, 1968, shall meet the
following requirements:
(a) Except as specifically modified by this paragraph, the
requirements of Secs. 193.10-5 through 193.10-15 shall be complied with
insofar as the number and general type of equipment is concerned.
(b) Existing equipment, except fire hose nozzles and low-velocity
water spray applicators, previously approved but not meeting the
applicable requirements of Secs. 193.10-5 through 193.10-15, may be
continued in service so long as they are maintained in good condition
to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor
repairs, alterations, and replacements may be permitted to the same
standards as the original installations. However, all new installations
or major replacements shall meet the applicable requirements in this
subpart for new installations.
(c) The general requirements of Sec. 193.10-5 (c) through (g),
Sec. 193.10-10 (d) through (m), and Sec. 193.10-15 shall be complied
with insofar as is reasonable and practicable.
(d) Each fire hose nozzle must meet Sec. 193.10-10(i), and each
low-velocity water spray applicator must meet Sec. 193.10-10(j).
PART 196--OPERATIONS
145. The authority citation for Part 196 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2113, 3306, 6101; E.O.
11735; 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793; E.O. 12234, 45
FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
Subpart 196.03--[Removed]
146. Subpart 196.03 is removed.
Subpart 196.17--[Removed]
147. Subpart 196.17 is removed.
Subpart 196.18--[Removed]
148. Subpart 196.18 is removed.
149. In Sec. 196.19-1, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are removed,
paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) are redesignated as paragraphs (a), (b) and
(c), respectively, and the new paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 196.19-1 Data required.
* * * * *
(a) The information on the maneuvering characteristics fact sheet
required by 33 CFR 164.35(g) must be:
* * * * *
150. Subpart 196.23 is removed.
Sec. 196.27-10 [Removed]
151. Section 196.27-10 is removed.
152. Subpart 196.33 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 196.33--Communication Between Deckhouses
Sec. 196.33-1 When required.
On all vessels navigating in other than protected waters, where the
distance between deckhouses is more that 46 m (150 ft) a fixed means of
facilitating communication between both ends of the vessel, such as a
raised fore and aft bridge or side tunnels, shall be provided.
Previously approved arrangements may be retained so long as they are
maintained in satisfactory condition to the satisfaction of the Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection.
153. Section 196.35-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 196.35-3 Logbooks and records.
(a) The master or person in charge of an oceanographic research
vessel that is required by 46 U.S.C. 11301 to have an official logbook
may maintain the logbook on Form CG-706 or in the owner's format for an
official logbook. Such logs shall be kept available for a review for a
period of one year after the date to which the records refer or for the
period of validity of the vessel's current certificate of inspection,
whichever is longer. When the voyage is completed, the master or person
in charge shall file the logbook with the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection.
(b) The master or person in charge of a vessel that is not required
by 46 U.S.C. 11301 to have an official logbook, shall maintain, on
board, an unofficial logbook or record in any form desired for the
purposes of making entries therein as required by law or regulations in
this subchapter. Such logs or records are not filed with the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection, but shall be kept available for review by a
marine inspector for a period of one year after the date to which the
records refer. Separate records of tests and inspections of
firefighting equipment shall be maintained with the vessel's logs for
the period of validity of the vessel's certificate of inspection.
Sec. 196.35-10 [Removed]
154. Section 196.35-10 is removed.
Sec. 196.37-45 [Removed]
155. Section 196.37-45 is removed.
156. Subpart 196.43 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 196.43--Placard of Lifesaving Signals
Sec.
196.43-1 Application.
196.43-3 Availability.
Sec. 196.43-1 Application.
The provisions of this subpart shall apply to all vessels on an
international voyage, and all other vessels of 150 gross tons or over
in ocean, coastwise or Great Lakes service.
Sec. 196.43-5 Availability.
On all vessels to which this subpart applies there shall be readily
available to the deck officer of the watch a placard containing
instructions for the use of the lifesaving signals set forth in
Regulation 16, Chapter V, of the International Convention for Safety of
Life as Sea, 1974. These signals shall be used by vessels or persons in
distress when communicating with lifesaving stations and maritime
rescue units.
Subpart 196.60--[Removed]
157. Subpart 196.60 is removed.
Subpart 196.75--[Removed]
158. Subpart 196.75 is removed.
Dated: December 8, 1995.
J.C. Card,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 95-30402 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.