issue-1996-03-26•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-26
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-26
issue-1996-03-26Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-26Proposed 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. 96-7378 Reportable Events Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7378]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
29 CFR Part 2615
RIN 1212-AA77
Reportable Events Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee;
Meeting
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the time and place of the next meeting
of the Reportable Events Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
DATES: The Committee will meet at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 10,
1996.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the PBGC's offices at 1200 K
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General Counsel, or James L. Beller,
Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, PBGC, 1200 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005-4026, 202-326-4024 (202-326-4179 for TTY and TTD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 5, 1995, the PBGC announced the
establishment of the Reportable Events Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (60 FR 52135). The ground rules for the Committee state that
the deadline for negotiations, unless extended by the PBGC, is March
29, 1996. At the Committee's most recent meeting, held on March 13,
1996, the PBGC extended the deadline for negotiations to April 30,
1996.
The Committee agreed to meet again on April 10, 1996. The agenda
for the April meeting includes reports from working groups and
preparation of a consensus recommendation for the PBGC. The meeting
will be open to the public.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 22 day of March, 1996.
Martin Slate,
Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-7378 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7708-01-P-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7315 Broadband Personal Communications Services
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13133-13144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7315]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 20 and 24
[WT Docket No. 96-59; GN Docket No. 90-314; FCC 96-119]
Broadband Personal Communications Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission has adopted a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (``Notice'') that proposes to resolve a number of
issues relevant to the award of licenses for the broadband Personal
Communications Services (``PCS'') D, E, and F blocks. The Notice begins
the process of supplementing the record supporting the gender- and
race-based competitive bidding rules in the wake of Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, but it also tentatively concludes that the
Commission should not delay auctioning the remaining broadband PCS
frequency blocks long enough to complete that process. Accordingly, the
Notice proposes to modify the F block auction rules to make them
gender- and race-neutral. The Notice also seeks comment on several
other matters relating to designated entities and entrepreneurs,
including the definitions of small business and rural telephone
company, whether to extend installment payment plans to small
businesses bidding on the D and E blocks, adjustments to the payment
plans available to small businesses bidding on the D and E blocks, and
adjustments to the benefits provided to entrepreneurs in the F block
rules that might be warranted in light of the fact that 10 MHz licenses
are expected to have lower values than the 30 MHz C block licenses. In
addition, the Notice proposes changes to the F block license transfer
restrictions.
The Notice also proposes to resolve the question whether, in light
of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC, the Commission should for all
broadband PCS licensees, retain or relax the cellular/PCS cross-
ownership rule and the attribution rules for cellular licensees
interested in acquiring broadband PCS licenses. In addition, the Notice
proposes to amend the ownership information disclosure requirements for
broadband PCS auction applicants, and proposes to auction the D, E, and
F block licenses in concurrent auctions.
This Notice contains proposed or modified information collections
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are
invited to comment on the proposed or modified information collections
contained in this proceeding.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 15, 1996; reply
comments must be submitted on or before April 25, 1996. Written
comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information
collections are due April 15, 1996. Written comments must be submitted
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or
modified information collections on or before May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the
Secretary, a copy of any comments on information collections contained
herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications
Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or
via the Internet to [email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk
Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or
via the Internet to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Bollinger, Wireless
[[Page 13134]]
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0660. For additional information
concerning the information collections contained in this Notice,
contact Dorothy Conway at (202) 418-0217, or via the Internet at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making in WT Docket No. 96-59; GN Docket No. 90-314;
FCC 96-119, adopted March 20, 1996 and released March 20, 1996. The
complete text of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and
also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street,
N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
This Notice contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections
contained in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the
same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB notification of action
is due 60 days from date of publication of this Notice in the Federal
Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
OMB Approval Number: N/A.
Title: Amendment of Part 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules--
Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
Service Spectrum Cap; Amendment of the Commission's Cellular PCS Cross-
Ownership Rule.
Form No.: Form 175 and Form 600.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit; individuals or
households; not-for-profit institutions; and state, local and tribal
governments.
Number of Respondents: 6,000.
Estimated Time Per Response: 13 hours.
Total Annual Burden: 77,817 hours.
Estimated costs per respondent: 2,848 dollars.
Needs and Uses: The auction rules require broadband PCS applicants
for the D, E, and F blocks to submit (1) ownership information, (2)
terms of joint bidding agreements, (3) net asset (F block only) and
gross revenues calculations, and (4) evidence of environmental impact.
Furthermore, in case a licensee defaults or loses its license, the
Commission retains the discretion to re-auction such licenses. If
licenses are re-auctioned, the new license winners would be required at
the close of the re-auction to comply with the same disclosure
requirements explained above.
The information collected will be used by the Commission to
determine whether the applicant is legally, technically, and
financially qualified to bid in the broadband PCS auctions and hold a
broadband PCS license. Without such information the Commission could
not determine whether to issue the license to the successful applicant
and therefore fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
SYNOPSIS OF THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
I. Introduction
In this Notice, the Commission seeks comment on a range of issues
pertaining to the competitive bidding and ownership rules for the D, E,
and F frequency blocks of the Personal Communications Services in the 2
GHz band (``broadband PCS''), and the Commission proposes modifications
to these rules. A number of the issues the Commission addresses relate
to the treatment of designated entities, i.e., small businesses, rural
telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups
and women. In addition, on remand from the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Commission reexamines certain rules
governing cellular licensees' ownership of broadband PCS licenses in
all frequency bands.
II. Proposals
A. Treatment of Designated Entities
1. Meeting the Adarand Standard
2. In the Competitive Bidding Fifth Report and Order, 59 Fed Reg
37566 (July 22, 1994) the Commission adopted gender- and race-based
provisions as part of the F block rules to encourage the participation
of women- and minority-owned businesses in the provision of PCS. The
standard of review applied to federal programs designed to enhance
opportunities for racial minorities at the time the F block rules were
adopted was an intermediate scrutiny standard.
3. In Adarand v. Pena, the Supreme Court invalidated the
intermediate scrutiny standard for federal race-based programs. The
Court held that all racial classifications, imposed by whatever
federal, state or local government actor, must be analyzed by a
reviewing court under strict scrutiny. In other words, such
classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored
to further a compelling governmental interest. Moreover, as the Court
made clear in Adarand, a strict scrutiny standard of review will be
applied even if the racial classifications are well motivated or
``benign.''
4. Application of the two-prong strict scrutiny standard of review
to provisions designed to encourage minority participation in PCS
requires the Commission to show (1) that a compelling governmental
interest exists for taking race into account in adopting such
provisions, and (2) that the provisions in question are narrowly
tailored to further the compelling governmental interest established by
the record and findings. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., and other cases
provide the Commission with some indications of the type of record it
might be necessary to develop in order to meet the strict scrutiny
standard.
5. In Croson, the Court held that remedying past discrimination
constitutes a compelling interest, whether the discrimination was
committed by the government or by private actors within its
jurisdiction. Other courts have also held remedial measures--those
intended to compensate for past discrimination--to be compelling
governmental interests. In Croson, however, the Court makes clear that
an interest in remedying general societal discrimination could not be
considered compelling because a ``generalized assertion'' of past
discrimination ``has no logical stopping point'' and would support
unconstrained uses of racial classifications. Whether other objectives
for race-based measures rise to the level of a compelling governmental
interest is unclear. However, in a plurality opinion issued before
Adarand, the Supreme Court indicated that non-remedial measures aimed
at fostering ethnic diversity could satisfy the compelling interest
requirement of strict scrutiny.
6. The Supreme Court in Croson noted the high standard of evidence
required of the government to establish
[[Page 13135]]
a compelling interest. It stated that the government must demonstrate a
``strong basis in evidence for its conclusion that remedial action was
necessary'' and that such evidence should approach ``a prima facie case
of a constitutional or statutory violation of the rights of
minorities.'' Other courts, in cases decided after Croson, have held
that statistical evidence can be probative of discrimination in the
remedial setting, and that anecdotal evidence can buttress statistical
evidence.
7. As indicated above, even if a compelling governmental interest
is established, the second prong of the strict scrutiny test, narrow
tailoring, must also be shown. This requirement is intended to ensure
``that the means chosen 'fit' [the] compelling goal so closely that
there is little or no possibility that the motive for the
classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype.''
Different factors have been used by courts to determine, under a strict
scrutiny standard, whether a program is narrowly tailored. These
include: (1) whether race-neutral measures were considered before
adopting race-conscious measures; (2) the scope of the program and
whether it contains a waiver mechanism that facilitates narrowing of
that scope; (3) the comparison of any numerical target to the number of
qualified minorities in the relevant sector; (4) the duration of the
program and whether it is subject to periodic review; (5) the manner in
which race is considered; and (6) the degree and type of burden on non-
minorities.
8. An intermediate scrutiny standard of review currently applies to
gender-based measures. Under this standard, a gender-based provision is
constitutional if it serves an important governmental objective and is
substantially related to achievement of that objective. The Supreme
Court has not addressed constitutional challenges to federal gender-
based programs since Adarand. However, the Court's refusal in Adarand
to apply a less strict standard to benign race-based classifications
than that applied to ``invidious'' race-based classifications suggests
that the same standard should be applied to benign and invidious
gender-based classifications.
9. In the Competitive Bidding Sixth Report and Order, 60 FR 37786
(July 21, 1995), in which it eliminated the race- and gender-based
provisions in the C block rules, the Commission expressed its concern
that the record would not adequately support the race- and gender-based
provisions in the C block competitive bidding rules under a strict
scrutiny standard of review. The evidence supporting the gender- and
race-based provisions cited in the Competitive Bidding Fifth Report and
Order primarily shows broad discrimination against racial groups and
women by lenders and underrepresentation of these groups as owners and
employees in the communications industry. Similar evidence has been
submitted to the Commission since that time, including evidence
supporting a petition for reconsideration of the Competitive Bidding
Sixth Report and Order.
10. The Commission continues to believe that this evidence is
insufficient to demonstrate a compelling interest under the strict
scrutiny standard to support the race-based provisions of the F block
because it reflects primarily generalized assertions of discrimination.
Adarand and Croson make clear that only a record of discrimination
against a particular racial group would support remedial measures
designed to help that group. Therefore, the Commission believes that a
record of discrimination against minorities in general is not
sufficient. Specific evidence of discrimination against particular
racial groups would be required to support a rule for any group.
Commission Rules define minority group members to include Blacks,
Hispanics, American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asians, and Pacific
Islanders. Although the Commission has some general evidence of
discrimination against certain racial groups, none of the evidence it
has appears to satisfy strict scrutiny.
11. The Commission notes too that last year, the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals stayed the C block auction in response to a constitutional
equal protection challenge against women- and minority-based
provisions, even though an intermediate level standard of review
applied. Thus, the Commission tentatively concludes that the present
record in support of race-based F block provisions is insufficient to
satisfy strict scrutiny. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion. The Commission also requests comment on whether the F block
provisions promote a compelling governmental interest and, more
particularly, whether compensating for discrimination in lending
practices and in practices in the communications industry constitutes
such an interest. The Commission also asks interested parties to
comment on nonremedial objectives that could be furthered by the
minority-based provisions of the F block rules and whether they could
be considered compelling governmental interests, such as increased
diversity in ownership and employment in the communications industry or
increased industry competition. In commenting, the Commission asks
parties to submit statistical data, personal accounts, studies, or any
other data relevant to the entry of specific racial groups into the
field of telecommunications. Examples of relevant evidence could
include discrimination against minorities trying to obtain FCC licenses
for auctioned or non-auctioned spectrum; discrimination against
minorities seeking positions of ownership or employment in
communications or related businesses; discrimination against minorities
attempting to obtain capital to start up or expand a telecommunications
enterprise, including terms and conditions; and discrimination against
minorities operating telecommunications businesses, including treatment
by vendors, FCC licensees, and suppliers.
12. The Commission also asks those parties who conclude that the
race-based provisions serve a compelling governmental interest to
comment on whether the provisions are narrowly tailored to serve that
interest. Are these provisions sufficiently narrow in scope? Do they
unduly burden non-minorities? Would race-neutral measures further the
same interests and achieve the same objectives as race-conscious
measures?
13. In addition, the Commission also tentatively concludes that the
present record in support of the gender-based F block rules may be
insufficient to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. The Commission seeks
comment on this tentative conclusion. The Commission also seeks comment
on whether there are remedial or nonremedial goals that would satisfy
the ``important governmental objective'' requirement of the
intermediate scrutiny standard. Are the gender-based F block rules
``substantially related'' to the achievement of such objectives? Just
as it requested for the F block race-based provisions, the Commission
asks parties to submit statistical data, personal accounts studies or
any other data relevant to the entry of women into the field of
telecommunications.
14. The Commission also is interested in supplementing the current
record to support race- and gender-based provisions in other rules. In
this regard, the Commission plans shortly to issue a Notice of Inquiry
that requests evidence of current and past discrimination experienced
by small businesses and businesses owned by women and minorities or by
individual women and minorities. The record outlined in response to
this Notice will also be incorporated into that Docket.
[[Page 13136]]
15. The Commission undertakes this effort to support the auction
rules because it is committed to fulfilling the Congressional mandate
to provide opportunities for women- and minority-owned businesses
through the competitive bidding process. The Commission believes,
however, that marshaling sufficient evidence to satisfy the strict
scrutiny standard of review now applicable to federal race-based
programs may be a time-consuming process, and it is mindful that it may
not fulfill its other obligations under Section 309(j) if it delayed
the award of F block licenses until that process is complete.
16. The Commission notes that some representatives of the
telecommunications industry have voiced a need to have the D, E, and F
block licenses awarded quickly. With the completion of the C block
auction, the Commission will have neared completion of awarding the 30
MHz A, B, and C block licenses. Any entity with plans to aggregate a 10
MHz F block license with a 30 MHz A, B, or C block PCS license or any
cellular or Specialized Mobile Radio (``SMR'') licensee that plans to
acquire a 10 MHz license for use in its service area, the Commission
believes, will be interested in swift auctioning of D, E, and F block
licenses. The Commission also believes that entities that were unable
to win licenses in the previous PCS auctions may be interested in
bidding on the D, E, and F blocks, and that it will be important to
these entities to acquire licenses quickly so that they can compete at
the earliest point possible with other providers of Commercial Mobile
Radio Services (``CMRS''), and with wireline service providers.
Further, the Commission believes that both Congress and consumers
expect it to promote the rapid development of PCS. Balancing its
obligation to provide opportunities for women- and minority-owned
businesses to participate in spectrum-based services against its
statutory duties to facilitate the rapid delivery of new services to
the American consumer and promote efficient use of the spectrum, the
Commission tentatively concludes that it should not delay the F block
auction for the amount of time it would take to adduce sufficient
evidence to support the race- and gender-based F block provisions.
While the Commission could proceed with the F block auction under the
current rules, it tentatively concludes that this course of action
would not serve the public interest because it may likely result in
litigation that would delay the auction, the dissemination of
additional broadband PCS licenses, and ultimately the introduction of
competition.
17. As a result, the Commission tentatively concludes that if it is
unable to gather sufficient evidence to support the race- and gender-
based provisions in the instant proceeding, it should eliminate these
provisions from the rules and proceed as expeditiously as possible to
auction the remaining broadband PCS licenses. The Commission seeks
comment on these tentative conclusions.
18. In reaching these tentative conclusions, the Commission notes
that of the 255 bidders that qualified to bid in the C block auction,
46 claimed minority-owned business status and 34 claimed women-owned
business status. These statistics indicate that even without the women-
and minority-owned business specific provisions in the C block rules,
women- and minority-owned businesses were able to participate in the
auction. However, one could also argue that the presence of race- and
gender-based rules before the Competitive Bidding Sixth Report and
Order encouraged the participation of minorities and women. It may have
helped such companies open the door to discussions with investors that
persisted even when the rules changed. Indeed, in the Competitive
Bidding Sixth Report and Order, one of the Commission's primary
objectives was to preserve the relationships and deals minority- and
women-owned companies had made prior to the rule change. As discussed
more fully below, the Commission seeks comment on whether, if it
ultimately decides to make the F block rules race- and gender-neutral,
it should do so by making these rules conform to the C block rules, or
whether other approaches to amending the F block rules would be more
appropriate. The Commission also seeks comment on how the Commission
can meet its statutory requirement under Section 309(j) to ensure
participation by minorities and women in the provision of service, if
the rules are changed to be race- and gender-neutral.
a. Control Group Equity Structures
19. To be eligible to participate in the entrepreneurs' block
auctions, an applicant, together with its affiliates and persons or
entities that hold interests in the applicant, must have gross revenues
of less than $125 million in each of the last two years and total
assets of less than $500 million. Under the Commission's current rules,
the gross revenues and total assets of certain persons or entities
holding interests in an applicant will not be considered for purposes
of determining eligibility to participate in the F block auction if the
applicant utilizes one of two equity structures. Use of either of these
equity structures requires the applicant to form a ``control group,''
but one of these options is available only to minority- and women-owned
businesses.
20. The first equity structure option, the Control Group Minimum 25
Percent Equity Option, is available to all applicants for the F block
auction. Under this option, the control group must hold at least 25
percent of the applicant's total equity. Of that 25 percent, at least
15 percent must be held by ``qualifying investors.'' The remaining ten
percent may be held by qualifying investors, certain institutional
investors, non-controlling existing investors in any preexisting entity
that is a member of the control group, or individuals that are members
of the applicant's management. In addition, members of the control
group must have de facto control of the control group and of the
applicant, and hold at least 50.1 percent of the voting stock or all
general partnership interests. If these requirements are met, the
remaining 75 percent of the applicant's equity may be held by other
non-controlling investors, and the gross revenues and total assets of
any such investor will not be attributed to the applicant provided that
the investor holds no more than 25 percent of the total equity of the
applicant.
21. The second equity structure option, the Control Group Minimum
50.1 Percent Equity Option, is currently available only to minority- or
women-owned applicants for the F block auction. Under this option, the
control group must own at least 50.1 percent of the applicant's total
equity. Of that 50.1 percent equity, at least 30 percent must be held
by qualifying investors who are members of minority groups or women.
The remaining 20.1 percent may be held by qualifying investors, certain
institutional investors, non-controlling existing investors in any
preexisting entity that is a member of the control group, or
individuals who are members of the applicant's management. In addition,
members of the control group must hold 50.1 percent of the voting stock
or all general partnership interests, and have de facto control of both
the control group and the applicant. If these requirements are met, the
remaining 49.9 percent of the applicant's equity may be held by a
single non-controlling investor, and the gross revenues and total
assets of any such investor will not be attributed.
22. When the Commission adopted the Control Group Minimum 50.1
[[Page 13137]]
Percent Equity Option, it determined that making such a mechanism
available to minority- and women-owned businesses would help them
attract adequate financing. However, in light of the Supreme Court's
holding in Adarand, the Commission tentatively concludes that, if it
determines after reviewing the comments in this proceeding that it
still does not have a sufficient record to support offering the 50.1/
49.9 percent equity structure only to women- and minority-owned
businesses, it should make the Control Group Minimum 50.1 Percent
Equity Option available to small businesses and entrepreneurs as it did
in the C block auction. In other words, if commenters in this
proceeding are unable to supply sufficient evidence to meet the
applicable standard of review, the Commission proposes to modify the
rules to permit all F block applicants to avail themselves of the 50.1/
49.9 percent equity structure. The Commission believes that such a rule
change, which is identical to a rule change upheld in the C block by
the D.C. Circuit, would facilitate the expeditious dissemination of the
F block licenses by forestalling the legal challenges based on Adarand
that would likely result if it moved forward with this rule in its
current form. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Since this
control group option was adopted to help minority-and women-owned
businesses, in particular, attract capital, the Commission also seeks
comment on whether it needs to extend this provision to all small
businesses here.
23. As an alternative to adopting the above rule changes, the
Commission could simplify or abandon both control group equity
structure options currently offered to F block applicants. Should it,
for example, provide that only the gross revenues and assets of
controlling principals in the applicant, together with any affiliates
of the applicant, be aggregated to determine eligibility? If the
Commission were to modify the rules in this way, how should it
determine who is a controlling principal? Alternatively, the Commission
could aggregate the gross revenues and assets of controlling principals
and any investor that has an interest in the applicant that exceeds a
certain percentage. For example, the Commission could provide that only
the gross revenues of investors with an ownership interest of 25
percent or more in the applicant will be aggregated with the assets of
controlling principals. If the Commission were to adopt this
modification, what percentage of interest in the applicant should it
adopt as the threshold? The Commission seeks comment on these and other
options that interested parties might wish to propose.
24. Finally, the Commission asks commenters to discuss whether
there is any need to make adjustments to the financial eligibility
threshold for the F block auction. Is there a concern, for example,
that C block winners will be disqualified from acquiring F block
licenses by virtue of the valuation of their C block licenses? Should
the Commission simply allow any qualified C block bidder to bid on F
block licenses?
b. Affiliation Rules
25. The Commission adopted affiliation rules for identifying all
individuals and entities whose gross revenues and assets must be
aggregated with those of the applicant to determine whether the
applicant exceeds the financial caps for the entrepreneurs' blocks or
for small business size status. The affiliation rules identify which
individuals or entities will be found to control or be controlled by
the applicant or an attributable investor in the applicant by
specifying which ownership interests or other criteria will give rise
to an affiliation.
26. The Commission adopted two exceptions to the affiliation rules
in the broadband PCS C and F block context. Under one exception,
applicants affiliated with Indian tribes and Alaska Regional or Village
Corporations organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1601 et seq., are generally exempted from the
affiliation rules for purposes of determining eligibility to
participate in bidding on C and F block licenses and to qualify as a
small business. Under the second exception, as originally adopted, the
gross revenues and assets of affiliates controlled by minority
investors who are members of the applicant's control group are not
attributed to the applicant for purposes of determining compliance with
the eligibility standards for participation in the entrepreneurs' block
auctions.
27. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 60 FR 34201
(June 30, 1995), the Commission proposed elimination of the exception
to the affiliation rules pertaining to minority investors for purposes
of the C block auction. This exception was intended to permit minority
investors who control other concerns to be members of an applicant's
control group and to bring their management skills and financial
resources to bear in its operation without the assets and revenues of
those other concerns being counted as part of the applicant's total
assets and revenues. The Commission further anticipated that such an
exception would permit minority applicants to pool their resources with
other minority-owned businesses and draw on the expertise of those who
have faced similar barriers to raising capital in the past. The
Commission tentatively concluded that it would be imprudent to extend
such an exception to all entrepreneurs because to do so would frustrate
the Commission's goals in establishing the entrepreneurs' blocks--
namely, to ensure that broadband PCS licenses will be disseminated
among a wide variety of applicants and to exclude large
telecommunications companies from bidding on such blocks.
28. In the Competitive Bidding Sixth Report and Order, however, the
Commission declined to eliminate the exception and adopted a
modification to the minority affiliation rule for the C block which was
suggested by commenters. The modified rule, 47 CFR
Sec. 24.720(l)(11)(ii), allows all small business applicants to exclude
any affiliates who would otherwise qualify as entrepreneurs by having
gross revenues under $125 million and total assets under $500 million
and whose total assets and gross revenues, when considered on a
cumulative basis and aggregated with each other, do not exceed these
amounts. This rule change in the C block was affirmed by the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals.
29. The Commission seeks comment on whether, if it determines that
the record is insufficient to support an exception to the affiliation
rule based on race, it should amend the affiliation rule for the F
block to eliminate the exception pertaining to minority investors, as
was originally proposed for the C block, or whether it should adopt the
C block's modified exception. It has been alleged that the modification
of the exception for minority investors for purposes of the C block
auction could lead to abuse. The Commission believes that its
experience with the C block auction may show whether this rule has had
its intended effect of allowing small businesses to pool their
resources to bid on capital-intensive services and draw on the
expertise of those who have started small businesses. If information
from the C block auction is relevant to whether the Commission should
amend the rule, it proposes to incorporate it here. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether this modified minority investors exception
would serve the public interest given the fact that F block licenses
are smaller than C
[[Page 13138]]
block licenses and are expected to have lower values.
30. The Commission does not propose to eliminate the affiliation
exception for Indian tribes and Alaska Regional or Village
Corporations. It tentatively concludes that the ``Indian Commerce
Clause'' of the United States Constitution provides an independent
basis for this exception that is not implicated by the holding in
Adarand. The Commission requests comment on this tentative conclusion.
c. Installment Payments
31. As a general matter, entrepreneurs' block licensees are
eligible for installment payment plans that afford them the opportunity
to pay for their licenses over a period of time at favorable interest
rates, rather than pay for the licenses in full at the time of grant.
32. Five different installment payment plans are currently
available to F block applicants under Section 24.716 of the
Commission's Rules. The first installment payment plan, which is
available to entities with gross revenues in excess of $75 million,
allows them to pay interest based on the ten-year U.S. Treasury rate
plus 3.5 percent, with payment of principal and interest amortized over
the term of the license. The second installment payment plan, which is
available to entities with gross revenues between $40 and $75 million,
provides for the payment of interest equal to the ten-year U.S.
Treasury rate plus 2.5 percent. Entities eligible for this plan make
interest-only payments for one year, with the principal and interest
amortized over the remaining nine years of the license term.
33. The third installment payment plan is available only to
entities that qualify as a small business or consortium of small
businesses. This plan provides for the payment of interest at the ten-
year U.S. Treasury rate plus 2.5 percent, but allows eligible entities
to make interest-only payments for two years, with principal and
interest amortized over the remaining eight years of the license term.
34. The fourth plan provides for interest-only payments for three
years and payments of principal and interest over the remaining seven
years of the license term and is only available to businesses owned by
members of minority groups or women. The final and most favorable
installment payment plan provides for interest-only payments for six
years and payments of principal and interest amortized over the
remaining four years of the license term. This plan is available only
to small businesses owned by members of minority groups or women.
35. In the event the Commission finds after reviewing the comments
in this proceeding that the record is insufficient to sustain the race-
and gender-based provisions of the F block rules under the appropriate
standard of review, the Commission proposes to modify Section 24.716 to
eliminate the special provisions that are tied to an applicant's status
as a minority- or women-owned business. The Commission seeks comment on
whether it should provide for three installment payment plans based
solely on financial size, as it did for the C block. Under this
approach, the first two installment payments described above--those for
eligible bidders with gross revenues exceeding $75 million and with
gross revenues between $40 and $75 million--would remain unchanged. The
most favorable installment payment plan--set forth in Section
24.716(b)(5) and previously available only to small minority- or women-
owned firms--would be made available to all small businesses. Thus, all
small businesses would be permitted to pay for their licenses in
installments at the ten-year U.S. Treasury rate applicable on the date
the license is granted, and would be permitted to make interest-only
payments for the first six years, with payments of principal and
interest amortized over the remaining four years of the license term.
As discussed below, however, the Commission also seeks comment on
whether such favorable payment terms are necessary for F block auction
winners and, in particular, whether the 6-year interest only period
serves the public interest given that the amounts bid for the 10 MHz
licenses most likely would be lower than those bid for 30 MHz licenses
in the C block.
d. Bidding Credits
36. A bidding credit acts as a discount on the winning bid amount
that a bidder actually has to pay for the license. The current F block
rules provide for three tiers of bidding credits ranging between 10
percent and 25 percent. Under these rules, a small business is granted
a 10 percent bidding credit, a business that is owned by members of
minority groups or women is granted a 15 percent bidding credit, and a
small business owned by members of minority groups or women is allowed
to aggregate the bidding credits for a 25 percent bidding credit.
37. If the Commission finds that they cannot withstand judicial
review on the basis of the evidence adduced in this proceeding, it
proposes to eliminate the race- and gender-based bidding credits in the
F block rules. The Commission believe that this proposed rule change,
like the other proposals for making the rules race- and gender-neutral,
should allow it and prospective bidders to avoid litigation based on
Adarand and thus will permit the auction to proceed without delay. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. It also seeks comment on
whether it should, in place of these bidding credits, extend a single
bidding credit to all small businesses as it did for the C block. If
the Commission chooses to adopt a single small business bidding credit
for the F block, how big should the credit be? Should the Commission
retain one of the three bidding credits currently provided--10, 15 or
25 percent--and make it available to all small businesses bidding in
the F block? In the alternative, should the Commission offer tiered
bidding credits, such as 15 percent for small businesses with aggregate
gross revenues under $15 million and 10 percent for businesses with
gross revenues between $15 million and $40 million? The Commission
tentatively concludes that because the value of 10 MHz licenses may be
lower than the value of 30 MHz licenses, a smaller bidding credit than
was offered C block bidders may be appropriate for F block bidders. The
Commission also tentatively concludes that these lower expected values
may attract smaller businesses, thus justifying a tiered bidding
credit. The Commission seeks comments on these tentative conclusions.
e. Information Collection
38. If the Commission eliminates the race- and gender-based
provisions in the F block rules because it finds after reviewing the
comments in this proceeding that it still does not have a record
sufficient to withstand the appropriate standard of review, it intends
nonetheless to continue to request that applicants provide information
regarding minority- or women owned status in their short-form
applications. The Commission notes that it has collected such
information concerning participants in ongoing auctions, including the
C block auction. The Commission believes that continuing to collect
such information will assist it in analyzing applicant pools and
auction results to determine whether it has promoted substantial
participation in auctions by minorities and women, as Congress
directed, through the special provisions it propose to make available
to small businesses. This information will also assist the Commission
in preparing a report to Congress on the participation of designated
entities in the auctions
[[Page 13139]]
and in the provision of spectrum-based services. In addition, such
information will be relevant in developing a supplemental record should
the Commission find that special provisions for small businesses prove
unsuccessful in encouraging the dissemination of licenses to a wide
variety of applicants, including businesses owned by members of
minority groups and women. The Commission seeks comment on this
information collection proposal.
2. Definitions
a. Small Business
39. The proposal to extend to small businesses certain F block rule
provisions previously applicable only to women- and minority-owned
businesses highlights the importance of the definition of a small
business. The current generic auction rules enable the Commission to
establish a small business definition in the context of each particular
service. Under the specific rule for the C and F blocks, a ``small
business'' is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates
and persons or entities that hold interests in such entity and their
affiliates, has average gross revenues that are not more than $40
million for the preceding three years.
40. The Commission requests comment on whether the definition of
small business continues to be appropriate. Is a threshold of average
gross revenues of not more than $40 million too high or too low for
entities bidding on 10 MHz licenses? How does the definition of small
business in Section 24.720(b)(1) compare to the definition of small
businesses for other services? Does the current service-by-service
approach remain valid? In the alternative, would it be feasible to
establish an appropriate small business size applicable to all CMRS
services? The Commission proposes to keep the current small business
definition for the F block--the same definition used for the C block--
to allow C block small business licensees to benefit from the small
business provisions of the F block. The Commission requests comment on
this proposal. However, the Commission is concerned that by using this
threshold, C block winners may not be able to acquire F block licenses
given the value of their C block licenses. The Commission, therefore,
requests comment on whether the value of a C block license should be
part of the gross revenues calculation. The Commission also requests
comment on whether it should define and adopt rules for very small
businesses. If so, what should be the appropriate size standard for
very small businesses and why? Instead of or in addition to modifying
the small business definition, should the Commission modify or simplify
the affiliation rules? The Commission notes that the Small Business
Administration recently simplified the definition of ``affiliate'' in
its rules.
b. Rural Telephone Company
41. In the Competitive Bidding Fifth Report and Order, the
Commission established provisions to help rural telephone companies
become meaningful participants in the PCS industry and defined a rural
telephone company as ``a local exchange carrier having 100,000 or fewer
access lines, including all affiliates.'' The impact of this definition
was to identify entities that qualified for the partitioning system
that the Commission adopted to allow rural telephone companies to
obtain broadband PCS licenses that are geographically partitioned from
large PCS service areas.
42. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 creates, for the first time,
a statutory definition for rural telephone companies. The Commission
requests comment on whether Congress intended to define the term rural
telephone company used in Section 309(j) or whether it was only meant
to define the term as used in new sections of the Communications Act,
such as Section 251. In any event, should the Commission change the
definition of a rural telephone company to this definition for purposes
of the broadband PCS designated entity provisions. The Commission also
asks commenters to discuss how adoption of this definition would affect
the current rules allowing geographic partitioning of rural areas
served by rural telephone companies.
3. Extending Small Business Provisions to the D and E Blocks
43. The rule modifications discussed above would extend greater
bidding credits and more favorable installment payment plans to all
small business bidders in the F block auction. The D and E blocks are
not entrepreneurs' blocks, and current D and E block auction rules do
not make special provision for small businesses. Members of the
telecommunications industry, however, have expressed a desire for the
Commission to extend the small business provisions of the F block
auction rules to bidders for D and E block licenses.
44. The Commission requests comment on whether it should extend
installment payment plans to small businesses bidding on the D and E
blocks. From parties that believe the Commission should extend these
provisions to the D and E blocks, the Commission also requests comment
on the terms for these provisions for D and E block small businesses.
For example, should small businesses bidding in the D and E blocks
qualify for installment payments with the same terms as small
businesses in the F block, or should D and E block small businesses
receive less favorable payment terms? The Commission tentatively
concludes that extension of installment payments could result in
disseminating licenses in the D and E blocks to a wider variety of
applicants in two ways. First, it could increase the chances for all
small businesses, including those that are women- or minority-owned and
that would have benefited from the F block provisions that it proposes
to change, to win a D, E, or F block license. Second, it could increase
opportunities for small businesses that are current PCS, cellular, or
SMR licensees to obtain 10 MHz-licenses that they could aggregate with
their current licenses. The Commission requests comment on this
tentative conclusion.
4. Adjusting for Lower Values of 10 MHz Licenses
45. Notwithstanding the Commission's desire to increase
opportunities for small businesses, including those that are women- and
minority-owned, to acquire PCS licenses, the Commission is aware that
winning bids for the D, E, and F block licenses, which authorize the
use of 10 MHz, could be lower than those for the 30 MHz A, B, and C
block licenses. Accordingly, it asks for comment on whether it should
adjust the terms of the installment financing provisions to reflect the
lower values of the 10 MHz license. Are the installment payment plans
for small businesses too generous in light of the expected lower values
of the 10 MHz licenses? In particular, is it in the public interest to
offer a 6-year interest-only period for all small business F block
licensees?
46. Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on whether the F block
rules establishing discounted upfront payments and reduced down
payments for entrepreneurs should be adjusted. Upfront payment
requirements are designed to ensure that only serious and qualified
bidders participate in the Commission's spectrum auctions, and to deter
frivolous or insincere bidding. Upfront payments are also required to
provide the Commission with a source of funds in the event that it
becomes necessary to assess default or bid withdrawal payments. The
[[Page 13140]]
Commission's rules currently require participants in the F block
auction to submit an upfront payment of $0.015 per MHz per pop (or per
bidding unit) for the maximum number of licenses (in terms of bidding
units) on which they intend to bid. This differs from the standard
upfront payment formula originally set at $0.02 per MHz-pop for
broadband PCS services, which was utilized in the A and B block
auctions and will be required in the D and E blocks. The 25 percent
discount on the upfront payment for the entrepreneurs' block auctions
was intended to facilitate the participation of capital-constrained
companies and permit them to conserve resources for infrastructure
development after winning a license.
47. The Commission requests comment on whether a discounted upfront
payment is necessary to encourage the participation of entrepreneurs
and designated entities in the F block auction. It also requests
comment on whether the discounted upfront payment is sufficient to
ensure that only serious and qualified bidders participate in the F
block auction. Is the discounted upfront payment amount an adequate
measure of a bidder's ability to pay for the licenses it might win and
to meet the Commission's build-out requirements? Or, should the
Commission increase the required upfront payment to $0.02 per bidding
unit or more in order to minimize the possibility of insincere or
frivolous bidding and bidder default?
48. The F block rules also discount down payments for winning
bidders. The primary purpose of the down payment requirement is to
ensure that a winning bidder will be able to pay the full amount of its
winning bid. In arriving at an appropriate level for the down payment,
the Commission sought to ensure that auction winners would have the
necessary financial capabilities to complete payment for the license
and to pay for the costs of constructing a system. At the same time,
the Commission did not want to require a down payment so onerous as to
hinder an applicant's growth and diminish its access to capital. The
Commission decided to require winning bidders in broadband PCS auctions
(except for those eligible for installment payments in the
entrepreneurs' blocks) to supplement their upfront payment with a down
payment sufficient to bring their total deposits up to 20 percent of
their winning bid(s). For winning bidders in the entrepreneurs' blocks
auctions, the Commission agreed to require a reduced down payment of
only ten percent of the winning bid. Currently, a winning bidder in the
F block auction is required to make a down payment equal to ten percent
of its net winning bid, with five percent due within five days of the
close of the auction, and the remainder due within five days of the
grant of the license.
49. The Commission now requests comment on whether this reduction
in the down payment requirement is necessary to facilitate the
participation of entrepreneurs and designated entities in providing
service to the public as F block licensees. The Commission also
requests comment on whether the reduced down payment is sufficient to
demonstrate that a winning bidder has the necessary financial
capabilities to complete payment for the license and to pay for the
costs of constructing a system. Should the Commission increase the
required down payment to 20 percent of the winning bid in order to
guard against the possibility of bidder default? Would a higher payment
hinder growth and access to capital?
5. Rules Regarding the Holding of Licenses
50. In the Competitive Bidding Fifth Report and Order, the
Commission adopted restrictions on the transfer or assignment of
licenses won by bidders in the entrepreneurs' blocks. These
restrictions were designed to ensure that licensees did not take unfair
advantage of entrepreneurs' block special provisions by immediately
assigning or transferring control of their licenses to other entities.
The rules prohibit licensees in the entrepreneurs' block from
voluntarily assigning or transferring control of their license during
the three years after the date of the license grant. Two years
thereafter, the licensee is permitted to assign or transfer control of
its authorization only to an entity that satisfies the eligibility
criteria for the entrepreneurs' blocks.
51. The Commission also adopted specific rules to prevent
recipients of bidding credits and installment payment plans from
realizing any unjust enrichment that they might gain from transfer or
assignment that occurs during the full ten-year license term. With
regard to bidding credits, the rules require that if a licensee applies
to assign or transfer control of a license to an entity that is not
eligible for as high a level of bidding credit, then the difference
between the bidding credit obtained by the assigning party and the
bidding credit for which the acquiring party would qualify must be paid
to the U.S. Treasury as a condition of approval of the transfer or
assignment. If a licensee that was awarded installment payments seeks
to assign or transfer control of its license during the term of the
license to an entity not meeting the applicable eligibility standards,
the rules require payment of the remaining principal and any interest
accrued through the date of assignment as a condition of approval of
the transfer or assignment.
52. The Commission tentatively concludes that, in addition to the
changes that it proposes to the F block auction rules, some measure is
still needed to discourage speculators or sham bidders in the
entrepreneurs' block auction. The Commission also tentatively concludes
that if it adopts the proposals to make the F block auction rules race-
and gender-neutral, and extend small business provisions to bidders in
all three 10 MHz broadband PCS blocks, the current transfer
restrictions for F block licensees may be too restrictive. For example,
under the proposed changes to the race- and gender-based provisions and
the current transfer restriction, a small business cannot transfer its
F block license in the first three years and, in the two years
thereafter, may only transfer its license to another small business. An
entrepreneur F block licensee, however, would be able to transfer its F
block license in years four and five to any other entrepreneur,
including a small business. Such a result goes farther than to merely
discourage speculative bidding in the entrepreneurs' block auction.
Therefore, the Commission proposes to amend the holding requirement to
let all F block licensees transfer their licenses within the first
three years to an entity that qualifies as an entrepreneur. The
Commission also proposes to retain the unjust enrichment provisions. It
seeks comment on this proposal and its tentative conclusions. It
particularly seeks comment on whether entities participating in the C
block auction may have had experiences that would influence the
Commission's tentative conclusions here.
B. The Cincinnati Bell Remand
1. The Cellular/PCS Cross-ownership Rule
53. Under Section 24.204(a), no cellular licensee may be granted a
license for more than 10 MHz of broadband PCS spectrum prior to the
year 2000 if the grant will result in a significant overlap of the
cellular licensee's Cellular Geographic Service Area (``CGSA'') and the
PCS service area. After the year 2000, cellular licensees will be
allowed to obtain a grant of 15 MHz of PCS spectrum in an area that
overlaps significantly with their CGSA. ``Significant overlap'' occurs
when ten percent or more of the
[[Page 13141]]
population of the PCS service area is contained within the CGSA. Thus,
because cellular licenses authorize the use of 25 MHz of spectrum,
cellular operators currently are limited to 35 MHz of aggregated
cellular and PCS spectrum in any one geographic area.
54. In Cincinnati Bell, the Court concluded that the Commission's
limitations on cellular operators' eligibility for PCS licenses are
arbitrary because the FCC provided little or no support for its
assertions that, without such restrictions, cellular providers might
engage in anticompetitive practices or exert undue market power. The
Court further explained that, while the Commission's stated goal of
avoiding excessive concentration of licenses is a permissible objective
under the Communications Act, the cellular eligibility rules are,
without an economic rationale, an arbitrary solution to this problem.
According to the Court, the FCC must supply more factual support for
its belief that cellular operators might detrimentally affect the
market if they were allowed to obtain licenses for larger amounts of
PCS spectrum.
55. In light of the Sixth Circuit's ruling, the Commission seeks
comment on whether the PCS/cellular cross-ownership rule should be
relaxed or retained. Currently, the Commission's rules contain other
spectrum caps that affect applicants for PCS licenses. The broadest
limitation on wireless spectrum ownership is the 45 MHz cap on CMRS
uses within three radio services: broadband PCS, cellular, and SMR. In
addition, all PCS licensees are limited to a total of 40 MHz of
spectrum in any one geographic area. This means that an entity may not
own PCS licenses for any two or more spectrum blocks that will total
more than 40 MHz in the same geographic area. Are there reasons for
maintaining the separate 35 MHz spectrum cap on cellular providers'
ownership of PCS spectrum in their service area or the 40 MHz PCS
spectrum cap? Comments supporting retention of the current rules should
provide facts showing that cellular operators will detrimentally affect
the market if allowed to obtain immediately 10 MHz or more of PCS
spectrum in their geographic service areas. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether it should relax and simplify the ownership
limitations by eliminating the PCS/cellular ownership limitations and
the 40 MHz PCS spectrum cap in favor of the single 45 MHz CMRS spectrum
cap. Under such a rule, cellular operators would be permitted to
acquire licenses for two 10 MHz blocks of broadband PCS spectrum. The
Commission asks commenters to discuss the impact on competition among
CMRS providers, including the effect, if any, on the provision of PCS.
2. The 20 Percent Attribution Standard
56. For the purpose of determining whether an entity is a cellular
operator and subject to the cellular/PCS cross-ownership rule, the
Commission has developed attribution standards. Section
24.204(d)(2)(ii) of the Commission's Rules provides that partnership
and other ownership interests and any stock interest amounting to 20
percent or more of the equity, or outstanding stock, or outstanding
voting stock of a cellular licensee will be attributable. Thus, any
entity owning such a 20 percent interest in a cellular licensee is
precluded from obtaining a license for broadband PCS in excess of 10
MHz in a service area that overlaps the cellular licensee's CGSA.
57. Section 24.204(d)(2)(ii) also currently provides for a higher
cellular ownership attribution threshold for small businesses, rural
telephone companies, and businesses owned by minorities or women than
for other entities. If cellular ownership interests are held by such
types of businesses, their interests are not attributable until they
reach at least 40 percent. Similarly, a cellular ownership interest
held by an entity with a non-controlling equity interest in a broadband
PCS licensee or applicant owned by minorities or women is attributable
only if it reaches 40 percent or more.
58. The Court in Cincinnati Bell found the 20 percent cellular
attribution standard to be arbitrary on the ground that it does not
bear a reasonable relationship to whether a party with a minority
interest in a cellular licensee actually has the ability to control
that licensee. The Court rejected the FCC's argument that an entity
with such an interest in a cellular licensee would have a reduced
incentive to compete with the cellular company as a PCS provider,
indicating that this argument is unsupported by either statistical data
or a general economic theory and stating that the Commission must
provide support for such predictive conclusions. In response to the
FCC's argument that the Commission needs a bright-line rule to avoid
delays in resolving PCS eligibility issues, the Court agreed with those
challenging the 20 percent standard that the Commission should have
supplied a reasoned basis for its decision not to adopt less
restrictive alternatives.
59. The 45 MHz CMRS spectrum aggregation limit, discussed above,
includes an attribution rule that governs how ownership interests are
measured. Under this rule, partnership and other ownership interests,
and any stock interest amounting to 20 percent or more of the equity,
or outstanding stock, or outstanding voting stock of a broadband PCS,
cellular, or SMR licensee shall be attributed, except that those
interests held by small businesses, rural telephone companies, or
businesses owned by minorities or women will not be attributed unless
they reach a threshold level of 40 percent. Similarly, a CMRS ownership
interest held by an entity with a non-controlling equity interest in a
broadband PCS licensee or applicant owned by minorities or women is
attributable only if it reaches 40 percent or more. The Commission's 20
percent attribution level for the CMRS spectrum cap was chosen to be
consistent with the attribution standard for the PCS/cellular cross-
ownership rule. The Commission supported this standard with an opinion
of the Federal Accounting Standards Board which explicitly states that
ownership interests below 20 percent presumptively do not have control
and above 20 percent they do unless evidence to the contrary is
established.
60. In the Competitive Bidding Sixth Report and Order, the
cellular/PCS cross-ownership attribution rule and the CMRS spectrum
aggregation rules were amended for purposes of C block licenses to
eliminate race- and gender-based provisions and make the 40 percent
attribution standard applicable only to interests held by a small
business or rural telephone company and interests held by an entity
with a non-controlling equity interest in a licensee or applicant that
is a small business.
61. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should retain the
ownership attribution rule for cellular licensees interested in
acquiring broadband PCS licenses. The 20 percent attribution rule was
fashioned to strike a balance between maximizing competition and
allowing cellular entities to bring their expertise to PCS. The
Commission did not adopt a rule that required inquiry into whether a
party has a controlling interest in a cellular licensee because it
believed a bright-line rule would result in faster, less burdensome
licensing. However, the Sixth Circuit found that the Commission did not
adequately justify this decision. Accordingly, the Commission seeks
comment on whether the 20 percent attribution rule should be modified.
Should the attribution rule be changed to a controlling interest test?
Is there some other bright-line test that
[[Page 13142]]
might be used to avoid burdening the licensing process? Should the
Commission adopt a single majority shareholder exception? Should the
approach depend on whether the Commission modifies the cellular/PCS
cross-ownership rule or, in the alternative, eliminates this rule and
retains only the 45 MHz CMRS spectrum cap? Should the Commission, in
any case, modify the 20 percent attribution standard applicable to the
45 MHz CMRS spectrum cap in light of the Sixth Circuit's opinion
regarding this type of standard in connection with the cellular/PCS
cross-ownership rule? The Commission notes that the 20 percent
attribution standard and the 40 percent exception are the highest
ownership attribution rules the Commission has. The new
Telecommunications Act, in the definition of ``affiliate'', defines
ownership as a 10 percent interest.
62. The Commission proposes to modify the cellular/PCS cross-
ownership and CMRS spectrum aggregation limit rules for F block
purposes to comply with the requirements of Adarand. It proposes to
remove the provisions in these rules which increase the cellular
attribution threshold to 40 percent on the basis of the race or gender
of the holder of the ownership interest or of the broadband PCS
applicant in which such holder is an investor. Accordingly, the
Commission proposes, for purposes of the F block auction, that the 40
percent cellular attribution threshold of the PCS/cellular cross-
ownership rule will continue to apply if the ownership interest is held
by a small business or a rural telephone company or if the cellular
ownership interest is held by an entity with a non-controlling equity
interest in a broadband PCS licensee or applicant that is a small
business. Similarly, the Commission proposes, for purposes of the F
block auction, that the 40 percent cellular attribution threshold of
the CMRS spectrum aggregation limit will continue to apply if the CMRS
ownership interest is held by a small business or a rural telephone
company (including those owned by minorities or women). These proposed
changes mirror modifications that were made to the C block rules in the
Competitive Bidding Sixth Report and Order. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal.
63. Finally, the Commission notes that the Court in Cincinnati Bell
did not find Section 24.204(d)(2)(i) of the Commission's Rules to be
arbitrary. Under this section, certain ownership interests of five
percent or more in broadband PCS licensees and applicants are
attributable for purposes of applying the 10 and 15 MHz spectrum
limitations and the 40 MHz limit in the same geographic area, discussed
above. The Commission does not propose to modify this rule.
C. Ownership Disclosure Provisions
64. The rules provide ``short-form'' (FCC Form 175) and ``long-
form'' (FCC Form 600) application procedures for broadband PCS bidders.
Short-form applications are submitted prior to the auction by entities
seeking to qualify as bidders. Long-form applications are submitted by
winning bidders in the auctions to obtain their licenses. The
application procedures for broadband PCS require applicants to furnish
detailed ownership information in both their short-form and long-form
applications.
65. In addition to this information required of all PCS applicants,
specific rules require F block applicants to submit more detailed
ownership and financial information. An F block applicant must identify
its affiliates and provide its gross revenues and total assets. On
their short-form applications, all other F block applicants must
disclose: (1) the identity of each member of their control group,
including the citizenship and gender or minority group classification
for each member; (2) the status of each control group member that is an
institutional investor and existing investor and/or a member of the
applicant's management; (3) the identity of each affiliate of the
applicant and each affiliate of individuals in applicant's control
group; (4) their gross revenues and total assets. Applicants must
demonstrate their gross revenues and total assets using audited
financial statements for the most recently completed calendar or fiscal
years. Each F block applicant must also certify on its short-form
application that it is eligible to bid for and obtain licenses,
consistent with the Commission's Rules and, if appropriate, that it is
eligible to bid as a designated entity.
66. Winning F block bidders' long-form applications must disclose,
separately and in the aggregate, their gross revenues and total assets
plus the gross revenues and total assets of their affiliates, their
control group members, their attributable investors, and affiliates of
their attributable investors. These applicants must also list and
summarize all agreements that support their eligibility for an F block
license and any investor protection agreements.
67. During the course of previous broadband PCS auctions, it became
evident that certain ownership disclosure requirements found in the
general PCS competitive bidding rules were burdensome and difficult to
administer both at the short-form and long-form stages. For many large
corporations, especially investment firms with diverse holdings, the
requirements were very burdensome, particularly when they involved
calculating indirect ownership interests in outside firms using the
multiplier. Moreover, while identifying all businesses in which an
attributable stockholder of the applicant held a five percent (or
greater) interest generated significant amounts of information, the
disclosures identified businesses that had no relation to the services
for which licenses were being auctioned. In addition, requiring the
submission of partnership agreements proved sensitive because such
agreements often contained strategic bidding information and other
confidential data. These provisions were waived by the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau for the short-form and long-form filings for
PCS blocks A and B and for the short-form application for the C block.
68. In waiving ownership disclosure requirements for the A and B
block short-form applications, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
stated that the purpose of the disclosure rules contained in Section
24.813(a) of the Commission's Rules is ``to allow the Commission to
determine who is the real party in interest, to determine compliance
with anti-collusion rules and ownership restrictions such as the
multiple- and cross-ownership rules and the alien ownership
restrictions.'' The Bureau noted that the short-form application
requires applicants to certify that they are in compliance with these
regulations. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau concluded that
requiring information about all attributable stockholders' other
interests does not serve the stated purposes of ownership disclosure.
The Bureau also concluded that because partnership agreements often
discuss strategic business objectives, submission of them would be
detrimental to partnerships. Following the same rationale, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau waived Section 24.813(a)(1), 24.813(a)(2) and
24.813(a)(4) of the rules for the A and B block long-form and the C
block short-form applications.
69. At the short-form application stage in the C block PCS auction,
the Commission received 36 waiver petitions from applicants requesting
that they be permitted to demonstrate their gross revenues and total
assets using methods other than audited financial statements. These
waiver requests indicate that many smaller businesses do not use
audited financial statements
[[Page 13143]]
in the normal course of business. Applicants in the C block auction
also requested, and were granted, a waiver of the requirement that when
financial information is supported by audited financial statements
based on fiscal years, statements for the three most recent years must
be used. Applicants were permitted to file statements for fiscal years
1991, 1992, and 1993, instead.
70. In light of its experience to date, the Commission proposes to
amend Section 24.813(a)(1) and Section 24.813(a)(2) of the rules to
limit the information disclosure requirement with respect to outside
ownership interests of applicants' attributable stockholders. More
specifically, it proposes to require only the disclosure of
attributable stockholders' direct, attributable ownership in other
businesses holding or applying for CMRS or Private Mobile Radio
Services (``PMRS'') licenses. Moreover, the Commission proposes to
amend Section 24.813(a)(4) to delete the requirement that partnerships
file a signed and dated copy of the partnership agreement with their
short-form and long-form applications. The Commission requests comment
on these proposed changes. The Commission also seeks comment on whether
it should further reduce the scope of information required by the
general PCS rules at either the short-form or long-form filing stages.
In addition, it requests comment on the alternative approach of
requiring applicants to make their ownership documentation available
upon request to other applicants during or after the auction. The
Commission also requests comment on whether the proposed changes would
provide bidders with sufficient information on their competitors in the
auction.
71. The number of waivers requesting permission to demonstrate
gross revenues and total assets without audited financial statements in
the C block auction leads the Commission to propose changes to Section
24.720(f) and Section 24.720(g) of its rules. The Commission proposes
to permit each applicant that does not otherwise use audited financial
statements to provide a certification from its chief financial officer
that the gross revenue and total asset figures that it provides in its
short-form and long-form applications are true, full, and accurate; and
that the applicant does not have the audited financial statements that
are otherwise required under the rules. The Commission believes that
such a modification to the rules would be the most effective way to
amend the rules so that small businesses are not overly burdened by
auditing their finances when they would not otherwise do so. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. It also asks interested
parties to suggest other alternatives to the audited financial
statement requirement, and it seeks comment on whether an alternative--
the one it proposes or any other--should be available to all F block
applicants (or D and E block applicants if small business provisions
are extended to these blocks), or only to applicants that do not
otherwise use audited financial statements. The Commission also
requests comment on whether applicants should continue to be allowed to
rely on either fiscal years or calendar years in providing their gross
revenues. Should they instead be required to base their size
calculations on the most recent four quarters so that the Commission
receives the most current information available?
D. Auction Schedule
72. While the rules do not establish a specific schedule for
awarding the D, E, and F block broadband PCS licenses by competitive
bidding, the Commission's reasons for creating these 10 MHz licenses
and the communications industry's plans for using them directly affect
when they should be auctioned. The Commission created the 10 MHz
licenses to promote the provision of services that might not require a
full 30 MHz of spectrum, or for aggregation with a 30 MHz PCS license
or an existing cellular license.
73. On December 23, 1994, the Commission sought comment on whether
to auction the 10 MHz F block licenses together with the other 10 MHz D
and E block licenses. Of the six comments received, the majority
favored a single auction for all three blocks. Arguments in favor of a
single auction included efficiency advantages for bidders,
administrative and cost savings, and an equal timeline for start-up and
deployment of all 10 MHz licensees. Commenters also noted a substantial
need in broadband PCS for licensees to aggregate spectrum up to the
limits set by the Commission and observed that a single auction would
allow bidders to obtain 20-MHz licenses to meet unique service needs.
Arguments opposing a single auction were that separate auctions would
expedite auction administration and promote opportunities for
designated entities by awarding them the first 10 MHz licenses.
74. The Commission tentatively concludes that it should auction the
D, E, and F frequency blocks concurrently in simultaneous multiple
round auctions. The comments in response to the initial inquiry into
this issue indicate that simultaneous access to all the 10 MHz licenses
is important to the plans of some prospective PCS providers, and the
Commission finds their arguments persuasive. The Commission seeks
comment on this tentative conclusion. It also seeks comment on specific
services that are planned for the D, E, and F licenses and how, if at
all, auctioning all the licenses simultaneously would affect those
planned services. The Commission is also interested in other factors
that commenters believe would justify combining the auction of the D,
E, and F block licenses, or that would argue against doing so.
75. If the Commission auctions the D, E, and F blocks concurrently,
it also seeks comment on the option of auctioning the D and E licenses
together in one auction and the F block licenses in a separate auction.
This approach would accommodate the difference in eligibility
requirements for the F block auction. The Commission seeks comment on
whether it should adopt this approach. It also requests comment on
whether the auction rules for these three blocks should be modified in
any way if it implements this proposal.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
76. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals
suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the
Notice. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These
comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as
comments on the rest of the Notice, but they must have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as responses to the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of
this Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981).
B. Ex Parte Rules--Non-Restricted Proceeding
77. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided
[[Page 13144]]
in Commission Rules. See generally 47 CFR Secs. 1.1202, 1.1203, and
1.1206(a).
C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
78. This Notice contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, the Commission invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') to take this opportunity to comment on
the information collections contained in this Notice as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency
comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB
comments are due 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in
the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
D. Comment Dates
79. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Secs. 1.415 and 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before April 15, 1996 and
reply comments on or before April 25, 1996. To file formally in this
proceeding you must file an original and four copies of all comments
and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a
personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus nine
copies. You should send your comments to Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554. Comments will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the Reference Center of the Federal
Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington,
D.C. 20554.
80. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
information collections are due on or before April 15, 1996. Written
comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget on
the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before 60
days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition
to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
information collections contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy
Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected]
and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].
E. Contact Persons
81. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact
Mark Bollinger at 418-0660 (Auctions Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau).
IV. Ordering Clauses
82. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 7, 303(r), 308(b), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157, 303(r), 308(b), and
309(j), notice is hereby given of the proposed amendments to Parts 20
and 24 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Parts 20 and 24, in accordance
with the proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, and that
COMMENT IS SOUGHT regarding such proposals.
83. It is further ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 20
Commercial mobile radio services, Cellular/PCS cross-ownership.
47 CFR Part 24
Broadband personal communications services.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-7315 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7307 Special Local Regulations; Harborwalk Boat Race, Sampit River, Georgetown, SC
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13119-13120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7307]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD07-96-015]
RIN 2115-AE46
Special Local Regulations; Harborwalk Boat Race, Sampit River,
Georgetown, SC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish permanent special local
regulations for the Harborwalk Boat Race. This event held annually on
the last Sunday of June, between 12 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight
Time. Historically, there have been approximately sixty participants
racing 14 to 20 foot outboard power boats on a prescribed course on a
portion of the Sampit River, Georgetown, SC. The nature of the event
and the closure of the Sampit River creates an extra or unusual hazard
in the navigable waters. These proposed regulations are necessary to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. By
establishing these proposed permanent regulations, the Coast Guard
expects to give better notice of requirements related to marine events,
and also avoid the recurring costs of publication related with
temporary regulations. However, the establishment of these proposed
permanent regulations would not relieve the event organizers from
applying for an annual marine event permit.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Group
Charleston, 196 Tradd Street, Charleston, SC 29401, or may be delivered
to operations office at the same address between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone
number is (803) 724-7621. Comments will become a part of the public
docket and will be available for copying and inspection at the same
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ENS M. J. DaPonte, Coast Guard Group Charleston at (803) 724-7621.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comment
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written views, data, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names,
[[Page 13120]]
addresses, identify the notice (CGD07-96-015) and the specific section
of this proposal to which their comments apply, and give reasons for
each comment. The Coast Guard will consider all comments received
during the comment period. The regulations may be changed in view of
the comments received. All comments received before the expiration of
the comment period will be considered before final action is taken on
this proposal.
No public hearing is planned, but one may be held if the written
requests for a hearing are received, and it is determined that the
opportunity to make oral presentations will add to the rulemaking
process.
Discussion of Proposed Regulations
The proposed regulations are needed to provide for the safety of
life during the Harborwalk Boat Race. These proposed rules are intended
to promote safe navigation on the waters off East Bay Park on the
Sampit River during the race by controlling the traffic entering,
exiting, and traveling within these waters. Historically, the
anticipated concentration of spectator and participant vessels
associated with the Harborwalk Boat Race has posed a safety concern,
which is addressed in these proposed special local regulations. The
proposed regulations would not permit movement of spectator vessels and
other nonparticipating vessel traffic within the regulated area,
bounded by a line drawn from
33 deg.21.5' N, 079 deg.17.10' W, thence to
33 deg.21.7' N, 079 deg.16.8' W, thence along the shore to
33 deg.21.1' N, 079 deg.16.7' W, thence to
33 deg.21.1' N, 079 deg.16.9' W, thence back to
33 deg.21.5' N, 079 deg.17.10' W
from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. annually during the last Sunday of June. All
coordinates use Datum: NAD 83. The proposed regulations would permit
the movement of spectator vessels and other nonparticipants after the
termination of race, and during intervals between scheduled events at
the discretion of the Captain of the Port.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under Section
3(f) of the Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
the 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
proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. The proposed regulation would last for only 5 and a half
hours each day of the event.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal 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).
For reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Collection of Information
These proposed regulations contain no collection of information
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
Federalism
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implication to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
proposal consistent with Section 2.B.2. of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B. In accordance with that section, this proposed action has
been environmentally assessed (EA completed), and the Coast Guard has
concluded that it will not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. An environmental assessment and a finding of no
significant impact have been prepared and are available in the docket
for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Waterways.
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 100 of Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. A new section 100.713 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 100.713 Harborwalk Boat Race, Sampit River, Georgetown, SC.
(a) Regulated Area. The regulated area is formed by a line from:
33 deg. 21.5' N, 079 deg. 17.10' W; thence to
33 deg. 21.7' N, 079 deg. 16.8' W; thence along the shore to
33 deg. 21.1' N, 079 deg. 16.7' W; thence to
33 deg. 21.1' N, 079 deg. 16.9' W; thence back to
33 deg. 21.5' N, 079 deg. 17.10' W.
All coordinates use datum: NAD 83.
(b) Special local regulations. (1) Entry into the regulated area is
prohibited to all nonparticipants.
(2) After the termination of the Harborwalk Boat Race, and during
intervals between scheduled events, at the discretion of the Captain of
the Port, all vessels may resume normal operations.
(c) Effective Dates. This section is effective at 12 p.m. and
terminate at 5:30 p.m. annually during the last Sunday of June.
However, the requirements of this section may be waived by a Coast
Guard Notice to mariners.
Dated: March 12, 1996.
Roger T. Rufe, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-7307 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7306 Special Local Regulations; River Race Augusta; Augusta, GA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13120-13122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7306]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD07-96-014]
RIN 2115-AE46
Special Local Regulations; River Race Augusta; Augusta, GA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish permanent special local
regulations for the River Race Augusta. This event will be held
annually on Friday, Saturday and Sunday during the second week of June,
between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Historically, there
have been
[[Page 13121]]
approximately sixty participants racing 16 to 18 foot outboard power
boats on that portion of the Savannah River at Augusta, GA, between
U.S. Highway 1 (Fifth St) Bridge at mile marker 199.45 and Eliot's Fish
Camp at mile marker 197. The boats would be competing at high speeds
and at close range on a prescribed course. The nature of the event and
the closure of the Savannah River creates an extra or unusual hazard in
the navigable waters. These proposed regulations are necessary to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. By
establishing these proposed permanent regulations, the Coast Guard
expects to give better notice of requirements related to marine events,
and also avoid the recurring costs of publication related with
temporary regulations. However, the establishment of these proposed
permanent regulations would not relieve the event organizers from
applying for an annual marine event permit.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Group
Charleston, 196 Tradd Street, Charleston, SC 29401, or may be delivered
to operations office at the same address between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone
number is (803) 724-7621. Comments will become a part of the public
docket and will be available for copying and inspection at the same
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ENS M.J. DaPonte, Coast Guard Group Charleston at (803) 724-7621.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written views, data, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names, addresses,
identify the notice (CGD07-96-014) and the specific section of this
proposal to which their comments apply, and give reasons for each
comment. The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. The regulations may be changed in view of the comments
received. All comments received before the expiration of the comment
period will be considered before final action is taken on this
proposal.
No public hearing is planned, but one may be held if the written
requests for a hearing are received, and it is determined that the
opportunity to make oral presentations will add to the rulemaking
process.
Discussion of Proposed Regulations
The proposed regulations are needed to provide for the safety of
life during the River Race Augusta. These proposed regulations are
intended to promote safe navigation on the waters off Augusta on the
Savannah River during the races by controlling the traffic entering,
exiting, and traveling within these waters. Historically, the
anticipated concentration of spectator and participant vessels
associated with the River Race has posed a safety concern, which is
addressed in these proposed special local regulations. The proposed
regulations would not permit the entry or movement of spectator vessels
and other nonparticipating vessel traffic between the U.S. Highway
Route 1 (Fifth Street) Bridge at mile marker 199.45 and Eliot's Fish
Camp at mile marker 197 from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. annually, Friday,
Saturday and Sunday of the second week of June. The proposed
regulations would permit the movement of spectator vessels and other
non-participants after the termination of race each day, and during
intervals between scheduled events at the discretion of the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under Section
3(f) of the Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
the 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
proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. The proposed regulation would last for only 10 hours each
day of the event.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal 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).
For reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605 (b) that this proposal, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Collection of Information
These proposed regulations contain no collection of information
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
Federalism
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact on this
proposal consistent with Section 2.B.2. of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B. In accordance with that section, this proposed action has
been environmentally assessed (EA completed), and the Coast Guard has
concluded that it will not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. An environmental assessment and a finding of no
significant impact have been prepared and are available in the docket
for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Waterways.
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 100 of Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, is proposed for amendment as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35
2. A new section 100.712 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 100.712 Annual River Race Augusta; Savannah River, Augusta GA.
(a) Definitions: (1) Regulated area. The regulated area is formed
by a line drawn directly across the Savannah River at the U.S. Highway
1 (Fifth Street) Bridge at mile marker 199.45 and directly across the
Savannah River at Eliot's Fish Camp at mile marker 197. The regulated
area would encompass
[[Page 13122]]
the width of the Savannah River between these two lines.
(2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander
is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Group Charleston, South
Carolina.
(b) Special local regulations. (1) Entry into regulated area is
prohibited to all non-participants.
(2) After termination of the River Race Augusta each day, and
during intervals between scheduled events, at the discretion of the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, all vessels may resume normal operations.
(c) Effective Dates. This section is effective at 7 a.m. and
terminates at 5 p.m. annually on Friday, Saturday and Sunday of the
second week of June. However, the requirements of this section may be
waived by a Coast Guard Notice to mariners.
Dated: March 13, 1996.
Roger T. Rufe, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-7306 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7304 Propeller Injury Prevention Aboard Rental Boats
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13123-13125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7304]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 183
[CGD 95-041]
Propeller Injury Prevention Aboard Rental Boats
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) is to gather current, specific, and accurate information about
the injuries involving propeller strikes and rented boats. In a request
for comments published May 11, 1995, the Coast Guard solicited comments
from all segments of the marine community and other interested persons
on various aspects of propeller accident avoidance aboard houseboats
and other displacement type recreational vessels. The information
received was voluminous, but was too general to be helpful. Consistent
with the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, the Coast Guard
is interested in obtaining maximum public involvement before it makes
any decision that would impose a new burden on the regulated community.
Information gathered in response to this ANPRM will supplement that
which the Coast Guard received in response to the request for comments
and will be used to determine the appropriate Federal and State roles
in reducing propeller-strike incidents, whether governmental
intervention is appropriate and, if so, whether it should be directed
at the vessels, their manufacturers, their operators or owners, or the
companies leasing such vessels. This ANPRM also announces one public
meeting at Coast Guard Headquarters at which individuals and interested
parties may make oral presentations about the propeller strike
avoidance issue. The Coast Guard has also arranged four other
opportunities, throughout the country, for those interested in this
subject to express their views.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406)(CGD95-041),
[[Page 13124]]
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC
20593-0001, or may be delivered to room 3406 at the above address
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-1477.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
notice. Comments will become a part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Randolph Doubt, Project Manager, Recreational Boating Product
Assurance Division, (202) 267-0984.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to submit written
data, views or arguments. Persons submitting comments should include
their names and addresses and identify this notice (CGD 95-041). 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.
Background Information
The Coast Guard published a request for comments on propeller
accidents involving houseboats and other displacement type recreational
vessels on May 11, 1995 [60 FR 25191]. In a second Federal Register
notice published August 9, 1995, the Coast Guard reopened and extended
the comment period until November 7, 1995. The Coast Guard received
1,994 responses. More than 1,800 of these were form letters from
individuals who support the development of regulations to require the
use of propeller guard technology or pump jet propulsion on vessels
used in the rental houseboat industry. An additional 69 comments
supporting the development of regulations to prevent the incidence of
propeller-strike accidents were received from accident victims and
their relatives, attorneys, physicians, State law enforcement agencies,
manufacturers of devices designed to prevent propeller-strike
accidents, and other individuals. Comments opposing regulations were
received from 57 boaters, nine houseboat livery operators and marinas,
members of 10 associations, committees, or councils, 13 boat and engine
manufacturers, and six naval architects or marine consultants.
Solicitation of Views
While available data in the Coast Guard's regulatory docket on this
subject does not fully support the costs or burdens that would be
imposed by Federal regulation, the number of responses received to the
request for comments indicates a great deal of public interest in
whether and how the Federal Government should act to prevent propeller-
strike accidents.
Persons submitting comments should do as directed under Request for
comments above, and reply to the following specific questions. Form
letters simply citing anecdotal evidence or stating support for, or
opposition to regulations, without providing substantive data or
arguments do not supply support for regulations.
1. The Coast Guard is making an effort to improve its database of
recreational boating accidents resulting in injuries which require
medical treatment beyond first aid. Part of that effort consists in
trying to determine the extent to which accidents involving propeller
strikes by rented boats are a problem. What information is available
regarding the incidence of propeller-strike injuries or fatalities
involving individuals who rent boats, and what trends, if any, do the
data indicate?
2. To what extent are data available to indicate whether the type
of propulsion (e.g., outboard motor, inboard engine or inboard-outboard
engine) contributes to the incidence of propeller-strike accidents
involving rental boats?
3. In two fatal accidents during the last several years, one on
Lake Shasta and one on Lake Havasu, the victim was in the water and was
struck by the propeller when a rental houseboat was put in reverse and
backed into them. Several other houseboat accidents have resulted in
injuries. The Coast Guard is interested in determining whether
accidents involving propeller strikes and rented houseboats occur
nationwide, or are limited to a few States or bodies of water. If the
latter is the case, do any particular hazardous local conditions
contribute to the likelihood of such accidents? If so, the Coast Guard
is interested in determining the nature and location of those
conditions.
4. To what extent are data available on the relationship between
the consumption of alcohol or the use of controlled substances and
propeller-strike accidents involving rental boats?
5. Some States have laws requiring boat operators to complete a
boating safety course.
a. To what extent do available data indicate whether boater
behavior patterns, a lack of boating education, or a lack of boating
law enforcement contribute to the incidence of propeller-strike
accidents involving rental boats?
b. Do data indicate whether mandatory boating education for
individuals renting boats with propellers significantly contribute to a
reduction in the number of propeller-strike accidents?
c. If so, do data indicate what type of boating education would be
the most effective?
d. What other vessel operator-oriented requirements might reduce
the incidence of propeller-strike accidents involving rental boats?
e. What economic or other burdens would be imposed on companies
leasing recreational boats if either the Federal or State Government
was to require education of individuals renting propeller-driven boats?
6. The two fatal accidents mentioned above occurred when
individuals were in the water astern of the vessels and the vessels
were put in reverse. While limited operator visibility astern may have
contributed to the accidents, the transom is also the usual location
for swim platforms and boarding ladders for swimmers. Do available data
indicate whether vessel design features contribute to the incidence of
propeller-strike accidents involving rental boats? If so, what vessel
design features might reduce the incidence of propeller-strike
accidents involving rental boats?
7. Are there any proven technologies that would help reduce the
risk of propeller-strike accidents involving rented boats? What
technologies are unacceptable, and for what reasons?
8. The two fatal accidents mentioned above involved rental
houseboats. If the Coast Guard developed regulations in this area, how
should it define the term, ``houseboat?'' Are there any other vessel
types the Coast Guard should consider regulating? If so, what vessels,
if any, should be excepted from such regulations?
9. What, if any, types of information should be displayed on boats
and/or motors leased, rented or chartered for noncommercial use for the
purpose of alerting operators or passengers to the dangers of a
propeller strike?
10. What are the economic and other impacts on companies renting
boats or other entities if the Coast Guard were to require companies to
retrofit such vessels with devices or methods of propulsion designed to
reduce the
[[Page 13125]]
incidence of propeller-strike accidents? In considering regulations,
the Coast Guard must assess the potential adverse impacts on small
business entities. To what extent are small entities engaged in leasing
recreational boats?
11. a. How many companies are currently leasing propeller-driven
boats for bareboat charters by the recreational boating public? How
many vessels are involved and on which bodies of water?
b. How many companies are currently offering propeller-driven
uninspected boats for charter by the recreational boating public? How
many vessels are involved and on which bodies of water?
12. What adverse impacts might result from a regulation requiring
livery companies to verbally brief individuals renting propeller-driven
boats about the dangers of propeller-strike accidents, and requiring
individuals chartering such vessels to acknowledge receiving the
information?
13. Under current Federal statutes (46 U.S.C. 4306), the States do
not have the authority to establish carriage requirements for
associated equipment, such as a mechanical means for preventing
propeller strikes, on vessels operated on waters where both the Coast
Guard and the State have jurisdiction. However, a State may impose more
stringent requirements on vessels such as rental boats on waters
subject to the State's exclusive jurisdiction, so long as such a
requirement is not imposed upon vessel manufacturers. What is the
proper role for the States in reducing propeller-strike accidents
involving rented boats? If the Coast Guard allowed the States to
regulate the equipment carried, or the use of rental boats, how would
interstate commerce be affected?
Open Meetings
A subcommittee of the National Boating Safety Advisory Council, and
the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators are
studying the propeller injury prevention issue. The Coast Guard invites
interested parties and the public to make brief oral presentations
about the propeller injury prevention issue during the following
meetings or events:
From 5 to 7 p.m., Monday, April 22, 1996 at the National Water
Safety Congress Professional Development Seminar at the Boardwalk
Resort in Panama City, FL, (April 23-25, 1996).
From 3 to 5 p.m., Monday April 29, 1996 at the National Boating
Safety Advisory Council Meeting at the Parc Fifty-Five Hotel in San
Francisco, CA (April 27-29, 1996).
From 8:30 to 10:30 a.m., Wednesday May 1, 1996 at the Northeastern
States Boating Law Administrators Conference in the Camden Room at the
Samoset Resort in Rockland, ME (April 29-30, 1996).
From 1 to 4 p.m., Monday, May 6, 1996 in Room 2415 of Coast Guard
Headquarters in Washington, DC.
From 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Sunday, May 19, 1996 at the Southern
States Boating Law Administrator Conference at the Royal Sonesta Hotel
in New Orleans, LA (May 18-22, 1996).
Those wishing to give an oral presentation should submit their
name, address, and organization represented (if any) at least seven
days prior to the particular meeting or event, to COMMANDANT (G-NAB-6),
room 1505, U.S. Coat Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001, Attn: Mr. Jay Doubt. Individuals wishing to
give an oral presentation who fail to notify the Coast Guard within
seven days of a particular meeting or event will be allowed to do so if
time permits.
Those giving oral presentations are reminded of the necessity to
also furnish written comments, if those comments are intended for
inclusion in the regulatory docket.
The Coast Guard will consider all relevant comments in determining
what action may be necessary to address propeller accidents involving
rented propeller-driven vessels.
Dated: March 15, 1996.
Rudy K. Peschel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Navigation Safety and
Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 96-7304 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7303 Special Local Regulations; Miami Super Boat Race; Miami Beach, FL
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13122-13123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7303]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD07-96-018]
RIN 2115-AE46
Special Local Regulations; Miami Super Boat Race; Miami Beach, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish permanent special
local regulations for the Miami Super Boat Race. This event will be
held annually on the second Sunday of June, between 12:30 p.m. and 3:30
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Historically, there have been approximately
35 participant and 200 spectator craft. The resulting congestion of
navigable channels creates an extra or unusual hazard in the navigable
waters. These proposed regulations are necessary to provide for the
safety of life on navigable waters during the event. By establishing
these proposed permanent regulations, the Coast Guard expects to give
better notice of requirements related to marine events, and also avoid
the recurring costs of publication related with temporary regulations.
However, the establishment of these proposed permanent regulations
would not relieve the event organizers from applying for an annual
marine event permit.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to U.S. Coast Guard Group Miami, 100
Macarthur Causeway, Miami Beach, FL 33139-5101 or may be delivered to
operations office at the same address between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (305)
535-4448. Comments will become a part of the public docket and will be
available for copying and inspection at the same address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
QMC T. E. Kjerulff, Coast Guard Group Miami, FL at (305) 535-4448.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written views, data, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names, addresses,
identify the notice (CGD07-96-018) and the specific section of this
proposal to which their comments apply, and give reasons for each
comment. The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. The regulations may be changed in view of the comments
received. All comments received before the expiration of the comment
period will be considered before final action is taken on this
proposal.
No public hearing is planned, but one may be held if the written
requests for a hearing are received, and it is determined that the
opportunity to make oral presentations will add to the rulemaking
process.
Discussion of Proposed Regulations
The proposed regulations are needed to provide for the safety of
life during the Miami Superboat Race. This event will be held annually
on the second Sunday of June, between 12:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time. These regulations are intended to promote safe
navigation on the waters off Miami Beach during the races by
controlling the traffic entering, exiting, and traveling within these
waters. Historically, there have been approximately 35 participant and
200 spectator craft during the race. The anticipated concentration of
spectator and participant vessels associated with the Miami Super Boat
Race poses a safety concern, which is addressed in these proposed
special local regulations. The resulting congestion of navigable
channels creates an extra or unusual hazard in the navigable waters.
These regulations are intended to promote safe navigation on the waters
off Miami Beach during the race by restricting vessels from entering
the race area described below and permit anchoring only in the
designated spectator area.
The proposed race area would be formed by a line joining the
following points:
25 deg.46.3' N, 080 deg.07.85' W; thence to,
25 deg.46.3' N, 080 deg.06.82' W; thence to,
25 deg.51.3' N, 080 deg.06.2' W; thence to,
25 deg.51.3' N, 080 deg.07.18' W; thence along the shoreline to the
starting point. All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 1983.
A spectator area would be established in the regulated area for
spectator traffic and would be defined by a line joining the
following points, beginning from:
25 deg.51.3' N, 080 deg.06.15' W; thence to,
25 deg.51.3' N, 080 deg.05.85' W; thence to,
25 deg.46.3' N, 080 deg.06.55' W; thence to,
25 deg.46.3'N, 080 deg. 06.77' W; and back to the starting point.
All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 1983. The proposed
regulation would also include a buffer zone of 300 feet between the
race course and the spectator area defined above.
Entry into the proposed regulated area by other than event
participants would be prohibited unless otherwise authorized by the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander. However, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander
could at his discretion permit traffic to resume normal operations
between scheduled racing events.
The proposed regulations would also establish safety measures of 5
short whistle or horn blasts from a patrol vessel to signal any and all
vessels to take immediate steps to avoid collision. The display of an
orange distress smoke signal from a patrol vessel would be the signal
for any and all vessels to stop immediately. All spectators not in the
designated spectator areas above would be required to remain clear of
the race area at all times.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under Section
3(f) of the Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
the 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
proposed rule to be so minimal that a
[[Page 13123]]
full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory
policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The proposed regulation
would last for only 4 hours each day of the event.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal 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).
For reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Collection of Information
These proposed regulations contain no collection of information
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
Federalism
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
proposal and has concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement is not necessary. An Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact are available in the docket for inspection or
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. The Coast Guard has concluded
that this proposed action would not significantly affect the quality of
the human environment.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Waterways.
Proposed Regulations
in consideration of the foregoing, Part 100 of Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. A new section 100.714 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 100.714 Annual Miami Super Boat Race; Miami Beach, FL.
(a) Definitions: (1) Regulated Areas. The regulated area includes
the race course area, the spectator area, and a buffer zone.
(i) The race course area is formed by a line joining the following
points:
25 deg.46.3' N, 080 deg.07.85' W; thence to,
25 deg.46.3' N, 080 deg.06.82' W; thence to,
25 deg.51.3' N, 080 deg.06.2' W; thence to,
25 deg.51.3' N, 080 deg.07.18' W; thence along the shoreline to the
starting point.
All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 1983.
(ii) A spectator area is established in the regulated area for
spectator traffic and is defined by a line joining the following
points, beginning from:
25 deg. 51.3' N, 080 deg. 06.15' W; thence to,
25 deg. 51.3' N, 080 deg. 05.85' W; thence to,
25 deg. 46.3' N, 080 deg. 06.55' W; thence to,
25 deg. 46.3' N, 080 deg. 06.77' W; and back to the starting point.
All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 1983.
(iii) A buffer zone of 300 feet is established between the race
course and the spectator area.
(2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander
is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Captain of the Port, Miami, Florida.
(b) Special local regulations: (1) Entry into the race course area
by other than event participants is prohibited unless otherwise
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. At the completion of
scheduled races and departure of participants from the regulated area,
traffic may resume normal operations. At the discretion of the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander, between scheduled racing events, traffic may be
permitted to resume normal operations.
(2) A succession of not fewer than 5 short whistle or horn blasts
from a patrol vessel will be the signal for any and all vessels to take
immediate steps to avoid a collision. The display of an orange distress
smoke signal from a patrol vessel will be the signal for any and all
vessels to stop immediately.
(3) Spectators not in the designated spectator areas, defined in
paragraph (a) of the regulated area, are required to maintain clear of
the race course area at all times.
(c) Effective Dates: This section is effective at 12 p.m. and
terminates at 4 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time annually during the second
Sunday of June.
Dated: March 14, 1996.
Roger T. Rufe, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-7303 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7296 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Kaiser, MO, Camdenton, MO, Sedalia, MO, West Plains, MO, Point Lookout, MO, St. Charles, MO, Monett, MO, Butler, MO, Monroe City, MO, Farmington, MO, Fort Leavenworth, Sherman Army Airfield, KS, and Dodge City, KS
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13115-13117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7296]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-02]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Kaiser, MO, Camdenton,
MO, Sedalia, MO, West Plains, MO, Point Lookout, MO, St. Charles, MO,
Monett, MO, Butler, MO, Monroe City, MO, Farmington, MO, Fort
Leavenworth, Sherman Army Airfield, KS, and Dodge City, KS
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Kaiser, Lee C. Fine Memorial Airport, MO, Camdenton Memorial Airport,
Camdenton, MO, Sedalia Memorial Airport, Sedalia, MO, West Plains
Municipal Airport, West Plains, MO, M. Graham Clark Airport, Point
Lookout, MO, St. Charles Co. Smartt Airport, St. Charles, MO, Monett
Municipal Airport, Monett, MO, Butler Memorial Airport, Butler, MO,
Monroe City Regional Airport, Monroe City, MO, Farmington Regional
Airport, Farmington, MO, Fort Leavenworth, Sherman AAF, KS, and Dodge
City Regional Airport, Dodge City, KS. The development of new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) based on the Global Positioning
System (GPS) at the above locations has made the proposal necessary.
The intended effect of this proposal is to provide additional
controlled airspace for aircraft executing the SIAP at the above listed
airports.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Air
Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
Docket No. 96-ACE-02, 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
rulemking 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 as self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
ACE-02.'' 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 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedure at the St.
Charles Co. Smartt Airport, MO; Camdenton Memorial Airport, MO; Monett
Municipal Airport, MO; West Plains Municipal Airport, MO; Butler
Municipal Airport, MO; Point Lookout, M. Graham Clark Airport, MO;
Sedalia Memorial Airport, MO; Monroe City Regional Airport, MO;
Farmington Regional Airport, MO; Kaiser, Lee C. Fine Airport, MO; Fort
Leavenworth, Sherman AAF, KS; and Dodge City Regional Airport, KS. 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.
[[Page 13116]]
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 MO E5 Kaiser, MO
Kaiser, Lee E. Fine Memorial Airport, MO
(lat. 38 deg.05'46'' N., long. 92 deg.32'59'' W.)
Camdenton Memorial Airport, MO
(lat 37 deg.58'29'' N., long. 92 deg.41'30'' W.)
Osage Beach, Linn Creek-Grand Glaize Memorial Airport, MO
(lat 38 deg.06'28'' N., long. 92 deg.40'50'' W.)
Kaiser NDB
(lat. 38 deg.05'48'' N., long. 92 deg.33'11'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Lee C. Fine Memorial Airport and within
2.6 miles each side of the 045 deg. bearing of the Kaiser NDB
extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the Lee C. Fine Memorial
Airport to 7.9 miles northeast of the airport and within a 6.3-mile
radius of Camdenton Memorial Airport and within a 6.3-mile radius of
Linn Creek-Grand Glaize Memorial Airport.
* * * * *
ACE MO E5 Sedalia, MO
Sedalia Memorial Airport, MO
(lat 38 deg.42'25'' N., long. 93 deg.10'34'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of Sedalia Memorial Airport and within 2.6
miles each side of the 011 deg. bearing from Sedalia Memorial
Airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7 miles north of the
airport and within 2.6 miles each side of the 178 deg. bearing from
Sedalia Memorial Airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7
miles south of the airport.
* * * * *
ACE MO E5 West Plains, MO
West Plains Municipal Airport, MO
(lat. 36 deg.52'41'' N., long. 91 deg.54'10'' W.)
Pomona NDB
(lat. 36 deg.52'42'' N, long. 91 deg.54'02'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of West Plain Municipal Airport and within
2.6 miles each side of the 185 deg. bearing from the Pomona NDB
extending from the 6.4-mile radius of the West Plains Municipal
Airport to 7.4 miles south of the NDB.
* * * * *
ACE MO E5 Point Lookout, MO
Point Lookout, M. Graham Clark Airport, MO
(lat. 36 deg.37'33'' N., long. 93 deg.13'44'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of M. Graham Clark Airport and within 2.6
miles each side of the 123 deg. bearing from the M. Graham Clark
Airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles southeast of
the airport.
* * * * *
ACE MO E5 St. Louis, MO
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport
(lat. 38 deg. 44'51'' N., long. 90 deg.21'36'' W.)
Spirit of St. Louis Airport, MO
(lat. 38 deg.39'43'' N., long 90 deg.39'00'' W.)
St. Louis Regional Airport, Alton, IL
(lat 38 deg.53'25'' N., long. 90 deg.02'45'' W.)
St. Charles County Smartt Airport, St. Charles, MO
(lat. 38 deg.55'47'' N., long. 90 deg.25'47'' W.)
St. Louis VORTAC
(lat. 38 deg.51'38'' N., long. 90 deg.28'57'' W.)
Foristell VORTAC
(lat. 38 deg.41'40'' N., long. 90 deg.58'17'' W.)
ZUMAY LOM
(lat. 38 deg.47'17'' N., long. 90 deg.16'44'' W.)
OBLIO LOM
(lat. 38 deg.48'01'' N., long. 90 deg.28'29'' W.)
Civic Memorial NDB
(lat. 38 deg.53'32'' N., long. 90 deg.03'23'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of the Lambert-St. Louis International
Airport, and within 4 miles southeast and 7 miles northwest of the
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport Runway 24 ILS localizer
course extending from the airport to 10.5 miles northeast of the
ZUMAY LOM, and within 4 miles southwest and 7.9 miles northeast of
the Lambert-St. Louis Airport Runway 12R ILS localizer course
extending from the airport to 10.5 miles northwest of the OBLIO LOM,
and within 4 miles southwest and 7.9 miles northeast of the Lambert-
St. Louis Airport Runway 30L ILS localizer southeast course
extending from the airport to 8.7 miles southeast of the airport,
and within a 6.6-mile radius of Spirit of St. Louis Airport and
within 2.6 miles each side of the 098 deg. radial of the Foristell
VORTAC extending from the 6.6-mile radius area to 8.3 miles west of
the airport, and within a 6.4-mile radius of St. Charles County
Smartt Airport, and within a 6.7-mile radius of St. Louis Regional
Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 014 deg. bearing from
the Civic Memorial NDB extending from 6.7-mile radius to 7 miles
north of the airport, and within 4.4 miles each side of the 190 deg.
radial of the St. Louis VORTAC extending from 2 miles south of the
VORTAC to 22.1 miles south of the VORTAC.
* * * * *
ACE MO E5 Monett, MO
Monett Municipal Airport, MO
(lat. 36 deg.54'39'' N., long. 94 deg.00'46'' W.)
Neosho VORTAC
(lat. 36 deg.50'33'' N., long. 94 deg. 26'08'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Monett Municipal Airport and within 1.8
miles each side of the Neosho VORTAC 079 deg. radial extending from
the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles west of the airport.
* * * * *
ACE MO E5 Butler, MO
Butler Memorial Airport, MO
(lat. 38 deg.17'23'' N, long. 94 deg.20'25'' W.)
Butler VORTAC
(lat 38 deg.16''29'' N., long. 94 deg.29'18'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Butler Memorial Airport and within 1.8
miles each side of the 082 deg. radial of the Butler VORTAC
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to the VORTAC.
* * * * *
ACE MO E5 Monroe City, MO
Monroe City Regional Airport, MO
(lat. 39 deg.38'04'' N., long. 91 deg.43'38'' W.)
Quincy VORTAC
(lat. 39 deg.50'53'' N., long. 91 deg.16'44'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.2-mile radius of Monroe City Regional Airport and within
3.5 miles each side of the Quincy VORTAC 239 deg. radial extending
from the 6.2-mile radius to 7 miles northeast of the airport.
* * * * *
ACE MO E5 Farmington, MO
Farmington Regional Airport, MO
(lat. 37 deg.45'42'' N., long. 90 deg.25'41'' W.)
Farmington VORTAC
(lat. 37 deg.40'24'' N., long. 90 deg.14'03'' W.)
Perrine NDB
(lat. 37 deg.45'54'' N., long. 90 deg.25'45'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Farmington Regional Airport and within
2.6 miles each side of the 034 deg. bearing from the Perrine NDB
extending from the 6.4 mile radius to 7.9 miles north of the
airport, and within 2.6 miles each side of the 191 deg. bearing from
the Perrine NDB extending from the 6.4 mile radius to 7.9 miles
south of the airport, and within 1.3 miles each side of the
Farmington VORTAC 300 deg. radial extending from the 6.4-mile radius
to the VORTAC.
* * * * *
ACE MO E5 Kansas City International Airport, MO
Kansas City International Airport, MO
(lat. 39 deg.17'57'' N., long. 94 deg.43'05'' W.)
Kansas City Downtown Airport, MO
(lat. 39 deg.07'24'' N., long. 94 deg.35'34'' W.)
Fort Leavenworth, Sherman Army Airfield (AAF), KS
(lat. 39 deg.22'06'' N., long. 94 deg.54'53'' W.)
Kansas City VORTAC
[[Page 13117]]
(lat. 39 deg.16'46'' N., long. 94 deg.35'28'' W.)
DOTTE LOM
(lat. 39 deg.13'15'' N., long. 94 deg.45'00'' W.)
Riverside VOR/DME
(lat. 39 deg.07'14'' N., long. 94 deg.35'48'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of the Kansas City Downtown Airport and
within 3 miles each side of the 210 deg. radial of the Riverside
VOR/DME extending from the 6-mile radius to 12.6 miles southwest of
the Downtown Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of the Sherman
AAF and within a 6-mile radius of the Kansas City International
Airport, and within 4.4 miles each side of the Kansas City
International Runway 19 ILS localizer north course extending from
the 6-mile radius to 21.7 miles north of the DOTTE LOM, and within
4.4 miles each side of the 096 deg. radial of the Kansas City VORTAC
extending from the Kansas City International Airport 6-mile radius
to 5 miles east of the Kansas City VORTAC, and within 2.5 miles each
side of the Kansas City International Runway 1 ILS localizer south
course extending from the 6-mile radius to 9.3 miles south of the
DOTTE LOM.
* * * * *
ACE KS E5 Dodge City, KS
Dodge City Regional Airport, KS
(lat. 37 deg.45'44'' N., long. 99 deg.57'54'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Dodge City Regional Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on March 1, 1996.
Christopher R. Blum,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-7296 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7295 Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13144-13146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7295]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 195
[Docket PS-140(c), Notice 5]
RIN 2137-AC34
Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Public workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: RSPA invites industry, government agencies, and the public to
the fourth workshop on unusually sensitive areas (USAs). The purpose of
this workshop is to openly discuss the terms to be used in describing
USAs, and the scope and objectives of the additional USA workshops.
This workshop is a continuation of the USA workshops held June 15-16,
1995; October 17, 1995; and January 18, 1996.
DATES: The workshop will be held on April 10-11, 1996 from 8:30 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. Persons who are unable to attend may submit written comments
in duplicate by May 28, 1996. However, persons submitting comments to
be considered at the April 10-11 workshop must do so by April 3, 1996.
Interested persons should submit as part of their written comments all
material that is relevant to a statement of fact or argument. Late
filed comments will be considered so far as practicable.
ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the U.S. DOT, Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street SW., Room 8236-40, Washington, DC. Non-federal
employee visitors are admitted into the DOT building through the
southwest entrance at Seventh and E Streets, SW. Persons who want to
participate in the workshop should call (202) 366-2392 or e-mail their
name, affiliation, and phone number to [email protected] before close
of business April 3, 1996.
Send written comments in duplicate to the Dockets Unit, Room 8421,
RSPA, U.S. DOT, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Identify the docket and notice numbers stated in the heading of this
notice.
All comments and docketed materials will be available for
inspection and copying in Room 8421 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
each business day. A summary of the workshop will be available from the
Dockets Unit about three weeks after the workshop.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Sames, (202) 366-4561, about
this document, or the Dockets Unit,
[[Page 13145]]
(202) 366-5046, for copies of this document or other material in the
docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C.
Sec. 60109) require the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe
regulations that establish criteria for identifying each hazardous
liquid pipeline facility and gathering line, whether otherwise subject
to 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601, located in an area that the Secretary, in
consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), describes
as unusually sensitive to environmental damage if there is a hazardous
liquid pipeline accident.
Consistent with the President's regulatory policy (E.O. 12866),
RSPA wants to accomplish this congressional mandate at the least cost
to society. Toward this end, RSPA is seeking early public participation
in the rulemaking process by holding public workshops at which
participants, including RSPA staff, may exchange views on relevant
issues. RSPA hopes these workshops will enable government and industry
to reach a better understanding of the problem and the potential
solutions before proposed rules are issued.
On June 15 and 16, 1995, RSPA held the first public workshop to
openly discuss the criteria being considered to determine USAs (60 FR
27948; May 26, 1995). Participants included representatives from the
hazardous liquid pipeline industry; the Departments of Interior,
Agriculture, Transportation, and Commerce; EPA; non-government
agencies; and the public. Participants requested that additional
workshops be held to further discuss this complex topic .
On October 17, 1995, RSPA held a second public workshop that
focused on developing a process that could be used to determine if an
area is a USA (60 FR 44824; August 29, 1995). Participants asked that
the process include a series of workshops on topics such as guiding
principles, the definition of terms that may be used when referring to
USAs, drinking water source protection, biological resources, and human
use resources.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) provided information on its
current USA research and suggested that any final definition consider
the resource to be protected, the likelihood of a given pipeline
impacting that resource, and what can be done to reduce the risk to the
resource. Other participants suggested integrating factors on the
likelihood of a rupture occurring and the severity of the consequence
into the USA definition. Participants also brainstormed guiding
principles that could be used when determining if a given area is a
USA.
RSPA held a third workshop on January 18, 1996, to further discuss
the guiding principles for determining USAs (61 FR 342; January 4,
1996). The primary concerns voiced in this workshop were that drinking
water resources and significant ecological resources be considered USA
but that economic or recreational areas not be intrinsically considered
USAs. A secondary concern voiced by the participants was the need to
consider cultural resources as USAs.
Indian tribal concerns were also identified and participants
requested that additional research be conducted in this area.
Participants at the workshop also discussed the following guiding
principles for the USA identification process and asked that the
following be considered:
1. A functional definition of significance must be developed to
determine USAs.
2. Human health and safety.
3. Serious threat of contamination.
4. Only areas in the trajectory of a potential spill, e.g. down
gradient.
5. Not all areas identified as USAs will require preventative
measures but all candidates for USAs will require protection through
response planning under 49 CFR part 194. The process should clarify how
sensitive areas are protected under the Pipeline Safety Act separate
and apart from protection under the 49 CFR part 194.
6. Operators that have voluntarily taken measures that exceed the
regulatory requirements to minimize the potential for spills in their
operations should receive credit for these measures in other
rulemakings, thereby resulting in exemptions from these additional
rulemakings.
7. It is expected that no pipeline operator will be required to
collect natural field resource data to determine USAs.
8. USAs should be subject to a systematic review process. USAs may
change through time as species migrate, change location or for other
reasons. The USA definition should be explicit and practical in
application.
9. All phases of the USA definition process should be pilot tested
for validity, practicality, and workability, to the extent practical.
10. The government agencies must describe and identify USAs so that
the data will not be subject to various interpretations and will be
applied consistently. The standards and criteria for resource
sensitivity should be uniform on a national basis such that equivalent
resources receive equivalent sensitivity assessments regardless of
regionally based response priorities.
11. Sources of USA data must be readily available to the public and
uniform in criteria and standards. The standards and criteria for
resource sensitivity should be uniform on a national basis such that
equivalent resources receive equivalent sensitivity assessments
regardless of regionally based priorities.
The following diagram was created to display how the process could
work:
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
[[Page 13146]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR96.012
BILLING CODE 4910-60-C
Finally, participants brain stormed and identified the USA terms
that they thought needed to be clarified. The following list is the
result of that discussion. The workshop on April 10 will focus on the
criteria, components, and parameters of these terms. This list is not
final and RSPA invites comments on these terms and submissions of
additional terms. This list and any additional terms that are submitted
to the docket before April 3 will be considered at the April 10
workshop:
1. Serious threat
2. Contamination
3. Significant
4. Ecological
5. Economic areas
6. Recreational areas
7. Cultural areas
8. Readily available
9. Uniform
The workshop on April 11 will focus on the scope and objectives of
the additional USA workshops on drinking water sources, ecological
resources, cultural resources, and Indian tribal concerns. RSPA invites
comments on the scope and objectives of these additional workshops.
Items that are submitted to the docket before April 3 will be
considered at the April 11 workshop.
Persons interested in receiving a transcript of the first or third
workshop, the summary of the second workshop, material presented at the
workshops, or comments submitted to the docket should contact the
Dockets Unit at (202) 366-5046 and reference docket PS-140, PS-140(b),
and PS-140(c).
Issued in Washington, DC on March 21, 1996.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 96-7295 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7288 New Mexico Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13117-13119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7288]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 931
[SPATS No. NM-037-FOR]
New Mexico Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public
hearing on proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is
announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the New Mexico regulatory
program (hereinafter, the ``New Mexico program'') under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The proposed
amendment consists of revisions to or additions of rules pertaining to
permit application contents for contour maps of the permit area and
operations exclusively under reclamation, permit approval or denial,
contents of bond release applications, timeliness of backfilling and
grading, approval of small depressions, performance standards for all
roads and primary roads, and blaster examination and certification
requirements. The amendment is intended to revise the New Mexico
program to incorporate the additional flexibility afforded by the
revised Federal regulations, as
[[Page 13118]]
amended, and improve operational efficiency.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t., April
25, 1996. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will
be held on April 22, 1996. Requests to present oral testimony at the
hearing must be received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t., on April 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or hand delivered to Guy
Padgett at the address listed below.
Copies of the New Mexico program, the proposed amendment, and all
written comments received in response to this document will be
available for public review at the addresses listed below during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Each
requester may receive one free copy of the proposed amendment by
contacting OSM's Albuquerque Field Office.
Guy Padgett, Director, Albuquerque Field Office, Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 505 Marquette Avenue, NW., Suite
1200, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
Mining and Minerals Division, New Mexico Energy and Minerals
Department, 2040 South Pacheco Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,
Telephone: (505) 827-5970
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy Padgett, Telephone: (505) 248-
5081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the New Mexico Program
On December 31, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the New Mexico program. General background information on the
New Mexico program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition
of comments, and the conditions of approval of the New Mexico program
can be found in the December 31, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 86459).
Subsequent actions concerning New Mexico's program and program
amendments can be found at 30 CFR 931.11, 931,15, 931.16, and 931.30.
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated March 11, 1996, New Mexico submitted a proposed
amendment to its program pursuant to SMCRA (administrative record No.
NM-773, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). New Mexico submitted the proposed
amendment at its own initiative. The provisions of the Coal Surface
Mining Commission (CSMC) rules that New Mexico proposes to revise or
add are:
CSMC Rule 80-1-5-23(a), concerning general requirements for permit
applications, by adding a reference to Part 15 for mines exclusively
under reclamation;
CSMC Rule 80-1-8-25(k), concerning contour maps with a maximum of 5
foot contour intervals in permit applications, by deleting specific
requirements at CSMC Rule 80-1-8-25(k) (1) through (3) for showing the
existing land surface configuration for the proposed affected areas and
adding the requirement that the existing land surface configuration be
shown for the proposed permit area;
CSMC Rule 80-1-11-19(c), concerning criteria for permit approval or
denial, by adding the word ``hydrological'' to the phrase ``probable
cumulative hydrological impacts'' and the acronym ``(CHIA)'' following
the phrase;
CSMC Rule 80-1-14-40(a), concerning bond release applications, by
adding a new paragraph (a)(2) which summarizes the minimum contents of
an application for a bond release and revising recodified paragraph
(a)(3) to delete a bond release application content requirement that is
now part of new paragraph (a)(2);
CSMC Rule 80-1-15, concerning minimum requirements for permit
applications for coal mining operations exclusively under reclamation,
by adding a new Part 15 which consists of requirements for: general
information at 15-11, information concerning identification of
interests at 15-12(a) through (j), compliance information at 15-13(a)
through (d), right of entry and operation information at 15-14(a) and
(b), permit term information at 15-15(a) and (b), personal injury and
property damage insurance information at 15-16, identification of other
licenses and permits at 15-17(a) through (d), identification of
location of public office for filing of application at 15-18, newspaper
advertisement and proof of publication at 15-19, general environmental
resources information at 15-20(a) through (f), the operation plan at
15-21(a) and (b), the fish and wildlife plan at 15-22(a) and (b), the
reclamation plan including protection of the hydrologic balance,
postmining land uses, and ponds, impoundments, banks, dams, and
embankments, at respectively, 15-23(a) and (b), 15-24(a) through (e),
15-25(a) and (b), and 15-26(a) through (e), and protection of public
parks and historic places at 15-27;
CSMC 80-1-20-101(a), concerning backfilling and grading
requirements for contour mining, open pit mining, and strip mining, by
deleting from 20-101(a)(1) through (3) all time limits by which
backfilling and grading must commence so that the existing distance
limits are the only measure of when backfilling and grading must
commence, and replacing the term ``area strip mining'' with the term
``strip mining'' at 20-101(a)(3);
CSMC 80-1-20-102(c), concerning backfilling and grading to create
small depressions, to add the allowance for New Mexico to approval
small depressions if they create and enhance wildlife habitat;
CSMC 80-1-20-150(b), concerning performance standards for all
roads, to delete the requirement at 20-150(b)(9) that all roads have,
at a minimum, a static safety factor of 1.3 for all embankments;
CSMC 80-1-20-151(a), concerning performance standards for primary
roads, to add at 20-151(a)(5) the requirement that all primary roads
have a static factor of safety of 1.3, at a minimum, for all
embankments; and
CSMC 80-1-33-14 and 80-1-33-15, concerning examination and
certification for blasters, by deleting the existing requirements and
replacing them with new requirements for (1) examination at 33-14(a)
and (b) that include a written exam to demonstrate competence and a
minimum of one year of practical field experience and (2) certification
at 33-15(a) through (e) that include requirements for certification
every four years, suspension and revocation of certification,
recertification (by reexamination, training, and demonstration),
protection of certification, and conditions for maintaining
certification.
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is
seeking comments on whether the proposed amendment satisfies the
applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment
is deemed adequate, it will become part of the New Mexico program.
1. Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the 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 Albuquerque Field Office
will not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included
in the administrative record.
2. Public Hearing
Persons wishing to testify at the public hearing should contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m.,
[[Page 13119]]
m.d.t., on April 10, 1996. Any disabled individual who has need for a
special accommodation to attend a public hearing should contact the
individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The location
and time of the hearing will be arranged with those persons requesting
the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to testify at the 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 testify have been heard. Persons in the audience
who have not been scheduled to testify, and who wish to do so, will be
heard following those who have been scheduled. The hearing will end
after all persons scheduled to testify and persons present in the
audience who wish to testify have been heard.
3. Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to testify 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 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 at the
locations listed under ADDRESSES. A written summary of each meeting
will be made a part of the administrative record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
1. Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
2. Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that 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 the Federal regulations at 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.
3. 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 of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
5. 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 that 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. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OMS 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 931
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 19, 1996.
Russell F. Price,
Acting Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 96-7288 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7286 Salmon Fisheries Off the Coast of Alaska; Removal of Implementing Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13149-13150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7286]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 674
[Docket No. 960314075-6083-04; I.D. 031196D]
RIN 0648-AI16
Salmon Fisheries Off the Coast of Alaska; Removal of Implementing
Regulations
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces its initial determination to withdraw approval
of the Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the Coast of Alaska East of 175 deg.
E. Long. (FMP). NMFS proposes to remove the regulations implementing
the FMP. This action is necessary, because NMFS has determined that the
State of Alaska adequately manages the salmon fisheries in Federal
waters, and, therefore, the need for a Federal FMP no longer exists.
This action is in accordance with the President's Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative.
DATES: Comments must be received at the following address by May 9,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries
Management Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802-1668, Attn: Lori Gravel. Individual copies of the Environmental
Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review prepared for this action may be
obtained from the same address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kaja Brix, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act)
authorizes the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to
prepare and amend fishery management plans for any fishery in waters
under its jurisdiction. In December 1978, the Council prepared the FMP
and submitted it to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for approval.
The Secretary approved the FMP, and it was implemented in May 1979 with
Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 674.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, submitted a
letter, dated February 23, 1996, to the Council Chairman, expressing
NMFS' intent to withdraw approval of the FMP and to remove its
implementing regulations. The State of Alaska would retain its
authority to manage State-permitted vessels in Federal waters.
Currently, all vessels that fish for salmon in Federal waters are
registered under the laws of the State of Alaska, and, therefore, are
subject to the State laws governing the fishery. In the unlikely event
that unregistered vessels were to conduct directed salmon fishing
operations in the EEZ, NMFS could address the problem through
regulatory action pursuant to the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985 or
the Magnuson Act.
The FMP originally established the Council's management authority
over the salmon fisheries in the Federal waters off the coast of Alaska
east of 175 deg. E. long., including parts of the Gulf of Alaska,
Bering Sea, Chuckchi Sea, and Arctic Ocean. The International North
Pacific Fisheries Commission, which is authorized by the International
Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean,
manages salmon fisheries west of 175 deg. E. long.
The FMP management area is divided into two management units
located east and west of the longitude of Cape Suckling
(143 deg.53'35'' W. long.). The FMP has historically focused on the
troll fishery in the eastern management
[[Page 13150]]
unit. Implementing regulations governing the troll fishery consisted of
several management measures, including a fishing season, gear
restrictions, a limit on the number of vessel troll permits, and a
requirement for trollers to have either a State of Alaska or a Federal
limited entry troll permit. The Council intended all of its management
measures governing the sport fishery and the commercial troll fishery
to complement State of Alaska regulations for the salmon fisheries in
adjacent State waters. The FMP has been amended four times. Amendment 3
deferred the management of the salmon fisheries to the State of Alaska.
NMFS has considered the adequacy of State of Alaska management of
salmon fisheries within waters of the Council's area of authority with
respect to advisory guidelines at 50 CFR part 602, and has determined
that State management is adequate. Therefore, NMFS has determined that
Federal management is not necessary and proposes to withdraw
Secretarial approval of the FMP and remove the implementing Federal
regulations.
Classification
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities because the State of Alaska is already managing the
fishery with its regulations. Removal of Federal regulations eliminates
duplication of effort but does not effect management of the fishery. As
a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.
Consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
will be initiated for the 1996 fishery and for the withdrawal of the
FMP.
An RIR was prepared for this proposed rule that describes the
management background, the purpose and need for action, and the
management action alternatives. Copies of the RIR can be obtained from
(see ADDRESSES).
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 674
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 21, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, under the authority of 16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq., part 674 is proposed to be removed.
[FR Doc. 96-7286 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7277 Proposed Requirements for Control Technology Determinations for Major Sources in Accordance With Clean Air Act (Act) Section 112(g)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13125-13129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7277]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-5446-8]
Proposed Requirements for Control Technology Determinations for
Major Sources in Accordance With Clean Air Act (Act) Section 112(g)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of reopening of comment period; notice of availability
of draft rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA is reopening the comment period for the proposed rule
implementing section 112(g) of the Act and is announcing the
availability of a revised draft of the proposal. Section 112(g)
establishes requirements for owners or operators who intend to
construct, reconstruct, or modify a major source of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP). When no emission standard has been promulgated under
section 112(d) of the Act, determinations concerning such sources must
be made on a case-by-case basis. Today's notice announces the
availability of a revised draft of the proposed rule which implements
section 112(g)(2)(B) of the Act with respect to constructed or
reconstructed major sources, and requests comment on the revised draft.
The EPA does not intend at this time to issue a rule implementing the
provisions of section 112(g) which concern modifications.
DATES: The revised draft of the proposed rule will be available in the
public docket and on the EPA electronic bulletin board on the date this
document is signed. Comments concerning this document or the revised
draft rule must be received by EPA on or before April 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The revised draft rule and other information pertaining to
the proposed rule are contained in Docket Number A-91-64. The docket is
available for public inspection and copying from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the EPA's
Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall, Room M1500, EPA, 401 M Street,
Southwest, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. The draft rule is also available on the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) electronic bulletin board, the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN), under Clean Air Act, Title III,
Recently Signed Rules. For information on how to access the TTN, please
call (919) 541-5384 between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
eastern standard time.
Comments concerning this notice or the revised draft rule should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket Section (6102),
EPA, Attn: Air Docket No. A-91-64, Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Gerri Pomerantz, telephone (919)
541-2371, or Ms. Kathy Kaufman, telephone (919) 541-0102, Information
Transfer and Program Integration Division (MD-12), OAQPS, EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this notice is organized
as follows:
I. Background and Major Differences between the Proposed Rule and
Draft Final Rule
II. Definition of ``Construct a Major Source''
III. Review of Applications for a maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) Determination
IV. Extensions of Compliance Date for Subsequent Emission Standards
[[Page 13126]]
I. Background and Major Differences Between the Proposed Rule and
Draft Final Rule
In designing a program to implement MACT requirements under section
112(g), the EPA is guided by the need to balance several, often
competing, goals. Given a complex statutory mandate, the EPA has the
difficult task of designing a rule that is simultaneously
environmentally protective, maintains consistency across Agency
programs, minimizes the administrative burden on sources and States,
provides flexibility to sources, and maintains enforceability--yet is
not overly complex. The EPA's task is to create a coherent regulatory
whole that strikes the right balance among a broad set of goals.
Section 112(g) is primarily a transitional program designed to
operate until MACT standards issued under section 112(d) are in effect
for all categories of major sources of HAP. To date, the EPA has issued
17 MACT standards covering 29 categories of major sources of HAP
emissions, and has proposed five additional MACT standards covering 18
source categories. The EPA is currently developing all of the MACT
standards that are due to be completed in 1997, as well as several of
the standards due to be completed in 2000.
The EPA has concluded that the greatest benefits to be derived from
section 112(g) would be from the control of major source construction
and reconstruction in the period before these MACT standards go into
effect. Therefore the EPA has determined that today's draft rule should
implement only that portion of section 112(g) which requires new source
MACT determinations for constructed and reconstructed major sources,
but not that portion which requires existing source MACT determinations
for modifications of existing sources. The EPA requests comment on this
approach.
Under this approach, sources of toxic air pollution will be
controlled at the time of construction or reconstruction, when controls
are most cost-effective to install. This is a major streamlining and
simplification step that will focus section 112(g) implementation where
it will provide the greatest reduction in emissions to the environment,
certainty to the regulated community, and reduce the overall
administrative burden on both regulators and the regulated community.
The EPA's decision to implement only the construction and
reconstruction provisions of section 112(g) is premised in part on the
Agency's ability to issue the remaining MACT standards under section
112(d) in a timely way, and also in part on the assumption that where
there are existing State air toxics programs that address
modifications, they will continue to operate as they do currently. If
there were substantial delays in issuance of MACT standards, or radical
changes to existing State programs, increased exposure to emissions
from unregulated sources of HAP could occur and threaten public health
and the environment. If such delays were to occur, the EPA would
reconsider whether to move forward to cover modifications under section
112(g).
The EPA believes that Congress's basic goal in adopting section
112(g) of the Act was to make use of the opportunity for environmental
protection that exists when major sources of HAP undergo changes that
would lead to significant emission increases. The opportunity to
evaluate emission control technologies, or other beneficial ways to
bring about environmental improvements, generally exists because the
environmental improvements are more efficient when built as part of the
initial design.
The EPA also recognizes that it is critical to the success of the
program to ensure that its provisions are enforceable and provide the
greatest possible incentive for compliance. At the same time, the EPA
recognizes the need to minimize administrative delays and grant sources
and permitting authorities the flexibility to seek environmentally
beneficial alternative means of control.
Finally, the program must be as consistent as possible with other
Federal air pollution control programs, and must be simple enough to
ensure smooth implementation. Today's draft rule eliminates much of the
complexity inherent in the portion of section 112(g) which covers
modifications to existing sources. Among other things, under this
simpler approach, it will not be necessary to proceed with development
of de minimis emission values or the hazard ranking system necessary to
support offset determinations. It will also not be necessary to address
the multitude of issues and concerns, raised in the proposed rule,
associated with defining the types of operations that would be
considered ``modifications.''
II. Definition of ``Construct a Major Source''
Today's draft rule does require additional discussion to clarify
the conditions under which a stationary source would require a new
source MACT determination; i.e., what criteria must be met for new
equipment to be considered construction or reconstruction of a major
source. The new equipment which would meet these criteria is referred
to as the ``affected source.'' The EPA intends that either a major
source constructed on a greenfield site, or a new major-emitting
stationary source with a discrete function at an existing plant site,
such as a new discrete process or production unit, should be considered
construction of a major source, and thus require a new source MACT
determination. The stationary source must also itself be inherently
major-emitting; the EPA does not intend that a new process unit causing
increased emissions at another unit downstream should be covered by
today's draft rule. The EPA requests comment on this overall approach.
Figure (1) illustrates how the definition of ``construct a major
source'' works.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 13127]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR96.013
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 13128]]
If the stationary source is constructed on a greenfield site and is
major-emitting, then the stationary source is an affected source under
section 112(g), and must apply new source MACT. If the stationary
source is being constructed at an existing plant site, then several
other criteria will determine whether it is to be considered an
affected source under section 112(g), and must apply new source MACT.
Box (i) (the box labels refer back to the sections of the
``construct a major source'' definition in the draft rule) asks: Will
the stationary source be controlled by existing emission control
equipment which the permitting authority has determined represents one
of the best technologies for control of HAP? If a new source can be
incorporated into such existing control technology without any
reduction in the degree of control of HAP, the new source would not be
considered ``construction'' under section 112(g)(2)(B). The state
permitting authority will be responsible for determining whether these
criteria apply, using those procedures it deems most appropriate.
The general purpose of this exclusion from the definition of
``construct a major source'' is to assure that facilities which have
previously installed good control equipment with presently unutilized
capacity will not be precluded from fully utilizing such equipment by
any marginal differences in control effectiveness between such
equipment and that required by new source MACT. Existing controls
should be deemed satisfactory only where they are representative of the
best technologies presently in use and the addition of new sources to
existing control equipment will not impair its overall effectiveness.
The rule also explicitly recognizes that some facilities have
previously installed such controls to comply with a best available
control technology (BACT) determination (that controls the HAP emitted
by the stationary source) under the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program, a lowest-achievable emission rate (LAER)
determination under the new source review (NSR) program, or a toxics-
best available control technology (T-BACT) determination under a State
or local air toxics control program. The EPA requests comment on this
exclusion.
The EPA notes that the definition of a ``green-field site'' in the
draft rule includes developed sites which do not presently emit major
source quantities of HAP. EPA therefore requests comment concerning
whether the exclusion for new sources that use existing emission
controls should be applied to area sources that are within the
definition of a ``green-field site.''
Box (ii) asks: Is the new stationary source an integral component
of a larger process or production unit? If the source is a discrete
process unit or production unit as defined in the rule, and emissions
from the source exceed the major source threshold, it meets the
definition of an ``affected source'' under section 112(g) and is
subject to new source MACT control. The EPA requests comment on this
exclusion.
What does it mean to be an integral component of a larger process
or production unit? Today's rule defines ``integral component of a
larger process or production unit'' to be a stationary source or group
of stationary sources whose function, and the function of the process
unit or production unit, are interdependent. In other words, the
stationary source is the kind of component upon which the functioning
of the process or production unit relies, and vice versa. Equipment
which is an integral component of a process or production unit is part
of the functioning of the overall process or production unit. Under the
proposed definition, equipment which is not an integral component
itself comprises a process or production unit.
The EPA acknowledges that there is some room for judgment in
determining if a stationary source is an integral component of a larger
unit. Each individual determination should be based on answers to the
following questions: Is the new stationary source a component critical
to the function of the larger process or production unit? Could the
stationary source stand alone as an individually functioning unit if
constructed elsewhere? Could the stationary source be reasonably
controlled independently of the larger process? Reference documents
such as AP-42 1 describe examples of different groupings of
stationary sources that should be considered to be separately-
controlled processes, as well as those stationary sources, contained
within such processes, which should be considered integral components.
Examples in these reference documents, where relevant, should be used
to define a process or production unit.
\1\ U.S. EPA, AP-42, ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors,'' 5. ed., January 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following examples should help illustrate where section 112(g)
should and should not apply. The EPA requests comment on these
examples.
1. An electronics manufacturing facility replaces individual
manufacturing equipment such as etching, plating, or photolithography
equipment with next generation etching, plating or photolithography
equipment. This equipment change would not trigger section 112(g),
because the individual etching or plating or photolithography equipment
is the kind of component upon which the functioning of the larger
production process relies. Therefore the function of the new stationary
source (the new etching, plating, or photolithography equipment) and
the larger production process are interdependent.
2. An aluminum reduction plant has several potlines. Each potline
consists of many pots, which are controlled using a common dry
scrubbing system. The company replaces a few pots on each line. This
equipment change would not trigger section 112(g), because the
individual pots are the kind of component upon which the functioning of
the larger production process relies. Therefore the function of the new
stationary source (the new pots) and the larger production process are
interdependent.
3. A chemical plant builds a new distillation column, to be added
to a series of distillation columns, the emissions from which are
collected at the end of the series and vented to a carbon absorber.
This equipment change would not trigger section 112(g), because the
individual distillation columns are the kind of component upon which
the functioning of the larger production process relies. Therefore the
function of the new stationary source (the new distillation column) and
the larger production process are interdependent.
4. A composites manufacturer adds additional vacuum and/or in-mold
coating capability to an existing mold, in order to improve surface
quality. This equipment change would not trigger section 112(g),
because the additional components of the mold are the kind of
components upon which the functioning of the larger production process
relies. Therefore the function of the new stationary source (the new
components of the mold) and the larger production process are
interdependent.
5. A glass manufacturer adds a new glass furnace and associated
process line which will emit HAPs in amounts above the major source
threshold. This is an example of a stationary source which is not an
integral component of a process or production unit, because it is
itself a production or process unit. Therefore the new furnace meets
the definition of ``affected source'' under section 112(g) and should
be controlled with new source MACT.
6. A composites manufacturer adds a new large molding line which
will emit
[[Page 13129]]
HAPs in amounts above the major source threshold. This is an example of
a stationary source which is not an integral component of a process or
production unit, because the molding line is itself a separately
functioning process unit. Therefore the molding line meets the
definition of ``affected source'' under section 112(g) and should be
controlled with new source MACT.
7. An auto parts manufacturer adds a new automobile surface coating
line (i.e., from body shop to trim shop) which will emit HAPs in
amounts above the major source threshold. This is an example of a
stationary source which is not an integral component of a process or
production unit, because the line is itself a separately functioning
process unit, as described in AP-42. Therefore the coating line meets
the definition of ``affected source'' under section 112(g) and should
be controlled with new source MACT.
8. An existing chemical plant builds a new nitric acid plant onsite
which will emit HAPs in amounts above the major source threshold. This
is an example of a stationary source or group of stationary sources
which is not an integral component of a process or production unit.
Therefore the nitric acid plant meets the definition of ``affected
source'' under section 112(g) and should be controlled with new source
MACT.
9. A manufacturer replaces an entire process which is similar to an
entire process as it is described in AP-42. This is an example of a
stationary source or group of stationary sources which is not an
integral component of a process or production unit. Therefore the
process meets the definition of ``affected source'' under section
112(g) and should be controlled with new source MACT, provided that it
will emit HAPs in amounts above the major source threshold.
III. Review of Applications for a MACT Determination
Today's draft rule contains three options for preconstruction
review procedures for constructed and reconstructed major sources. The
permitting authority has discretion to prescribe those procedures to be
used in making a case-by-case MACT determination for constructed or
reconstructed major sources (except that the owner or operator of the
source may elect to use the part 70 or part 71 permitting process). The
proposed rule allowed use of either the part 70 or 71 permitting
process or a process, described in the proposed rule and in today's
draft rule, culminating in issuance of a ``Notice of MACT Approval.''
Today's draft rule adds one more option, designed to provide
flexibility to the permitting authority and the source. Proposed
section 63.43(c)(2)(ii) provides that if a permitting authority
establishes, or has already established, preconstruction review
procedures for sources to follow, then these procedures may be used in
lieu of any procedures prescribed by today's draft rule. The permitting
authority's prescribed procedures may have been developed for other
purposes beyond implementation of section 112(g), so long as they
provide for public participation in the case-by-case MACT determination
and ensure that a final MACT determination will be made prior to
construction or reconstruction. The draft rule also provides that a
final case-by-case MACT determination issued pursuant to any of these
procedures will be deemed federally enforceable. The permitting
authority need not obtain delegation under 40 CFR Part 63 subpart E in
order to adopt its own review procedures for a case-by-case MACT
determination. The EPA requests comment on this new provision.
The EPA also requests comment specifically on the presumption, in
section 63.43(d)(iv), that the constructed or reconstructed major
source should comply with the emission limitation set out in a relevant
proposed MACT standard or presumptive MACT determination made by the
EPA. The EPA believes that sources would be well-advised to comply with
such emission limitations, as those limitations would be most likely to
be consistent with the requirements of the eventual MACT standard.
IV. Extensions of Compliance Date for Subsequent Emission Standards
The EPA anticipates that new source MACT requirements adopted with
respect to construction or reconstruction of a particular source under
section 112(g)(2)(B) will normally be at least as stringent as any
subsequent requirements for existing sources adopted as part of a MACT
standard issued under section 112(d). However, should a subsequently
promulgated MACT standard impose more stringent requirements, EPA
believes that it may be appropriate in some instances for EPA to
establish a later compliance date for those sources which have acted in
reliance on a prior case-by-case MACT determination. The draft rule
expressly provides that EPA may establish separate compliance dates for
facilities which have notified EPA of such determinations in a timely
manner. Specifically, EPA may establish, in the MACT standard, a later
compliance date for those sources which have installed controls
pursuant to section 112(g), and have provided the EPA with data on
their section 112(g) control determination by the end of the public
comment period on the subsequent Federal standard.
The EPA requests comment on this approach, and on whether such
sources should be required to inform EPA, before proposal of the
subsequent MACT standard, that they have installed section 112(g)
controls.
In those instances where the subsequent MACT standard does not
establish a compliance date for sources subject to a prior case-by-case
MACT determination, the present draft rule retains the provision from
the original proposal authorizing the permitting authority to grant up
to eight years of additional time for the affected source to comply
with the subsequent MACT standard. The EPA has previously explained
that the structure of section 112 as a whole supports such a
construction of section 112(g), and a source may also be afforded up to
8 years to comply with a MACT standard in instances where a prior
emission limitation has been established by permit under section
112(j). The EPA requests comment on these provisions and this
interpretation.
Dated: March 18, 1996.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-7277 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7276 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Amendments to Definition of Solid Waste
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13129-13131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7276]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-5446-3]
RIN 2050-AE31
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Amendments to
Definition of Solid Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to correct the text of a regulatory exclusion
from the regulatory definition of solid waste for recovered oil which
is inserted into the petroleum refining process. The current text of
the exclusion contains a factual error inappropriately limiting the
location in the refining process at which recovered oil can be
inserted. The result of this error is to restrict legitimate recycling
of recovered oil. The proposed correction also in fact reflects the
result EPA initially intended, which was to condition the
[[Page 13130]]
exclusion of recovered oil on that oil being reinserted into the
petroleum refining process at a point where that process removes or
will remove contaminants.
In the final rules Section of today's Federal Register, EPA is
promulgating this amendment as a final rule without prior proposal
because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action which corrects an
unintended mistake, and so anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed
rationale for the amendment is set forth in the final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in response to this proposal, no further
activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA
receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the final rule and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
April 24, 1996, and notice of intent to file adverse comments must be
received on or before April 9, 1996. An adverse comment will be
considered to be any comment substantively criticizing the proposal on
a basis not already provided to EPA in comment.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials supporting this rulemaking are
contained in Public Docket No. F-96-SW2P-FFFFF and are located in the
EPA RCRA docket, Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA. The docket is open from 9:00 to 4:00, Monday
through Friday, except for Federal holidays. The public must make an
appointment to review docket materials by calling (703) 603-9230. The
public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any one regulatory docket
at no cost. Additional copies cost Sec. .15 per page. Persons wishing
to notify EPA of their intent to submit adverse comments on this action
should contact Steven Silverman, Office of General Counsel (2366), 401
M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Silverman, (202) 260-7716,
Office of General Counsel at the above address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline of Today's Action
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Additional Information
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order No. 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. Authority
These regulations are being proposed under the authority of
Sections 2002 and 3001 et seq. of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 6912 and
6921 et seq.
II. Background
As set out in detail in the related direct final rule, EPA is
proposing to correct an error in the text of a regulatory exclusion
(found at 261.4(a)(12)), regarding the location in a petroleum refining
process at which recovered oil can be inserted in order to be excluded
from the authority of RCRA subtitle C. The test for point of insertion
should be at or before any point in the process that removes
contaminants from recovered oil.1 The current regulatory text
limiting insertion to locations before distillation and catalytic
cracking is too restrictive because there are points in the petroleum
process downstream of these unit operations (such as fractionation)
which remove contaminants. The current terms of the exclusion impede
legitimate recycling of recovered oil without providing any
corresponding environmental benefit, and moreover are based on a
factual error. Accordingly, EPA believes the rule should be amended.
\1\ The issue of whether this should include insertion into
petroleum cokers is being addressed in a separate rulemaking
proceeding. 60 FR 57747 (November 20, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Additional Information
For additional information, see the corresponding direct final rule
published in the rules section of this Federal Register.
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant'' regulatory action as
one that is likely to lead to a rule that may:
(1) 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;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this amendment to the final rule is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of the Executive
Order and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, requires that
Federal agencies examine the impacts of their regulations on ``small
entities''. If a rulemaking will have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, agencies must consider regulatory
alternatives that minimize economic impact.
EPA believes that this amendment will have negligible impact on any
small entity because it expands the terms of an exclusion from
regulation. In addition, the underlying rule itself was deregulatory
and so did not have significant adverse economic impact on small
entities. See 59 FR at 38545. Therefore, the Administrator certifies
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., that this rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because
this amendment reduces the scope of the RCRA subtitle C regulatory
program.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., EPA must
consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information collection
request in a proposed or final rule. This rule will not impose any new
information collection requirements.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
[[Page 13131]]
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them
on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector because it imposes no enforceable
duties on any of these governmental entities or the private sector. The
rule merely corrects a factual error in the regulatory text of the
regulatory definition of solid waste. In any event, EPA has determined
that this rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any
one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Similarly, EPA has determined that
this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Solid Waste, Petroleum,
Recycling.
Dated: March 19, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912 (a), 6921, 6922 and 6938.
2. Section 261.4 in amended by revising paragraph (a)(12) to read
as follows:
Sec. 261.4 Exclusions.
(a) * * *
(12) Recovered oil from petroleum refining, exploration and
production, and from transportation incident thereto, which is to be
inserted into the petroleum refining process (SIC Code 2911) at or
before a point (other than direct insertion into a coker) where
contaminants are removed. This exclusion applies to recovered oil
stored or transported prior to insertion, except that the oil must not
be stored in a manner involving placement on the land, and must not be
accumulated speculatively, before being so recycled. Recovered oil is
oil that has been reclaimed from secondary materials (such as
wastewater) generated from normal petroleum refining, exploration and
production, and transportation practices. Recovered oil includes oil
that is recovered from refinery wastewater collection and treatment
systems, oil recovered from oil and gas drilling operations, and oil
recovered from wastes removed from crude oil storage tanks. Recovered
oil does not include (among other things) oil-bearing hazardous waste
listed in 40 CFR part 261 D (e.g., K048-K052, F037, F038). However, oil
recovered from such wastes may be considered recovered oil. Recovered
oil also does not include used oil as defined in 40 CFR 279.1.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-7276 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7245 Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal, Inc. TSCP700-4B, -4E, and -5 Auxiliary Power Units
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13113-13115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7245]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-68]
Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal, Inc. TSCP700-4B, -4E, and
-5 Auxiliary Power Units
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to AlliedSignal, Inc. (formerly
Garrett) Models TSCP700-4B, -4E, and -5 auxiliary power units (APU's).
This proposal would require removal from service of certain high
pressure turbine (HPT) disks identified by serial number, and
replacement with serviceable parts. This proposal is prompted by the
discovery of a material defect in certain HPT disk forgings that may
result in HPT disk rupture prior to reaching the disk cyclic life
limit. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent
an HPT disk rupture.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-68, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from AlliedSignal Engines, P.O. Box 52181, Phoenix, AZ 85072-
2181; telephone (800) 338-3378, fax (602) 231-4402. This information
may be examined at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Baitoo, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone
(310) 627-5245; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications
[[Page 13114]]
should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate
to the address specified above. All communications received on or
before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be
considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals
contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments
received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-ANE-68.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-68, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
Discussion
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received a report from
the manufacturer that a material defect exists in certain forgings of
high pressure turbine (HPT) disks installed on AlliedSignal, Inc.
(formerly Garrett) Models TSCP700-4B, -4E, and -5 auxiliary power units
(APU's). Analysis indicates that HPT disks forged from this material
may rupture prior to reaching the disk cyclic life limit of 30,000
cycles since new (CSN). This condition, if not corrected, could result
in an HPT disk rupture.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of
AlliedSignal Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) No. TSCP700-49-A7168,
dated November 7, 1995, that identifies by serial number HPT disks that
may have been forged with a material defect.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require removal from service of certain HPT disks
identified by serial number, and replacement with serviceable parts,
prior to accumulating 7,500 CSN, or 3 years after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first. The FAA determined this calendar end-
date based upon the effect of the material defect on the HPT disks'
cyclic life. In addition, the FAA considered the rate of cyclic
accumulation on disks in service. The actions would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the SB described previously.
There are approximately 31 APU's of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 20 APU's installed on aircraft
of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, and that no
additional work hours would be required if the disk is replaced during
overhaul. The manufacturer has advised the FAA that they will supply
required parts at no charge to the operator. The FAA has therefore
determined that this AD would impose no additional cost on U.S.
operators.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
AlliedSignal, Inc.: Docket No. 95-ANE-68.
Applicability: AlliedSignal, Inc. (formerly Garrett) Models
TSCP700-4B, -4E, and -5 auxiliary power units (APU's), with high
pressure turbine (HPT) disks identified by serial number in
AlliedSignal Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) No. TSCP700-49-A7168,
dated November 7, 1995. These APU's are installed on, but not
limited to, McDonnell Douglas DC-10, KC-10 (military), and MD-11
series, and Airbus A300 series aircraft.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each APU
identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of
whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area
subject to the requirements of this AD. For APU's that have been
modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the
requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the
authority provided in paragraph (d) to request approval from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This approval may address
either no action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe
condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe
condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an
assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe
condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any
modification, alteration, or repair remove any APU from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent an HPT disk rupture, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to accumulating 7,500 cycles since new (CSN), or 3
years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first,
remove from service affected HPT disks and replace with a
serviceable part.
(b) The definition of a disk cycle may be found in the
applicable AlliedSignal, Inc. APU Component Maintenance Manual.
(c) Auxiliary Power Unit maintenance records may be used to
determine if the HPT disk installed in the APU has a serial number
listed in AlliedSignal Aerospace SB No. TSCP700-49-A7168, dated
November 7, 1995.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office. The request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
[[Page 13115]]
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 12, 1996.
James C. Jones,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-7245 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7244 Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal, Inc. AL5512 Series Turboshaft Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13111-13113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7244]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-01]
Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal, Inc. AL5512 Series
Turboshaft Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to AlliedSignal, Inc. (formerly
Textron Lycoming) AL5512 series turboshaft engines. This proposal would
require a one-time eddy current inspection of the second stage turbine
disk, reduced service lives for the second, third, and fourth stage
turbine disks, reduced service lives for the first and third through
seventh stage compressor rotor disks, and a reduced service life for
the gas producer turbine spacer. This proposal would also require a
new, more conservative minor cycle counting factors table for
repetitive heavy lift operations, and provides a method for prorating
past utilization for all gas producer and compressor components based
on the new cycle counting factors. For those components that exceed
their new published life limits, this proposal would implement a
drawdown for safe removal of time-expired components. This proposal is
prompted by reports of cracks in certain AlliedSignal, Inc. ALF502R
series turbofan engine disks, which are identical in design and
construction to those within the AlliedSignal, Inc. AL5512 series
turboshaft engines. The actions specified by the proposed AD are
intended to prevent disk failure, which could result in an uncontained
engine failure, inflight shutdown, or possible damage to the
rotorcraft.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-01, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from AlliedSignal, Inc., 550 Main St., Stratford, CT 06497-
7593. This information may be examined at the FAA, New England Region,
Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Kerman, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
[[Page 13112]]
01803-5299; telephone (617) 238-7130, fax (617) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-ANE-01.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-01, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
Discussion
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has received reports of
cracks found in certain disks returned from service to the manufacturer
and in certain factory tested disks installed on AlliedSignal, Inc.
(formerly Textron Lycoming) ALF502R series turbofan engines. While no
cracks have been found in AlliedSignal, Inc. AL5512 series turboshaft
engine components, certain disks are identical in design and
construction to those utilized in the ALF502R engine. The cracks in the
ALF502R engines have been found in the bolt hole area of several second
stage turbine disks. Cracks have also been discovered in the rim
dovetail area of several first and third through seventh stage
compressor rotor disks in the ALF502R engines. Subsequent analysis and
testing of the current design of first and third through seventh stage
compressor rotor disks; second, third, and fourth stage turbine disks;
and the gas producer spacer have revealed a lower fatigue life than
originally calculated. In addition, the FAA has determined the need to
require a special, one-time eddy current inspection of the second stage
turbine disk to discover possible bolt hole cracking. This condition,
if not corrected, could result in disk failure, which could result in
an uncontained engine failure, inflight shutdown, or possible damage to
the rotorcraft.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of Textron
Lycoming Service Bulletin (SB) No. AL5512-0002, Revision 5, dated
December 16, 1993, that describes reduced service lives for first and
third through seventh stage compressor rotor disks; second, third, and
fourth stage turbine disks; and the gas producer spacer. In addition
this SB describes factors to be used for cyclic computation of
components utilized in repetitive heavy lift (RHL) operation, and
provides a method for prorating past component utilization based on the
new cycle counting factors.
The FAA has also reviewed and approved the technical contents of
the following SB's: Textron Lycoming SB No. AL5512-0041, dated December
16, 1993, and Textron Lycoming SB No. AL5512-0046, dated April 4, 1994.
These SB's describe drawdown schedules for those components that exceed
their new life limits.
In addition, the FAA has reviewed and approved the technical
contents of Textron Lycoming SB No. AL5512-0042, dated December 16,
1993, that describes procedures for a one-time eddy current inspection
of the second stage turbine disk bolt holes.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other engines of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require a one-time eddy current inspection of the
second stage turbine disk, reduced service lives for the second, third,
and fourth stage turbine disks, reduced service lives for the first and
third through seventh stage compressor rotor disks, and a reduced
service life for the gas producer turbine spacer. This proposal would
also require a new, more conservative minor cycle counting factors
table for RHL operation and provides a method for prorating past
utilization for all gas producer and compressor components based on the
new cycle counting factors. For those components that exceed their new
published life limits, this proposal would implement a drawdown for
safe removal of time-expired components. The actions would be required
to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletins described
previously.
There are approximately 33 engines of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 20 engines installed on
aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that
it would take approximately 60 work hours per engine to disassemble,
assemble, and test each engine, that each engine would consume $2,000
per engine of fuel and disposable hardware, and that the average labor
rate is $60 per work hour. The prorated life-expired components
replacement cost would be approximately $74,530 per engine. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of performing the actions described in
Textron Lycoming SB No. AL5512-0002, Revision 5, dated December 16,
1993, is estimated to be $1,602,600.
In addition, the FAA also estimates that it would take
approximately 16 work hours to perform a one-time eddy current
inspection of the second stage turbine disk. The cost impact of
performing the actions described in Textron Lycoming SB No. AL5512-
0042, dated December 16, 1993, is estimated to be $19,200. Therefore,
the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated
to be $1,621,800.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
[[Page 13113]]
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
AlliedSignal, Inc.: Docket No. 95-ANE-01.
Applicability: AlliedSignal, Inc. (formerly Textron Lycoming)
AL5512 series turboshaft engines, installed on but not limited to
Boeing Helicopter Model 234 rotorcraft.
Note: This AD applies to each engine identified in the preceding
applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified,
altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this
AD. For engines that have been modified, altered, or repaired so
that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the
owner/operator must use the authority provided in paragraph (g) to
request approval from the FAA. This approval may address either no
action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe
condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe
condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an
assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe
condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any
modification, alteration, or repair remove any engine from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent disk failure, which could result in an uncontained
engine failure, inflight shutdown, or possible damage to the
rotorcraft, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this
airworthiness directive (AD), conduct a revised operating cycle
count (prorate) of all gas producer and compressor components in
accordance with paragraph 2.D of Textron Lycoming Service Bulletin
(SB) No. AL5512-0002, Revision 5, dated December 16, 1993.
(b) After the effective date of this AD, utilize the new, more
conservative minor cycle counting methodology for repetitive heavy
lift operation described in Textron Lycoming SB No. AL5512-0002,
Revision 5, dated December 16, 1993
(c) Following implementation of the revised operating cycle
count methodology (prorate) specified in paragraph (a) of this AD,
replace those components that exceed their new life limits in
accordance with the component removal schedules defined in Textron
Lycoming SB No. AL5512-0041, dated December 16, 1993, and SB No.
AL5512-0046, dated April 4, 1994, as applicable. Replacement
components must have cyclic accumulation no greater than the reduced
life limits as defined in Textron Lycoming SB AL5512-0002, Revision
5, dated December 16, 1993.
(d) Following implementation of the revised operating cycle
count methodology (prorate) specified in paragraph (a) of this AD,
installation of those components that exceed their life limit on the
effective date of this AD is prohibited.
(e) Perform a one-time eddy current inspection of installed
second stage turbine rotor disk, part number 2-121-058-18, bolt
holes at the next shop visit that the disk assembly is removed from
the engine or module after the effective date of this AD and after
the part has accrued a minimum of 5,000 cycles in service, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Textron Lycoming
SB No. AL5512-0042, dated December 16, 1993. Prior to further
flight, remove from service disks that do not meet the return to
service limits defined in the SB, and replace with serviceable
parts.
(f) Prior to installation, but after accruing a minimum of 5,000
cycles in service, perform a one-time eddy current inspection of
uninstalled second stage turbine rotor disk, part number 2-121-058-
18, bolt holes in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Textron Lycoming SB No. AL5512-0042, dated December 16, 1993.
Installation of disks that do not meet the return to service limits
defined in the SB is prohibited.
(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office. The
request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Engine Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Engine Certification Office.
(h) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 11, 1996.
James C. Jones,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-7244 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7243 Airworthiness Directives; CFM International CFM56-5C Series Turbofan Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13110-13111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7243]
========================================================================
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. 61, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13110]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-64]
Airworthiness Directives; CFM International CFM56-5C Series
Turbofan Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to CFM International (CFMI) CFM56-
5C2/G, -5C3/G, and -5C4 series turbofan engines. This proposal would
require a reduction of the low cycle fatigue (LCF) retirement lives for
certain high pressure turbine rotor (HPTR) front shafts, HPTR front air
seals, HPTR disks, booster spools, and low pressure turbine rotor
(LPTR) stage 3 disks. This proposal is prompted by the results of a
refined life analysis performed by the manufacturer which revealed
minimum calculated LCF lives lower than published LCF retirement lives.
The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent an LCF
failure of the HPTR front shaft, HPTR front air seal, HPTR disk,
booster spool, and LPTR stage 3 disk, which could result in an
uncontained engine failure and damage to the aircraft.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95- ANE-64, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Ganley, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (617)
238-7138, fax (617) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-ANE-64.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-64, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
Discussion
This proposed airworthiness directive (AD) is applicable to CFM
International (CFMI) CFM56-5C2/G, -5C3/G, and -5C4 series turbofan
engines. The manufacturer performed a study using updated lifing
analyses that revealed certain high pressure turbine rotor (HPTR) front
shafts, HPTR front air seals, HPTR disks, booster spools, and low
pressure turbine rotor (LPTR) stage 3 disks have minimum calculated low
cycle fatigue (LCF) lives which are lower than published LCF retirement
lives. These reduced LCF lives are due to changes in component
operating environments, which are associated with the incorporation of
the takeoff mach bump in the analysis. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in an LCF failure of the HPTR front shaft, HPTR
front air seal, HPTR disk, booster spool, and LPTR stage 3 disk, which
could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the
aircraft..
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require a reduction of the LCF retirement lives for
certain HPTR front shafts, HPTR front air seals, HPTR disks, booster
spools, and LPTR stage 3 disks.
There are approximately 10 engines of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The manufacturer has advised the FAA that there are no
engines installed on U.S. registered aircraft that would be affected by
this AD. Therefore, there is no associated cost impact on U.S.
operators as a result of this AD. However, should an affected engine be
imported on an aircraft and placed on the U.S. registry in the future,
it would not take any additional work hours per engine to accomplish
the proposed actions. Assuming that the parts cost is proportional to
the reduction of the LCF retirement lives, the required parts would
cost approximately $25,736 per engine. Based on these figures, the
total cost impact of the AD is estimated to be $25,736 per engine.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1)
[[Page 13111]]
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation
prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it
may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided
under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
CFM International: Docket No. 95-ANE-64.
Applicability: CFM International (CFMI) CFM56-5C2/G, -5C3/G, and
-5C4 series turbofan engines, installed on but not limited to Airbus
A340 series aircraft.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine
identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of
whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area
subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been
modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the
requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the
authority provided in paragraph (h) to request approval from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This approval may address
either no action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe
condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe
condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an
assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe
condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any
modification, alteration, or repair remove any engine from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent a low cycle fatigue (LCF) failure of the high
pressure turbine rotor (HPTR) front shaft, HPTR front air seal, HPTR
disk, booster spool, and low pressure turbine rotor (LPTR) stage 3
disk, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage
to the aircraft, accomplish the following:
(a) Remove from service HPTR front shafts, Part Numbers (P/N's)
1498M40P03, 1498M40P05, and 1498M40P06, prior to accumulating 8,400
cycles since new (CSN), and replace with a serviceable part.
(b) Remove from service HPTR front air seals, P/N's 1523M34P02
and 1523M34P03, prior to accumulating 4,000 CSN, and replace with a
serviceable part.
(c) Remove from service HPTR disks, P/N 1498M43P04, prior to
accumulating 6,200 CSN, and replace with a serviceable part.
(d) Remove from service booster spools, P/N 337-005-210-0, prior
to accumulating 13,800 CSN, and replace with a serviceable part.
(e) Remove from service LPTR stage 3 disks, P/N's 337-001-602-0
and 337-001-605-0, prior to accumulating 8,630 CSN, and replace with
a serviceable part.
(f) This action establishes the new LCF retirement lives stated
in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this AD, which are published in
Chapter 05 of the CFM56 Engine Shop Manual, CFMI-TP.SM.8.
(g) For the purpose of this AD, a ``serviceable part'' is one
that has not exceeded its respective new life limit as set out in
this AD.
(h) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office. The
request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Engine Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Engine Certification Office.
(i) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 12, 1996.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-7243 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7239 Exemption From RegulationBoxcar Traffic
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13146-13147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7239]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1039
[Ex Parte No. 346 (Sub-No. 8)]
Exemption From Regulation--Boxcar Traffic
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (the Board) is proposing to
eliminate an obsolete regulation pertaining to recyclable rates.
DATES: Comments are due on April 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments (an original and 10 copies) referring to Ex
Parte No. 346 (Sub-No. 8) to: Surface Transportation Board, Office of
the Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20423.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-5610. [TDD for
the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective January 1, 1996, the ICC
Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (ICCTA)
abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and established the
Board. Section 204 of the ICCTA provides that ``[t]he Board shall
promptly rescind all regulations established by the [ICC] that are
based on provisions of law repealed and not substantively reenacted by
this Act.'' In Removal of Obsolete Recyclables Regulations, 1 S.T.B. 7
(1996) (Obsolete Regulations), the Board removed, inter alia, obsolete
recyclable regulations at 49 CFR 1134, pertaining to discrimination
against recyclables, and at 49 CFR 1145, concerning rail rates on
recyclables, because Congress repealed former 49 U.S.C. 10710 and
10731, the statutory bases for these regulations. We stated that we
would separately consider the disposition of 49 CFR 1039.14(b)(5),
which excludes rates on nonferrous recyclable commodities from the
boxcar exemption.
In Exemption from Regulation --Boxcar Traffic, 367 I.C.C. 424
(1983), the ICC exempted the rail transportation of all commodities
transported in boxcars from rate and certain car hire regulations. The
ICC, however, excluded nonferrous recyclables from this exemption
``only because Congress itself has singled them out for the application
of special standards.'' 367 I.C.C. at 440. The ICC noted the reference
to recyclable rates at former 49 U.S.C. 10731(e).
Although the statutory basis given by the agency for excluding
recyclable commodities from the boxcar exemption has been repealed, and
we do not believe there are other valid reasons to maintain the
exception, we will not follow the procedure in Obsolete Regulations by
issuing a final rule now.
[[Page 13147]]
Instead, we will issue a notice proposing to remove 49 CFR
1039.14(b)(5) from the regulations and redesignate paragraphs (6) and
(7) to allow the public the opportunity to address whether there is any
good reason to maintain the exception for recyclables. Comments (an
original and 10 copies) are due on April 25, 1996.
The Board certifies that this rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule will reduce regulation; it imposes no new reporting
or other requirements directly or indirectly on small entities.
Although we are proposing that recyclables no longer be excepted from
the boxcar exemption, it appears that the impact, if any, on small
entities would not be significant, nor would it likely affect a
significant number of small entities. The Board, however, seeks
comments on whether there would be effects on small entities that
should be considered.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1039
Agricultural commodities, Intermodal transportation, Manufactured
commodities, Railroads.
Decided: March 12, 1996.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons and
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority
of 49 U.S.C. 721(a), the Board proposes to amend title 49, chapter X,
part 1039 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 1039--EXEMPTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1039 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553 and 49 U.S.C. 721 and 10502.
Sec. 1039.14 [Amended]
2. Section 1039.14 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(5) and
redesignating paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) as paragraphs (b)(5) and (6).
[FR Doc. 96-7239 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7238 Railroad Contracts
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13147-13148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7238]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 1313
[STB Ex Parte No. 541]
Railroad Contracts
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Advance Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Because the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) abolished the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and revised the law respecting
transportation contracts entered into by rail carriers to provide
specified rail services under specified rates and conditions, the
contract regulations formerly issued by the ICC are no longer in
complete harmony with the applicable law. The Surface Transportation
Board (Board) is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to
solicit suggestions from the transportation community for appropriate
regulations. Following the receipt of comments, the Board will issue a
notice of proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments are due on April 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments (an original and 10 copies) referring to STB
Ex Parte No. 541 to: Surface Transportation Board, Office of the
Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20423.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-5610. [TDD for
the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.
104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (ICCTA), enacted on December 29, 1995, abolished
the ICC and transferred the responsibility for regulating rail
transportation to the Board. See ICCTA Section 101 (abolition of the
ICC). See also new 49 U.S.C. 701(a) (establishment of the Board), as
enacted by ICCTA Section 201(a). The transfer took effect on January 1,
1996. See ICCTA Section 2 (effective date).
The new law (i.e., the law in effect on and after January 1, 1996)
differs in several important respects from the former law (i.e., the
law in effect prior to January 1, 1996). This notice concerns the
differences between new 49 U.S.C. 10709 and former 49 U.S.C. 10713 as
respects contracts entered into by rail carriers to provide specified
rail services under specified rates and conditions.
New Sec. 10709(a) provides that rail carriers may enter into
contracts to provide specified rail services under specified rates and
conditions. This is a reenactment of former Sec. 10713(a).
New Sec. 10709(b) relieves a party to such a contract from any
duties other than those specified by the contract. This is a
reenactment of former Sec. 10713(h).
New Sec. 10709(c) relieves transportation provided under such
contract from the regulatory provisions of new 49 U.S.C. 10101-11908,
and makes the exclusive remedy for any alleged breach of such a
contract an action in an appropriate state court or United States
district court, unless the parties agree otherwise. This is a
reenactment of former Sec. 10713(i). New Sec. 10709(c)(2) adds a
clarification that this provision does not, in and of itself, confer
original jurisdiction on the United States district courts.
New Sec. 10709(d)(1) requires that a summary of each contract for
the transportation of fertilizer and agricultural products, including
grain as defined in 7 U.S.C. 75 1 and products thereof, be filed
with the Board, containing such nonconfidential information as the
Board prescribes. This represents a substantial narrowing from the
prior filing requirement. Under former Sec. 10713(b)(1), the filing
requirement applied to all rail transportation contracts (not just
contracts to transport agricultural products), and carriers were
required to file the complete contract with the ICC (in addition to the
summary of nonconfidential information).
\1\ 7 U.S.C. 75 is the codification of section 3 of the United
States Grain Standards Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Sec. 10709(d)(1) directs the Board to establish rules for such
contracts for agricultural products, to ensure that the essential terms
of such contracts are available to the general public. But, unlike
former Sec. 10713(b)(2)(A), the new statute does not list the minimum
essential terms; it leaves that matter for Board implementation.
Similarly, unlike former Sec. 10713(b)(2)(B), the new statute does not
address whether a new filing is required for amendments, supplements,
or changes to such contracts; that too is a matter left to the Board.
New Sec. 10709(d)(2) provides that documents, papers, and records
relating to a rail transportation contract are not subject to
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (FOIA).
This is a new provision, with no analogue in former Sec. 10713.
New Sec. 10709(e) reenacts the ``grandfathering'' provision of
former Sec. 10713(j) for rail transportation contracts that predate the
Staggers Rail Act of 1980.
New Sec. 10709(f) specifies that a rail carrier that enters into a
transportation contract remains subject to the common carrier
obligation, as set forth in new
[[Page 13148]]
Sec. 11101, with respect to rail transportation not provided under such
a contract. This is a new provision that clarifies prior law.
New Sec. 10709(g) reenacts the complaint provisions of former
Sec. 10713(d), but limits their applicability. Under new Sec. 10709(g),
complaints may only be filed against contracts for the transportation
of agricultural products. As to such contracts, four grounds of
complaint are available. They are: (1) a complaint by any shipper
alleging that it will be harmed because the contract will unduly impair
the ability of the contracting carrier to meet its common carrier
obligations to the complainant under new Sec. 11101 (new
Sec. 10709(g)(2)(A)(i)); (2) a complaint by a port alleging that it
will be harmed because the contract will result in unreasonable
discrimination against it (new Sec. 10709(g)(2)(A)(ii)); (3) a
complaint by an agricultural shipper seeking matching terms (new
Sec. 10709(g)(2)(B)(i)); and (4) a complaint by an agricultural shipper
alleging that the contract constitutes a destructive competitive
practice (new Sec. 10709(g)(2)(B)(ii)).
Such complaints must be filed within 30 days after the contract
summary is filed (new Sec. 10709(g)(1)), and the Board has 30 days to
resolve complaints (new Sec. 10709(g)(3)). It should be noted that, in
contrast to former Sec. 10713(b)(2)(A), new Sec. 10709(g) does not
address discovery by agricultural shippers seeking remedies. This is a
matter left to the Board's discretion.
New Sec. 10709(h) retains the fleetwide equipment limitation of
former Sec. 10713(k), which prohibits a carrier from committing more
than 40 percent of its equipment capacity (by car type) in contracts
for the transportation of agricultural commodities (including forest
products, but not including wood pulp, wood chips, pulpwood or paper),
without special permission from the Board. However, that limitation is
set to expire on September 30, 1998. (A further limitation in former
Sec. 10713(k), on the amount of equipment that could be committed by
contract to an individual shipper, was not reenacted.)
It is important to note that a rail carrier may enter into
transportation contracts only to the extent that such contracts do not
impair that carrier's ability to meet its common carrier obligations.
New Sec. 11101(a) provides that a rail carrier does not violate its
common carrier obligations merely because it fulfills reasonable
contractual commitments before responding to reasonable requests for
common carrier service. New Sec. 11101(a) further provides, however,
that contractual commitments which deprive a carrier of its ability to
respond to reasonable requests for common carrier service are not
reasonable.
New Sec. 10709 does not retain the railroad contract rate advisory
service of former Sec. 10713(m).
Request for Comments
The ICC's regulations implementing former Sec. 10713, set forth at
49 CFR Part 1313, are not appropriate for implementing new Sec. 10709.
Therefore, we invite all interested persons to submit suggestions for
regulations that would be appropriate to implement new Sec. 10709. We
encourage the various sectors of the transportation community to
discuss these matters and present a proposal for the Board's
consideration.
Comments (an original and 10 copies) must be in writing, and are
due on April 25, 1996.
We encourage any commenter that has the necessary technical
wherewithal to submit its comments as computer data on a 3.5-inch
floppy diskette formatted for WordPerfect 5.1, or formatted so that it
can be readily converted into WordPerfect 5.1. Any such diskette
submission (one diskette will be sufficient) should be in addition to
the written submission (an original and 10 copies).
Small Entities
Because this is not a notice of proposed rulemaking within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), we
need not conduct at this point an examination of impacts on small
entities. We will certainly welcome, of course, any comments respecting
whether any regulations that commenters may suggest would have
significant economic effects on any substantial number of small
entities.
Environment
The issuance of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking will not
significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the
conservation of energy resources. Furthermore, we would not expect that
regulations suggested for implementing new 49 U.S.C. 10709 would
significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the
conservation of energy resources. We certainly welcome, of course, any
comments respecting whether any suggested regulations would have any
such effects.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721(a) and 10709.
Decided: March 12, 1996.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons, and
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-7238 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7185 Northern Anchovy Fishery; Removal of Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13148-13149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7185]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 662
[Docket No. 960314075-6077-03; I.D. 031196F]
RIN 0648-AI16
Northern Anchovy Fishery; Removal of Regulations
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Initial decision to withdraw plan approval, proposed rule to
remove regulations, and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces its initial determination to withdraw
Secretarial approval of the Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan
(FMP), and proposes to remove the regulations implementing the FMP. The
anchovy fishery would continue to be regulated by the State of
California. This action is being proposed because conditions have
changed significantly since approval of the FMP. Harvests of northern
anchovy have greatly declined since 1982 and this is unlikely to change
in the foreseeable future. The intent of this rulemaking is to remove
regulations that duplicate state management and are no longer
necessary. This rulemaking is in accordance with the President's
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before May
9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposed withdrawal and removal, and on
the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) to Ms.
Hilda Diaz-Soltero, Director, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean
Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. A copy of the EA/RIR may
be obtained from the same address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rodney McInnis or Mr. James Morgan
at (310) 980-4030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP to manage the central subpopulation
of northern anchovy was implemented on September 13, 1978 (43 FR
40868). The
[[Page 13149]]
anchovy resource is a major forage species for marine mammals, other
fish, and birds such as the California brown pelican, which is listed
as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There have been
six amendments to the FMP.
The FMP was one of the first fishery management plans developed by
the Pacific Fishery Management Council, under the authority of the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. At the time,
substantial reduction fisheries existed in the United States and
Mexico. (Reduction fisheries processed anchovy into fish flour/meal,
oil, fertilizer, or other products not intended for human consumption).
Further, recreational fisheries for kelp/sand bass, white seabass,
bonito, barracuda, yellowtail, and tunas depended on northern anchovy
as live bait for its livelihood, as it still does today. The FMP was
designed to resolve difficult allocation issues. There was, and still
is, no agreement with Mexico on how to manage the fishery.
With the decline in U.S. harvests and little prospect for growth in
the fishery, interjurisdictional and allocation issues, which might
require Federal intervention, no longer exist. In recent years,
virtually the entire fishery has occurred in California waters, and
nearly all harvesters and processors are California citizens utilizing
vessels registered in California. The condition of the fishery is such
that no management authority over this fishery is exercised through
Federal regulations that are beyond those available to the State.
California has management measures in place for anchovy and other
components of the coastal pelagic species complex. Should this proposed
removal of Federal regulations be finalized, NMFS anticipates that
California will broaden its management to include the anchovy fishery
with substantially the same controls as were provided by Federal
regulations. This would also unify management of the coastal species
complex fisheries.
Therefore, Federal management is neither necessary nor appropriate
for this fishery and unnecessarily duplicates the State of California's
management. For these reasons, NMFS proposes to withdraw approval for
the FMP and remove the FMP's implementing regulations (50 CFR part
662), leaving management of the anchovy resource to the State of
California.
Classification
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if
adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. We expect that California will regulate
fishing in the same manner that we currently do. Because virtually the
entire anchovy fishery takes place in California waters, conditions in
the fishery should not change.
NMFS is conducting an ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding the effects of this proposed action on the
endangered brown pelican.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 662
Fisheries.
Dated: March 20, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, under the authority of 16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 50 CFR part 662 is proposed to be removed.
[FR Doc. 96-7185 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7173 Food Labeling; Nutrient Content Claims and Health Claims; Special Requirements; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7173]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 101
[Docket No. 95N-0103]
Food Labeling; Nutrient Content Claims and Health Claims; Special
Requirements; Correction
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is correcting a
proposed rule that appeared in the Federal Register of February 2, 1996
(61 FR 3885). The document proposed to require that, in certain
circumstances, persons responsible for the labeling of foods with
nutrient content and health claims maintain records that support the
claims, and that they make those records available to appropriate
regulatory officials upon request. The document was published with some
errors. This document corrects those errors.
DATES: Written comments by April 17, 1996; except that comments
regarding information collection requirements by March 4, 1996, but not
later than April 2, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: F. Edward Scarbrough, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-150), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-4561.
In FR Doc. 96-2153, appearing on page 3885 in the Federal Register
of Friday, February 2, 1996, the following corrections are made: On
page 3888, in the third column, in footnote 1, in line 3, the second
comma after ``7'' is removed; in the fourth line from the bottom,
``FTS'' is corrected to read ``FTC''; and in the third line from the
bottom, the phrase ``F.2d 189, 193 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479
U.S. 1086'' is added after ``791''.
Dated: March 18, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-7173 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7163 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13131-13133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7163]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5445-8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Waste Disposal Engineering Inc.
site from the national priorities list; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
Region 5 announces its intent to delete the Waste Disposal Engineering
Inc. (Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comment on this action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part
300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which U.S. EPA promulgated pursuant to Section
105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended. This action is being taken
by U.S. EPA because it has been determined that Responsible Parties and
the State of Minnesota have implemented all appropriate response
actions required. U.S. EPA, in consultation with the State of
Minnesota, have also determined that no further response is
appropriate. Although full compliance with off-site surface water and
ground water standards has not been demonstrated as yet due to past
interruptions in ground water remediation, the State of Minnesota has
assumed the legal obligation to carry out the response action duties,
including but not limited to operation and maintenance of the remedy
and attaining the response action objectives and cleanup standards. A
determination of compliance with the off-site surface water and ground
water standards will be demonstrated by the State after a longer period
of operation and maintenance of the remedy. Moreover, U.S. EPA and the
State have determined that remedial activities conducted at the Site to
date are and will continue to be protective of public health, welfare,
and the environment.
DATES: Comments concerning the proposed deletion of the Site from the
NPL may be submitted on or before April 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Gladys Beard, Associate Remedial
Project Manager, Office of Superfund, U.S. EPA, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson
Blvd. (SR-6J), Chicago, IL 60604. Comprehensive information on the site
is available at U.S. EPA's Region 5 office and at the local information
repository located at: Anoka County Community Health and Environmental
Service, Anoka County Government Center, Rm. 360, 2100 3th Ave., Anoka,
MN 55303 and Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Blvd. Andover, MN 55304.
Requests for comprehensive copies of documents should be directed
formally to the Region 5 Docket Office. The address and phone number
for the Regional Docket Officer is Jan Pfundheller (H-7J), U.S. EPA,
Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-5821.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Schmitt, Remedial Project
Manager at (312) 353-6565, Gladys Beard (SR-6J), Associate Remedial
Project Manager, Office of Superfund, U.S. EPA, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson
Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-7253 or Susan Pastor (P-19J),
Office of
[[Page 13132]]
Public Affairs, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL
60604, (312) 353-1325.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 announces
its intent to delete the Waste Disposal Engineering Inc. Site from the
National Priorities List (NPL), which constitutes Appendix B of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
and requests comments on the proposed deletion. The EPA identifies
sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare or the environment, and maintains the NPL as the list of those
sites. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed
by the Hazardous Substance Superfund Response Trust Fund (Fund).
Pursuant to Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site deleted from the
NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if the
conditions at the site warrant such action.
The U.S. EPA will accept comments on this proposal for thirty (30)
days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites
from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for
this action. Section IV discusses the history of this site and explains
how the site meets the deletion criteria.
Deletion of sites from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Furthermore, deletion
from the NPL does not in any way alter U.S. EPA's right to take
enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist in Agency management.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria the Agency uses to delete Sites
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be
deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In
making this determination, U.S. EPA will consider, in consultation with
the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required; or
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
(iii) The Remedial investigation has shown that the release poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate.
III. Deletion Procedures
Upon determination that at least one of the criteria described in
300.425(e) has been met, U.S. EPA may formally begin deletion
procedures once the State has concurred. This Federal Register notice,
and a concurrent notice in the local newspaper in the vicinity of the
Site, announce the initiation of a 30-day comment period. The public is
asked to comment on U.S. EPA's intention to delete the Site from the
NPL. All critical documents needed to evaluate U.S. EPA's decision are
included in the information repository and the deletion docket.
Upon completion of the public comment period, if necessary, the
U.S. EPA Regional Office will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to
evaluate and address comments that were received. The public is welcome
to contact the U.S. EPA Region 5 Office to obtain a copy of this
responsiveness summary, if one is prepared. If U.S. EPA then determines
the deletion from the NPL is appropriate, final notice of deletion will
be published in the Federal Register.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The Waste Disposal Engineering, Inc., Site occupies approximately
114 acres in the City of Andover, Minnesota. Andover has a population
of approximately 9000 and is located 20 miles north of Minneapolis/St.
Paul. Land uses in the vicinity of the site include agricultural,
commercial, and residential, with several subdivisions and a stream
bordering directly on the site. Some area residents rely on local
ground water as a drinking water supply.
The site operated as an open dump from 1963 to 1971, and as a
landfill from 1971 until 1983. Approximately 2.5 million cubic yards of
solid municipal and industrial wastes and 3 million gallons of liquid
industrial wastes were deposited at the site during this time. The site
was proposed for the NPL July 16, 1982. The listing was finalized on
September 8, 1983, Federal Register number 175, volume number 48 and
Page number 40658-40682.
A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was conducted at the
site from 1984 through 1987. Contaminants of concern identified at the
site include a number of volatile organic compounds in ground water,
including 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, and vinyl chloride,
at concentrations well above Maximum Contaminant Levels. The site posed
potential threats to human health and the environment through direct
contact with wastes, soils, and leachate seeps; ingestion of ground or
surface water impacted by the site; and possible off-site migration of
landfill gas containing hazardous constituents.
On December 31, 1987, the Regional Administrator signed a Record of
Decision (ROD) selecting the following remedy:
1. A multilayer soil cap;
2. A ground water containment (extraction and treatment) system;
3. A slurry wall/non-aqueous phase layer control system for a
portion of the site;
4. Wetlands replacement;
5. A monitoring program for ground water, surface water, and
landfill gas;
6. An operation and maintenance program; and
7. Institutional controls.
After attempts at negotiating a consent decree with the PRPs
failed, U.S. EPA issued a CERCLA Section 106 Unilateral Administrative
Order for Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) to 28 PRPs on August
23, 1991. The PRPs agreed to implement the Order and completed the RD
for Operable Unit (OU) 1, the ground water containment system, in
October 1992. OU1 Construction was initiated in October 1992 and
completed in September 1993. The RD for OU2, the multilayer cap, was
completed in December 1992, with construction completed in August 1994.
The State provided oversight of all RD/RA activities under a
cooperative agreement with U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA and the State conducted a
final inspection of the site on August 9, 1994.
After the final inspection was completed, the PRPs were required to
discontinue operation of the ground water containment system for
several months due to difficulties in meeting permit requirements for
the discharge of the ground water to a sanitary sewer. The ground water
exhibited a low flash point, creating the hazard of fire or explosion
in the sewer, and the PRPs concluded that the presence of landfill gas
in the ground water was responsible. U.S. EPA approved the PRP's
proposal to construct an air stripping system for the extracted ground
water in March 1995 and the system was completed in June 1995.
[[Page 13133]]
The ground water containment system has operated without
interruption since June 1995, and no further construction is
anticipated. U.S. EPA approved the Remedial Action Report submitted by
the PRPs and issued the Certification of Completion of Remedial
Construction required under the Order to the PRPs on August 10, 1995.
U.S. EPA has also approved the Operation and Maintenance Plan and, as a
result, only routine operating, maintenance, and monitoring are
presently required.
Activities at the site were consistent with the ROD, and work plans
were issued to contractors for design and construction of the RA,
including sampling and analysis. The RD Report, including a Quality
Assurance Project Plan, incorporated all U.S. EPA and State quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures and protocol. U.S. EPA
analytical methods were used for all validation and monitoring samples
during remedial action activities.
The QA/QC program utilized throughout this remedial action was
rigorous and in conformance with U.S. EPA and State standards;
therefore U.S. EPA and the State determined that all analytical results
are accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of
the remedial action, and consistent with the ROD and RD plans and
specifications.
Since 1983 the MPCA and the U.S. EPA have been involved in numerous
community relations activities associated with the Waste Disposal
Engineering Site. Numerous fact sheets and news releases were issued
throughout the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS). Public
meetings were held at the beginning of the project on the remedial
investigation report and on the proposed remedy. The City of Andover
and Anoka County officials were invited to participate in the
discussions.
On September 3, 1987, the MPCA issued a news release on the
proposed remedy and the public meeting. On September 8, 1987, U.S. EPA
sponsored an ad in the Minneapolis daily paper announcing the beginning
of the public comment period. On September 14, 1987, a public meeting
was held in the Andover City Hall. On September 29, 1987, the public
comment period was closed. On March 17, 1993, an Environmental News
Release announced the operation schedule of the cleanup at the site.
All the components of the remedy have been fully implemented. On
November 27, 1995, the site was issued a Notice of Compliance (NOC)
from the State under the Minnesota Landfill Cleanup Law. The State has
now assumed full responsibility for the remedy at this site, including
achieving all cleanup levels for the remedy. Compliance with off-site
surface water and ground water cleanup levels must still be
demonstrated. U.S. EPA will proceed in deleting the site from the NPL.
EPA, with concurrence from the State of Minnesota, has determined
that Responsible Parties and the State of Minnesota have implemented
all appropriate response actions required at the Waste Disposal
Engineering Inc. Superfund Site, and that no further CERCLA response is
appropriate in order to provide protection of human health and the
environment. Therefore, EPA proposes to delete the site from the NPL.
Dated: March 11, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region V.
[FR Doc. 96-7163 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7098 General Provisions, Elementary and Secondary Education Act
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13324-13329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7098]
[[Page 13323]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IX
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 299
General Provisions, Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13324]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 Part 299
RIN 1810-AA82
General Provisions, Elementary and Secondary Education Act
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of Education (the Secretary) proposes to
issue general regulations governing programs under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994 (the ``Elementary and Secondary Education Act'',
``ESEA'' or the ``Act''). These proposed regulations would implement
several provisions in Title XIV, General Provisions, of the Act. These
proposed regulations would generally govern all programs under the Act,
and would establish uniform provisions that would minimize burdensome
differences in implementing these provisions in individual programs.
The areas that would be covered by these proposed regulations for
ESEA programs include: other regulations that would apply; priorities
for empowerment zones or enterprise communities in discretionary
grants; the consolidation of State and local administrative funds;
maintenance of effort; services to private school children and
teachers; and complaint procedures. In addition, the proposed
regulations would provide further flexibility to States under Title III
of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to Delores Warner, U.S. Department of Education, Portals
Building, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4000, Washington, DC 20202-
6110. The fax number for submitting comments is (202) 260-0310.
Comments may also be sent through the Internet to
General__P[email protected].
To ensure that public comments have maximum effect in developing
the final regulations, the Department urges that each comment clearly
identify the specific section or sections of the regulations that the
comment addresses and that comments be in the same order as the
regulations.
A copy of any comments that concern information collection
requirements should also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget
at the address listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this
preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this part,
please contact Delores Warner. Telephone: (202) 260-1941. Individuals
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8
a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 20, 1994, the President signed
into law the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) (Pub. L.
103-382). The IASA reauthorizes and fundamentally changes the ESEA,
redesigning its programs so that they work together to support high-
quality teaching and learning to help all children learn challenging
material in academic areas and acquire the knowledge and skills they
will need to succeed in the 21st century.
Throughout the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
including Title XIV of the Act, provisions are designed to make it
easier for programs to work together with, rather than separately from,
one another. In addition, the Act fosters the operation of ESEA
programs in unison with the broader education that children receive.
For example, the reauthorized Act supports State and community reform
efforts geared to challenging State academic standards, particularly
those initiated or supported by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
Unlike the reauthorized ESEA programs, earlier ESEA programs often
were not coordinated with each other and with other educational
programs in the schools. The previous programs often were not designed
to target funds to areas, schools or students with the greatest needs
for assistance, nor were they designed to support State and local
efforts at broader educational reform. They were often burdensome
without adequate provisions for needed flexibility.
Virtually all of the major ESEA programs have been redesigned to
include greater flexibility at the State and local levels, to support
directly comprehensive State and local reforms of teaching and
learning, and to ensure that all children--regardless of background and
whatever school they attend--can achieve at high levels.
In implementing the Act, the Department, is issuing regulations
only where absolutely necessary, and is providing flexibility to the
maximum extent permitted by statute. The regulations proposed in Part
299 are consistent with this approach and are intended to provide
support to educators at the State and local levels for the appropriate
implementation of provisions in Title XIV and of the Act as a whole.
Title XIV contains provisions that allow: flexibility, promote
coordinated program services and allow waivers of certain provisions to
increase the quality of instruction or improve academic performance,
consolidated State and local plans and applications, consolidation of
State and local administrative funds, and uniform provisions that apply
to programs authorized in the ESEA. Most of the provisions of Title XIV
are not the subject of regulations. The Department has issued,
separately from this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), non-binding
guidance on a number of Title XIV provisions such as State consolidated
plans (sections 14302 of the Act), waivers (section 14401 of the Act),
and the Gun-Free Schools Act (sections 14601-03 of the Act). Copies of
this guidance are available from Delores Warner, U.S. Department of
Education, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4000, Portals Building,
Washington, DC 20202-6110.
Summary of Provisions
Section 299.1 of these proposed regulations would provide general
information about the scope of these regulations and the laws and
regulations that would apply to ESEA programs. Further guidance about
which general administrative regulations would apply is provided in the
discussion of Sec. 299.2 in the next paragraph of this summary.
Section 299.2 of these proposed regulations would provide
flexibility by permitting a State to formally adopt its own general
provisions, in lieu of 34 CFR Part 80 (Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments) of the Education Department General Provisions Regulations
for most ESEA programs if the State meets several minimal requirements.
This flexibility is similar to flexibility that was previously included
in regulations for Chapters 1 and 2 of ESEA before the 1994 amendments.
Section 299.2 would also indicate that 34 CFR Part 80 would apply
to direct grant programs under ESEA and to Title XI. While this would
provide States in ESEA State-administered programs the option of
adopting and using their own procedures as an alternative to Part 80,
the Department believes that the application of Part 80 to direct grant
programs and to Title XI provides the appropriate balance of
flexibility and accountability for results in those programs. As the
Department continues to look for other ways to simplify the
[[Page 13325]]
direct grant process, the Department particularly invites comments on
the appropriate balance of flexibility and accountability in direct
grant and Title XI programs.
Section 299.2 would indicate that 34 CFR Part 80 applies to State,
local, and Indian tribal governments under direct grant programs, and
programs under Title XI of ESEA (Coordinated Services). 34 CFR Part 80
also applies to other programs under the ESEA unless a State formally
adopts its own written fiscal and administrative requirements for
expending and accounting for all funds received by State educational
agencies (SEA) and local educational agencies (LEAs) under this part
that meet certain minimal requirements contained in Sec. 299.2. This
flexibility would also apply to Title III of the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act.
Section 299.2 would not affect the applicability of the
Department's other general administrative regulations to ESEA programs.
Therefore, unless a particular regulatory provision is inconsistent
with a statutory provision (in which case the statute controls), the
Department's general administrative regulations apply to ESEA programs
as follows:
(a) 34 CFR Part 74 (Administration of Grants to Institutions of
Higher Education, Hospitals and Nonprofit Organizations) applies to
grantees other than State and local governments and Indian tribal
organizations.
(b) 34 CFR Part 75 (Direct Grant Programs), except for Sec. 75.650
(participation of students enrolled in private schools), applies to all
direct grant programs.
(c) 34 CFR Part 76 (State-Administered Programs), except for
Secs. 76.650 through 76.662 (participation of students enrolled in
private schools), applies to State administered grant programs.
(d) 34 CFR Part 77 (Definitions that Apply to Department
Regulations).
(e) 34 CFR Part 79 (Intergovernmental Review of Department of
Education Programs and Activities) applies to some of the ESEA
programs.
(f) 34 CFR Part 80 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments), as
discussed in this preamble.
(g) 34 CFR Part 81 (General Education Provisions Act--Enforcement)
applies to all ESEA programs except for Title VIII (Impact Aid) of
ESEA.
(h) 34 CFR Part 82 (New Restrictions on Lobbying) applies to all
ESEA programs.
(i) 34 CFR Part 85 (Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free
Workplace (Grants)) applies to all ESEA programs.
(j) 34 CFR Part 86 (Drug-Free Schools and Campuses) applies to
institutions of higher education.
Guidance on which of these provisions apply to Title VIII (Impact
Aid) will be issued separately.
Section 299.3 of these proposed regulations would authorize the
Secretary to coordinate discretionary grants under the ESEA with the
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Community initiative, a critical
community revitalization strategy. Under this initiative, the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development or the United States
Department of Agriculture has designated certain urban and rural areas
as Empowerment Zones, including Supplemental Empowerment Zones, or
Enterprise Communities. These selected areas, which are characterized
by pervasive poverty, unemployment, and general distress, are
implementing locally designed strategies for building healthy, safe,
and economically vibrant communities. Interested individuals may
contact the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 1-800-998-
9999 for additional information on the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise
Community initiative.
The discretionary grants under the ESEA can play a key role in
helping Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities address key
educational needs as part of a community revitalization strategy.
Therefore, to encourage grantees to concentrate resources to address
multi-faceted problems, under the proposed Sec. 299.3, the Secretary
would be able to give priority to applications that propose projects
that serve these zones and communities.
In Sec. 299.4, the Secretary proposes to authorize each SEA to
adopt and use its own reasonable standards in determining whether the
majority of its resources for administrative purposes come from non-
Federal sources, a prerequisite for the consolidation of State
administrative funds as authorized by section 14201 of the ESEA. Under
this section, SEAs would also be permitted to adopt reasonable
standards for determining when to allow the consolidation of local
administrative funds. This section would provide flexibility for SEAs
in these State-administered programs and fulfill the Secretary's
obligation to issue regulations under section 14203.
Sections 299.5-299.12 of these proposed regulations would contain
uniform provisions regarding maintaining fiscal effort, serving private
school children and teachers, and for filing and resolving complaints
from the public. In the past, these requirements have varied program-
by-program. The revised provisions discussed as follows are designed to
reduce burden for grantees by making their implementation uniform among
ESEA programs.
The proposed regulations in Sec. 299.5 for maintenance of effort
would, for the first time, provide uniform provisions to reduce the
burden of requiring different recordkeeping for several programs. It
would also provide more flexibility than in previous regulations by
excluding all Federal funds and supplemental funds spent as a result of
a Presidentially declared disaster. The exclusion of Federal funds from
maintenance of effort calculations is consistent with the purposes of
the statutory provision. The Secretary interprets the maintenance of
effort provision in section 14501 of Title XIV not to apply to Title VI
programs, because of the specific maintenance of effort provision in
section 6401 of Title VI. Therefore, Sec. 299.5 also does not apply to
Title VI programs.
The proposed regulations governing participation of private schools
students, teachers and other personnel in Secs. 299.6-299.9 are similar
to the regulations for Title I of the Act (34 CFR Secs. 200.10-200.14
(published on July 3, 1995 (60 FR 34800)). For example, Sec. 299.7 on
equitable participation includes the same provisions on ``equal
expenditures'' and ``equitable basis'' as in 34 CFR Sec. 200.11, except
that Sec. 299.7 does not include provisions relating to the specific
distribution of Title I funds. Instead of simply cross-referencing the
Title I regulations, however, for the convenience of the reader, full
provisions are included in this notice.
Sections 299.6-299.9 also provide for more flexibility than in
general regulations on participation of students enrolled in private
schools currently in 34 CFR Secs. 76.650-76.662 that would otherwise
apply. Sections 299.6-299.9 would supersede the provisions of 34 CFR
Secs. 76.650-76.662 for the programs listed in Sec. 299.6.
Sections 299.10-299.12 require States to establish complaint
procedures in State-administered programs, so that the public is
provided an opportunity to bring complaints to the attention of State
program administrators. The provisions are similar to those previously
included in the regulations for Chapter 1 of ESEA before the 1994
amendments, but the new regulations would provide the SEA with
considerably more flexibility in
[[Page 13326]]
establishing reasonable procedures for resolving these complaints by
authorizing SEAs to adopt their own reasonable time limits for
resolving a complaint.
Executive Order 12866
1. Assessment of Costs and Benefits
These proposed regulations have been reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, the Secretary has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs and benefits associated with the proposed
regulations are minimal and to the extent there are costs, the costs
result from the statutory requirements and regulations determined by
the Secretary to be necessary for administering these programs
effectively and efficiently. To the extent there are burdens
specifically associated with information collection requirements, they
are identified and explained elsewhere in this preamble under the
heading ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.''
Thus, in assessing the potential costs and benefits--both
quantitative and qualitative--of these proposed regulations, the
Secretary has determined that the benefits of the proposed regulations
justify the costs. The Secretary has also determined that this
regulatory action does not interfere unduly with State and local
governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
To assist the Department in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Secretary invites comments
on whether there may be further opportunities to reduce any potential
costs or increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed
regulations without impeding the effective and efficient administration
of the program.
2. Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each Federal agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comment on how to make these regulations
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the
following: (1) Are the requirements in the regulations clearly stated?
(2) Do the regulations contain technical terms or other wording that
interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the regulations
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)
aid or reduce their clarity? Would the regulations be easier to
understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A
``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading;
for example ``Sec. 299.1 What are the purpose and scope of the
regulations?'') (4) Is the description of the proposed regulations in
the ``Supplementary Information'' section of this preamble helpful in
understanding the proposed regulations? How could this description be
more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand?
(5) What else could the Department do to make the regulations easier to
understand?
A copy of any comments that concern whether these proposed
regulations are easy to understand should also be sent to Stanley M.
Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of Education, 600
Independence Avenue, S.W. (room 5121, FOB-10), Washington, DC, 20202-
2241.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The small entities that would be affected by these proposed
regulations are small local educational agencies (LEAs), and public or
nonprofit private agencies receiving Federal funds under the ESEA
programs. The proposed regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on the small entities affected because the proposed
regulations would not impose excessive regulatory burdens or require
unnecessary Federal supervision. The proposed regulations would impose
minimal requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Collection of Information: General Provisions, Elementary and
Secondary Education Act: Complaint Process: Sections 299.10-299.12
contain information collection requirements. As required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of
Education has submitted a copy of these sections to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review under that Act.
Under sections 299.10-299.12, an SEA is required to adopt written
procedures for receiving and resolving on a timely basis complaints
from an organization or individual that the SEA or an agency or
consortium of agencies is violating a Federal statute or regulations
that apply to a covered program listed in Sec. 299.10(b). The
resolution of a complaint by the SEA may be reviewed by the Secretary,
at the Secretary's discretion.
The likely respondents to the collection of information in the
complaint process are individuals and organizations that submit
complaints. The information submitted is used to resolve complaints and
will be collected as complaints are submitted.
We estimate that each State will receive, an average of twenty
complaints each year, and that each complaint will take an average of
four burden hours to prepare. Therefore, the total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden that will result from the collection of this
information is 4560 burden hours (fifty-seven State entities,
multiplied by twenty complaints, multiplied by four burden hours for
preparing each complaint).
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for
U.S. Department of Education.
The Department considers comments by the public on these proposed
collections of information in:
Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the
proposed regulations.
[[Page 13327]]
Intergovernmental Review
Some of the programs that would be affected by these regulations
are subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the Executive order is
to foster an inter-governmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism by relying on processes developed by State and local
governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial
assistance. In accordance with the order, this document is intended to
provide early notification of the Department's specific plans and
actions for these programs.
Invitation to Comment
Interested persons are invited to submit comments and
recommendations regarding these proposed regulations.
All comments submitted in response to these proposed regulations
will be available for public inspection during and after the comment
period, in rooms 4400 and 4100, respectively, Portals Building, 1250
Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC., between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 299
Administrative practice and procedure, Education, Elementary and
secondary education, Grant programs--education, Private schools,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does not apply)
Dated: March 20, 1996.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
The Secretary proposes to amend Title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by adding a new Part 299 to read as follows:
PART 299--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subpart A--Purpose and Applicability
Sec.
299.1 What are the purpose and scope of these regulations?
299.2 What regulations apply to ESEA programs?
Subpart B--Selection Criteria
299.3 What priority may the Secretary establish for activities in
an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community?
Subpart C--Consolidation of State and Local Administrative Funds
299.4 What requirements apply to the consolidation of state and
local administrative funds?
Subpart D--Fiscal Requirements
299.5 What maintenance of effort requirements apply to ESEA
programs?
Subpart E--Services to Private School Students and Teachers
299.6 What are the responsibilities for providing services to
children and teachers in private schools?
299.7 What are the factors for determining equitable participation
of children and teachers in private schools?
299.8 What are the requirements to ensure that funds do not benefit
a private school?
299.9 What are the requirements concerning property, equipment, and
supplies for the benefit of private school children and teachers?
Subpart F--Complaint Procedures
299.10 What complaint procedures shall an SEA adopt?
299.11 What are included in the complaint procedures?
299.12 How does an organization or individual file a complaint?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A--Purpose and Applicability
Sec. 299.1 What are the purpose and scope of these regulations?
(a) This part establishes uniform administrative rules for programs
in Titles I through XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, as amended (ESEA), except where otherwise indicated. As
indicated in particular sections of this part, certain provisions apply
only to a specific group of programs.
(b) If an ESEA program does not have implementing regulations, the
Secretary implements the program under the authorizing statute, and, to
the extent applicable, Title XIV of ESEA, the General Education
Provisions Act, the regulations in this part, and the Education
Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR Parts 74 through
86) that are not inconsistent with specific statutory provisions of
this Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1))
Sec. 299.2 What regulations apply to ESEA programs?
With regard to the applicability of Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) to the ESEA programs (in addition to
any other specific implementing regulations):
(a) 34 CFR Part 80 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) applies to
State, local, and Indian tribal governments under direct grant programs
(as defined in 34 CFR 75.1(b)), and programs under Title XI of ESEA.
(b) 34 CFR Part 80 also applies to all other programs under the
ESEA and to programs under Title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act (Title III of Goals 2000), unless a State formally adopts its own
written fiscal and administrative requirements for expending and
accounting for all funds received by State educational agencies (SEAs)
and local educational agencies (LEAs) under the ESEA and Title III of
Goals 2000. If a State adopts its own alternative requirements, the
requirements must be available for inspection upon the request of the
Secretary or the Secretary's representatives and must--
(1) Be sufficiently specific to ensure that funds received under
ESEA and Title III of Goals 2000 are used in compliance with all
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions;
(2) Ensure that funds received under ESEA and Title III of Goals
2000 are spent only for reasonable and necessary costs of operating
programs under this part; and
(3) Ensure that funds received under ESEA and Title III of Goals
2000 are not used for general expenses required to carry out other
responsibilities of State or local governments.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1))
Subpart B--Selection Criteria
Sec. 299.3 What priority may the Secretary establish for activities in
an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community?
For any ESEA discretionary grant program, the Secretary may
establish a priority, as authorized by 34 CFR 75.105(b), for projects
that will--
(a) Use a significant portion of the program funds to address
substantial problems in an Empowerment Zone, including a Supplemental
Empowerment Zone, or an Enterprise Community designated by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development or the United States
Department of Agriculture; and
(b) Contribute to systemic educational reform in an Empowerment
Zone, including a Supplemental Empowerment Zone, or an Enterprise
Community, and are made an integral
[[Page 13328]]
part of the Zone or Community's comprehensive community revitalization
strategies.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 2831(a))
Subpart C--Consolidation of State and Local Administrative Funds
Sec. 299.4 What requirements apply to the consolidation of state and
local administrative funds?
An SEA may adopt and use its own reasonable standards in
determining whether--
(a) The majority of its resources for administrative purposes come
from non-Federal sources to permit the consolidation of State
administrative funds in accordance with section 14201 of the Act; and
(b) To approve an LEA's consolidation of its administrative funds
in accordance with section 14203 of the Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 8821 and 8823)
Subpart D--Fiscal Requirements
Sec. 299.5 What maintenance of effort requirements apply to ESEA
programs?
(a) General. An LEA receiving funds under a covered program listed
in subsection (b) may receive its full allocation of funds if the SEA
finds that either the combined fiscal effort per student or the
aggregate expenditures of State and local funds with respect to the
provision of free public education in the LEA for the preceding fiscal
year was not less than 90 percent of combined fiscal effort per student
or the aggregate expenditures for the second preceding fiscal year.
(b) Covered programs. Programs covered by this subpart are the
following:
(1) Part A of Title I (Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local
Educational Agencies).
(2) Title II (Eisenhower Professional Development Program) (other
than section 2103 and part C of this title).
(3) Subpart 2 of Part A of Title III (State and Local Programs for
School Technology Resources).
(4) Part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities)
(other than section 4114).
(c) Meaning of ``preceding fiscal year.'' For purposes of
determining if the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section is met,
the ``preceding fiscal year'' means the Federal fiscal year, or the 12-
month fiscal period most commonly used in a State for official
reporting purposes, prior to the beginning of the Federal fiscal year
in which funds are available for obligation by the Department.
Example: For fiscal year 1995 funds, that are first made
available on July 1, 1995, if a State is using the Federal fiscal
year, the ``preceding fiscal year'' is Federal fiscal year 1994
(which began on October 1, 1993 and ended September 30, 1994) and
the ``second preceding fiscal year'' is Federal fiscal year 1993
(which began on October 1, 1992). If a State is using a fiscal year
that begins on July 1, 1995, the ``preceding fiscal year'' is the
12-month period ending on June 30, 1994, and the ``second preceding
fiscal year,'' is the period ending on June 30, 1993.
(d) Expenditures. (1) In determining an LEA's compliance with
paragraph (a) of this section, the SEA shall consider only the LEA's
expenditures from State and local funds for free public education.
These include expenditures for administration, instruction, attendance
and health services, pupil transportation services, operation and
maintenance of plant, fixed charges, and net expenditures to cover
deficits for food services and student body activities.
(2) The SEA may not consider the following expenditures in
determining an LEA's compliance with the requirement in paragraph (a)
of this section:
(i) Any expenditures for community services, capital outlay, debt
service or supplemental expenses made as a result of a Presidentially
declared disaster.
(ii) Any expenditures made from funds provided by the Federal
Government.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 8891)
Subpart E--Services to Private School Students and Teachers
Sec. 299.6 What are the responsibilities for providing services to
children and teachers in private schools?
(a) General. An agency or consortium of agencies receiving funds
under a program listed in subsection (b) of this section shall, after
timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school
officials, in accordance with that section, provide special educational
services or other benefits under this part, on an equitable basis, to
children who are enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools,
and are eligible for that program, and to their teachers or other
educational personnel.
(b) Covered programs. In accordance with section 14503(b) of ESEA,
programs covered by this subpart are the following:
(1) Part C of Title I (Migrant Education).
(2) Title II (Professional Development) (other than section 2103
and part C of this title).
(3) Title III (other than Part B of the Title) (Star Schools).
(4) Part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities)
(other than section 4114).
(5) Title VI (Innovative Education Program Strategies).
(6) Title VII (Bilingual Education).
(c) Provisions not applicable. Sections 75.650 and 76.650 through
76.662 of Part 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (participation of
students enrolled in private schools) do not apply to covered programs.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 8893)
Sec. 299.7 What are the factors for determining equitable
participation of children and teachers in private schools?
(a) Equal expenditures. (1) Expenditures of funds made by an agency
or consortium of agencies under a covered program for services for
eligible private school children and their teachers and other
educational personnel must be equal on a per-pupil basis to the amount
of funds expended for participating public school children and their
teachers and other educational personnel taking into account the number
and educational needs of those children and their teachers or other
educational personnel.
(2) Before determining equal expenditures under paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, an agency or consortium of agencies shall pay for the
reasonable and necessary administrative costs of providing services to
public and private school children and their teachers or other
educational personnel, from the agency's or consortium of agencies'
total allocation of funds under the applicable ESEA program.
(b) Services on an equitable basis. (1) The services that an agency
or consortium of agencies provides to eligible private school children
and their teachers and other educational personnel must also be
equitable in comparison to the services and other benefits provided to
public school children and their teachers or other educational
personnel participating in a program under this subpart.
(2) Services are equitable if the agency or consortium of these
agencies--
(i) Addresses and assesses the specific needs and educational
progress of eligible private school children and their teachers or
other educational personnel on a comparable basis as public school
children and their teachers or other educational personnel;
(ii) Determines the number of students to be served on an equitable
basis;
[[Page 13329]]
(ii) Meets the equal expenditure requirements under paragraph (a)
of this section; and
(iii) Provides private school children and their teachers or other
educational personnel with an opportunity to participate that--
(A) Is equitable to the opportunity and the benefits provided to
public school children and their teachers or other educational
personnel; and
(B) Provides reasonable promise of those children meeting
challenging academic standards as called for by the State's student
performance standards and has their teachers or other educational
personnel assisting these students in meeting high standards.
(3) The agency or consortium of these agencies shall make the final
decisions with respect to the services to be provided to eligible
private school children and their teachers or other educational
personnel.
(c) If the needs of private school students, their teachers or
other educational personnel are different from the needs of students,
teachers or other educational personnel in the public schools, the
agency or consortium of these agencies shall provide program benefits
for the private school students, teachers, or other educational
personnel that are different from the benefits the subgrantee provides
for the public school children and their teachers or other educational
personnel.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 8893)
Sec. 299.8 What are the requirements to ensure that funds do not
benefit a private school?
(a) An agency or consortium of these agencies shall use funds under
a covered program to provide services that supplement, and in no case
supplant, the level of services that would, in the absence of services
under that ESEA program, be available to participating children and
their teachers or other educational personnel in private schools.
(b) An agency or consortium of those agencies shall use funds under
a listed program to meet the special educational needs of participating
children who attend a private school and their teachers or other
educational personnel, but may not use those funds for--
(1) The needs of the private school; or
(2) The general needs of children and their teachers or other
educational personnel in the private school.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 8893)
Sec. 299.9 What are the requirements concerning property, equipment,
and supplies for the benefit of private school children and teachers?
(a) A public agency must keep title to, and exercise continuing
administrative control of, all property, equipment, and supplies that
the public agency acquires with funds under a covered program for the
benefit of eligible private school children and their teachers or other
educational personnel.
(b) The public agency may place equipment and supplies in a private
school for the period of time needed for the program.
(c) The public agency shall ensure that the equipment and supplies
placed in a private school--
(1) Are used only for proper ESEA program purposes; and
(2) Can be removed from the private school without remodeling the
private school facility.
(d) The public agency must remove equipment and supplies from a
private school if--
(1) The equipment and supplies are no longer needed for ESEA
program purposes; or
(2) Removal is necessary to avoid unauthorized use of the equipment
or supplies for other than ESEA program purposes.
(e) No funds may be used for repairs, minor remodeling, or
construction of private school facilities.
(f) For the purpose of this section, the term public agency
includes the agency or consortium of these agencies.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 8893)
Subpart F--Complaint Procedures
Sec. 299.10 What complaint procedures shall an SEA adopt?
(a) General. An SEA shall adopt written procedures, consistent with
State law, for--
(1) Receiving and resolving any complaint from an organization or
individual that the SEA or an agency or consortium of agencies is
violating a Federal statute or regulations that apply to a covered
program listed in subsection (b) of this section.
(2) Reviewing an appeal from a decision of an agency or consortium
of agencies with respect to a complaint; and
(3) Conducting an independent on-site investigation of a complaint
if the SEA determines that an on-site investigation is necessary.
(b) Covered programs. Programs covered by this subpart are the
following:
(1) Part A of Title I (Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local
Educational Agencies).
(2) Part B of Title I (Even Start Family Literacy Programs).
(3) Part C of Title I (Migrant Education).
(4) Part D of Title I (Children and Youth Who Are Neglected,
Delinquent, or At Risk of Dropping Out).
(5) Title II (Eisenhower Professional Development Program) (other
than section 2103 and part C of this title).
(6) Subpart 2 of Part A of Title III (State and Local Programs for
School Technology Resources).
(7) Part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities)
(other than section 4114).
(8) Title VI (Innovative Education Program Strategies).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1))
Sec. 299.11 What are included in the complaint procedures?
An SEA shall include the following in its complaint procedures--
(a) A reasonable time limit after the SEA receives a complaint for
resolving the complaint, including a provision for carrying out an
independent on-site investigation, if necessary.
(b) An extension of the time limit under paragraph (a) of this
section only if exceptional circumstances exist with respect to a
particular complaint.
(c) The right for the complainant to request the Secretary to
review the final decision of the SEA, at the Secretary's discretion.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1))
Sec. 299.12 How does an organization or individual file a complaint?
An organization or individual may file a written signed complaint
with an SEA. The complaint must include--
(a) A statement that the SEA or an agency or consortium of these
agencies has violated a requirement of a Federal statute or regulations
that apply to the ESEA program; and
(b) The facts on which the statement is based, and the specific
requirement violated.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1))
[FR Doc. 96-7098 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7019 Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13284-13320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7019]
[[Page 13283]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
46 CFR Parts 10, 12, and 15
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW): Implementation of 1995
Amendments; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 26, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13284]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 10, 12, and 15
[CGD 95-062]
RIN 2115-AF26
Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978 (STCW)
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes changes to the current domestic rules
on licensing, documentation, and manning in compliance with recent
amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW). The
amendments were adopted by a Conference of Parties to STCW in July
1995, and will come into force on February 1, 1997, though some changes
to domestic rules must come into force before then to ensure these
rules conform with international requirements, and other changes may
come into force after then to allow a more gradual shift in practice.
The proposed changes would affect the full range of activities
associated with determining that an individual is competent for service
in certain shipboard capacities.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA, room 3406) [CGD 95-062], U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 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. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection-of-information
requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
A copy of the material listed in Incorporation by Reference of this
preamble is available for inspection at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters.
A copy of the 1995 Amendments to STCW may be obtained by writing
Commandant (G-MOS), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001, or by calling (202) 267-0229, between 8 a.m.
and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Requests may
also be submitted by facsimile at (202) 267-4570.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christopher Young, Project
Manager, Operating and Environmental Standards Division (G-MOS), U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-
0001, telephone (202) 267-0216.
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 95-062] and the specific section of this
proposal 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 stamped, self-addressed postcards or
envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposal in view of the comments.
Hearings
The Coast Guard has determined that the opportunity for oral
presentations will aid in this rulemaking, and will hold at least one
public hearing during the comment period. The Coast Guard solicits
recommendations on dates and locations for a public meeting. Requests
for a public meeting should be addressed to the Marine Safety Council
at the address under ADDRESSES. The Coast Guard will provide more
information about public hearings by a later document in the Federal
Register.
Background and Purpose
On July 7, 1995, a Conference of Parties to the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978 (STCW), meeting at the Headquarters of the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London, adopted a package
of Amendments to STCW. The amendments will enter into force on February
1, 1997, unless a third of the parties to the Convention, or parties
representing over 50 percent of the world's hipping tons, object to
them by August 1, 1996. Because they were adopted unanimously by the
Conference, no objections are expected. Consequently, the Coast Guard
is taking the steps necessary to implement the revised requirements to
ensure that U.S. documents and licenses are issued in compliance with
the 1995 Amendments to STCW.
The Convention sets qualifications for masters, officers, and
watchkeeping personnel on seagoing merchant ships. It was adopted in
1978 by a conference at IMO Headquarters in London and it entered into
force in 1984. Currently, there are 114 State-Parties, representing
almost 95 percent of the world's merchant-ship tons. The United States
became a party in 1991. Over 90 percent of ships visiting U.S. waters
are foreign-flag. Approximately 350 large U.S. merchant ships that
routinely visit foreign ports, as well as thousands of smaller U.S.
documented commercial vessels that operate on ocean or near-coastal
voyages, are subject to STCW.
In 1993, IMO embarked on a comprehensive revision of STCW to
establish the highest practicable standards of competence and to
address human error as a major cause of maritime casualties. By 1993,
significant limitations to the existing Convention had become apparent.
They included requirements that were too vague and left too much to the
discretion of Parties; the absence of clear, uniform standards of
competence; ineffective international superintendent to verify that
Parties were in fact complying with Convention requirements; limited
provisions for port-State control; and outdated technical references
that failed to address modern shipboard systems, job descriptions, and
approaches to maritime training such as the use of simulation
technology.
The amendments adopted by the Conference in July 1995 were
comprehensive and detailed. They concern port-State control,
communication of information to IMO to allow for mutual oversight, and
responsibility of all State-Parties to ensure that seafarers meet
objective standards of competence. They also require candidates for
certificates (licenses and document endorsements) to establish
competence through both subject-area examinations and practical
demonstrations of skills. Training, assessment, and certification of
competence are all to be managed
[[Page 13285]]
within a quality-standards system to ensure that stated objectives are
being achieved.
The Coast Guard published a notice of inquiry in the Federal
Register [60 FR 56970 (November 13, 1995)] to solicit information on
the costs that may be associated with implementation of the 1995
Amendments to STCW. This notice is discussed in more detail under the
heading ``Regulatory Evaluation.''
The Coast Guard held a public meeting on August 31, 1995, to
discuss the outcome of the Conference and seek public comment on how
the 1995 Amendments to STCW should be implemented by the United States.
Comments received at the meeting and in response to the notice of
inquiry have been taken into consideration in the development of
implementing regulations. Three written comments were submitted to the
docket, and they will be discussed in the appropriate sections of this
preamble.
Additionally, the Coast Guard had sought comment from the public
during the period leading up to the Conference that adopted the 1995
Amendments to STCW. The Coast Guard had held seven public meetings to
determine what positions U.S. delegations should advocate at meetings
held by IMO, and to exchange views about Amendments to STCW that were
under discussion.
The Coast Guard has also taken advantage of the meetings of its
advisory panels, particularly the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory
Committee (MERPAC), the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC), and
the Navigational Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC), to discuss
developments relating to the amendment of STCW and the domestic
implementation of these amendments.
Related Rulemakings
This proposed rulemaking has been prepared in anticipation that
several other rulemakings will revise Parts 10, 12, and 15 or address
related subjects.
First, in docket number CGD 95-072 [60 FR 50455 (September 29,
1995)], the Coast Guard has made technical and editorial corrections to
its current rules, removing outdated references and reflecting current
organizational structures.
Second, in CGD 91-045, the Coast Guard published a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) [60 FR 55904 (November 3, 1995)]
that proposed operational measures to reduce spills from existing tank
vessels without double hulls. This too involves subjects addressed here
to implement the STCW Amendments, such as rest-period requirements and
training in bridge-team procedures and bridge-resource management.
Third, in CGD 94-029, a proposed rule for modernizing examination
methods was published [60 FR 10053 (February 23, 1995)]. Essentially,
it would allow for the use of testing services from the private and
public sectors to confirm the competency of candidates for Coast Guard
licenses.
Fourth, in CGD 94-055, there is under development a proposal that
concerns licensing requirements for officers of towing vessels. It
stems from investigations into the Sunset Limited tragedy, when a tug
and barge damaged a railroad bridge in September 1993. It may introduce
into 46 CFR Part 10 new terms and concepts, such as the designated
examiner, practical demonstration, and standard of competence, and the
use of training-record books. The Coast Guard has been working with
TSAC on CGD 94-055.
The Coast Guard will make every effort to coordinate these projects
with a view to establishing uniform requirements except where there is
a compelling need to maintain a difference in respect of a particular
activity or class of vessel.
In keeping with other recent Coast Guard initiatives, this proposed
rule tries to avoid unnecessary additional requirements when
international standards are being implemented. Specifically, the Coast
Guard has compared the rules to the international standard and has
determined that it would not unnecessarily establish a requirement in
excess of that standard. With this objective, the rule makes direct
reference to international standards where possible. Where there is a
difference in substance between the rule and the international
requirement, this is noted and discussed in the section-by-section
analysis. In most cases, the difference involves an exercise of
discretion to address a specific class of vessel rather than an
additional requirement. In some cases, clear differences with the
international scheme are retained to preserve continuity in the U.S.
licensing system. The Coast Guard requests comments on these
differences, and the advantages that might be derived from removing
them from current domestic rules.
The Coast Guard has attempted to develop a rule that would be self-
implementing. In other words, it has tried to minimize the direct role
the Coast Guard would need to play in overseeing routine compliance
with the requirements. Ideally, it would like to minimize its direct
involvement and limit its role to the following: (a) performing
functions governmental in nature such as issuing certificates of
competency; (b) setting standards for such certificates; (c) addressing
special circumstances or exceptions to the general case clearly covered
by the regulations; (d) monitoring training and assessment by spot-
checks or by review of random samples to ensure that the new ``quality-
standards system'' requirements are being maintained; and (e) keeping
some necessary records.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
General
The following discussion proceeds in the order in which the
proposed revisions to current domestic rules are presented. However, a
few general comments may assist the reader and reduce repetition of a
point common to many parts of the revisions.
1. Approach. The approach taken in this proposed rule is to retain
the existing structure of the current domestic rules on licensing (46
CFR Part 10), certification of seamen (46 CFR Part 12), and manning (46
CFR Part 15), and incorporate specific requirements of the 1995
Amendments to STCW. Where possible, this Convention and its associated
Seafarers' Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code)
have been incorporated by reference to avoid unnecessary duplication
and to ensure compatibility between international and domestic
requirements.
The 1995 Amendment to STCW essentially replace the current Annex to
the 1978 Convention with a new Annex and an associated STCW Code. The
STCW Code is divided into two separate parts (A and B), that are both
is organized to parallel, exactly, the STCW Regulations in the Annex.
Part A provides mandatory standards that are directly referred to in
the relevant STCW Regulations in the Annex. Part B is non-mandatory
guidance to assist in implementation of the requirements of Part A, and
to promote uniform interpretation of the STCW Regulations. Not all of
the STCW Regulations have explanatory material in both parts of the
STCW Code.
Chapter I of the new Annex is expanded to include new STCW
Regulations on matters such as the use of simulators in training and
assessment, the qualifications of persons responsible for the training
and assessment of seafarers, the establishment of a quality-standards
system to ensure achievement of defined objectives, the establishment
of medical-fitness standards for seafarers, and the responsibilities of
companies.
[[Page 13286]]
The remaining part of the new Annex is enlarged from six to eight
chapters. Chapters II, III, and IV have retained their application to
the master and deck department, the engine department, and
radiocommunications, respectively. However, material that was
previously presented as appendices to the original STCW regulations is
now contained in the STCW Code, and detailed standards of competence
are set out in the corresponding sections of the Code. Additionally,
the standards of competence are organized along functional lines, with
three levels of responsibility. The amendments establish requirements
for certification for the following seven functions: navigation;
handling and stowage of cargo; controlling the operation of the ship
and care for persons on board; marine engineering; electronic and
control engineering; maintenance and repair; and radiocommunications.
Three levels of responsibility are associated with each function under
STCW--management level, operational level, and support level.
Chapter V, which was previously amended in 1994 and which addressed
only tanker personnel, is not expanded to address personnel on roll-on/
roll-off(ro-ro) passenger ships.
Chapter VI, which currently addresses only proficiency in survival
craft and rescue boats, is expanded to require familiarization training
or instruction for all seafarers, and basic safety-training for those
who have safety or pollution-prevention duties.
Chapter VII allows for alternative-certification systems under
which certificates could be issued on the basis of functions combined
in ways that differ from those associated with traditional shipboard
capacities under Chapters II, III, and IV. This flexibility is subject
to a number of restrictions under the STCW Regulations in Chapter VII.
The Coast Guard is not planning, at this time, to incorporate
provisions for alternative certification without further evaluation and
industry support. The Coast Guard requests comments on the application
of Chapter VII to U.S. licensing and documentation.
In the 1995 Amendments to STCW, all watchkeeping provisions are
consolidated under new Chapter VIII and the associated sections of the
STCW Code. New STCW Regulation VIII/1 requires Administrations to
establish and enforce rest-hour requirements for watchkeeping personnel
to prevent fatigue.
2. Scope of application. STCW applies to seagong ships (except
pleasure craft, fishing vessels, and ships entitled to sovereign
immunity such as warships). Article II defines a seagoing ship as a
ship other than one that ``navigate[s] exclusively in inland waters or
in waters within, or closely adjacent to, sheltered waters or areas
where port regulations apply.'' This proposed rule, which implements
STCW, applies to any commercial vessel that operates seaward of the
boundary lines established by 46 CFR part 7.
The Coast Guard does not intend to apply the requirements of STCW
to vessels that operate exclusively on the inland waters of the United
States. However, some of the proposals would have the effect of
modifying how the Coast Guard does business and the conditions under
which it would consider approving a program of training and assessment
for qualifying an individual for a license, document, or endorsement.
It does not intend to restrict, to ocean and near-coastal licenses and
documents, procedures that may also be suitable to training for inland
licenses. The Coast Guard solicits comments on the potential effects on
candidates for inland licenses and documents, and on the enterprises
that offer training to such candidates.
The Coast Guard does not consider STCW to apply directly to
personal serving on ships that operate exclusively on the Great Lakes.
However, individuals using time served on such vessels toward an ocean
or near-coastal license, and those who are being trained at training
institutions that serve mariners in the Great Lakes region, need to be
aware of the requirements that mariners must meet to hold STCW
Certificates if those mariners will be serving on ships in ocean
service.
One comment submitted in response to the request for comments
published in the Federal Register on August 2, 1995 [60 FR 39306],
requested that the Coast Guard consider deferring implementation of the
1995 Amendments to STCW in respect of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units
(MODUs). The comment pointed out a resolution adopted by the 1995
Conference of Parties to STCW, noting that time constraints had not
allowed full consideration to the possibility of including provisions
on the training and certification of maritime personnel employed on
board MODUs. The resolution invites IMO to consider developing
provisions addressing this matter under STCW, or in such other
instrument as may be appropriate.
The resolution referred to in the comment recommends special
training and certification for industrial personnel serving on MODUs
because of the specialized nature of MODUs' operations. To the extent a
MODU is a seagoing ship under STCW, this proposed rule would apply to
seafarers serving on one. On the other hand, in approving specific
training programs, the Coast Guard would take into consideration, and
would use as the basis for its evaluation of training programs, any IMO
resolutions that provide special guidance relating to the training of
personnel on MODUs.
In this regard, the following three IMO resolutions are
particularly relevant: A.538(13), ``Maritime Safety Training of
Personnel on Mobile Offshore Units''; A.712(17), ``Recommended
Standards of Specialized Training, Qualifications and Certification of
Key Personnel Assigned Responsibility for Essential Marine Functions of
Mobile Offshore Units''; and A.828(19), ``Recommendation on Maritime
Safety and Emergency Preparedness Training for all Personnel on Moble
Offshore Units''.
The comment also suggested that the Coast Guard accept or recognize
certificates issued by another Party to STCW for service on MODUs. The
Coast Guard does not consider this request to be viable at this time.
The issue of recognition is complicated by citizenship requirements
that apply to the following: (a) candidates for U.S. licenses and
certificates of registry under 46 U.S.C. 7102, (b) crewmembers on
documented vessels of the United States under 46 U.S.C. 8103, and (c)
MODUs operating on the U.S. outer continental shelf under 43 U.S.C.
1356. Another issue would be the principle of reciprocity or mutual
recognition between U.S. and non-U.S. certificates.
3. License structure. The Coast Guard would not, by this proposed
rule, replace the existing license structure with the license structure
presented in STCW. The 4-level license structure in Part 10 would
persist (e.g., chief engineer, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd assistant engineer
officer, and 3 levels of mate under the master). Although the STCW
structure is less complicated than the U.S. structure, the Coast Guard
does not consider it appropriate or expedient to propose a
comprehensive change in this rulemaking.
Some of the STCW terms must be introduced into U.S. regulations to
ensure that holders of U.S. licenses would be entitled to hold the
appropriate STCW certificate. The Coast Guard is concerned, however,
that the elimination of the existing categories of license might create
difficulties for certain segments of the industry, or could have
unintended impacts on established career patterns in the maritime
industry. In addition, it may
[[Page 13287]]
necessitate changes in the terms used in the manning-complement section
of the U.S. Certificate of Inspection.
Trying to anticipate and address all of these possibilities could
unnecessarily complicate promulgation of a rule intended only to
implement new STCW requirements. The requirement for promulgating a
rule by February 1, 1997, has precluded the opportunity for assessing
the implications at this time. However, the Coast Guard is interested
in comments on adjustments to the current U.S. licensing structure, to
bring it into closer alignment with the STCW structure.
4. Documentation. Although the 1995 Amendments to STCW will permit
the use of an STCW document to serve as both an individual's
certificate of competency and an endorsement that the candidate meets
STCW requirements, the Coast Guard plans to retain a distinction
between the U.S. license and the STCW endorsement for the time being.
In other words, each licensed officer who will be serving on a seagoing
vessel will be issued both a U.S. license and a separate STCW
endorsement. Of course, an STCW endorsement will have no validity
unless accompanied by its holder's license.
5. Communication to IMO. In proposing this rule, the Coast Guard
has been cognizant of its future obligation to submit to IMO a detailed
description of how the United States complies with the 1995 Amendments
to STCW. Under new STCW Regulation I/7, each Party must prepare a
report on the steps it has taken to give the Convention ``full and
complete effect.''
When complete information has been provided to IMO, and the
Secretary-General of IMO has confirmed that in fact full effect has
been given to STCW, the Maritime Safety Committee will be invited to
formally confirm and identify the Party as having done so, and other
Parties will be entitled to accept certificates issued by that Party as
being in compliance with Convention requirements.
It will be important for the United States to be able to satisfy
the requirements that earn this international recognition. This
rulemaking is an essential step toward meeting that objective.
6. Tonnage. Both the U.S. licensing structure and the STCW
structure employ tonnage thresholds in establishing requirements for
training and certification. However, the U.S. structure includes
several tonnage divisions not used in STCW, particularly in respect of
lower-tonnage licenses. Also, these tonnage divisions are keyed to the
tonnage of ships as determined under the regulatory tonnage-measurement
system, which exempts certain spaces in calculating gross register tons
(GRT) and therefore can result in lower tonnage values than
calculations based on the International Convention on Tonnage
Measurement of Ships, 1969 (ITC).
The 1995 Amendments to STCW include adjustments in the tonnage
thresholds from 200 GRT to 500 gross tons (GT); and from 1,600 GRT to
3,000 GT that reflect a relatively close alignment between the various
domestic tonnage systems used around the world and the ITC tonnage-
measurement system. The new STCW Regulation I/15, on Transitional
Provisions, allows Parties to reissue or revalidate certificates
(licenses) based on the lower tonnage values by substituting 500 GT for
200 GRT, and 3,000 GT for 1,600 GRT, at their discretion.
A number of alternatives are available for addressing tonnage in
the implementation of the 1995 Amendments to STCW. A threshold of 3,000
GT can be added as a new category of licensing without deleting any
existing category. Under this alternative, the requirements for the
3,000-GT license would be identical to the requirements for a 1,600-GRT
license; and anyone holding a 1,600-GRT license for service on a ship
on near-coastal or ocean service would be entitled to hold an STCW
endorsement for service on seagoing ships of 3,000 GT. Similarly, an
individual holding a 200-GRT license would be entitled to hold an STCW
endorsement for service on seagoing ships of 500 GT.
Another alternative would be to add a threshold of 3,000 GT as a
new category of license, and delete the threshold of 1,600 GRT. Under
this alternative a transition mechanism would be implemented by
regulation or by policy guidance to ensure that holders of 1,600-GRT
licenses were issued 3,000-GT licenses at the time of renewal.
A different approach would be needed to align the 200-GRT and 500-
GRT thresholds in 46 CFR part 10 with the 500 GT threshold in the STCW
Amendments, because the 500-GRT license entails special requirements
that apply to certain classes of ships (i.e., OSVs). At the present
time, it appears that these thresholds must be retained, and policy
guidance will be developed for issuing an STCW endorsement at the 500-
GT level, with the appropriate service limitations.
Comments on these or other alternatives may be submitted to the
docket and will be considered before a final rule is published. In
deciding how to proceed, the Coast Guard would make every effort to
avoid penalizing either the holders of existing licenses or the
operators of vessels that have exercised their option to be measured
under the regulatory-tonnage-measurement system.
7. Medical fitness. The 1995 Amendments to STCW include a
requirement for Parties to establish standards of medical fitness for
seafarers, particularly regarding eyesight and hearing (STCW Regulation
I/9). Under STCW as amended, candidates for certification will have to
provide satisfactory proof that they meet the standards of medical
fitness; and they must each hold a document attesting their medical
fitness, issued by ``a duly qualified medical practitioner recognized
by the Party.''
Criteria and procedures for medical fitness are already established
by 46 CFR parts 10, 12, and 13. They include the following sections:
Sec. 10.205(d), physical-examination requirements for original
licenses; Sec. 10.207(e), physical requirements for raise of grade of
license; Sec. 10.209(d), physical requirements for license renewals;
Sec. 10.709, physical-examination requirements for pilots; Sec. 12.02-
27, physical requirements for renewal of a merchant mariner's document;
Sec. 12.05-5, physical requirements for Able Seamen; Sec. 12.15-5,
physical requirements for qualified members of the engine department;
and Sec. 13.125, physical requirements for tankermen.
There are currently no internationally agreed-upon standards of
medical fitness for seafarers, except in respect of eyesight (which
appear in section B-I/9 of the STCW Code). The 1995 STCW Conference
adopted a resolution that (a) noted that the International Labor
Organization (ILO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are
undertaking research into existing medical-examination requirements for
seafarers on a global basis and (b) invited IMO to develop
international standards of medical fitness for seafarers, in
cooperation with the ILO and WHO. This matter is now on the work
program of the IMO Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and
Watchkeeping (STW). It is unlikely that such standards will be
established before this proposed rule would be published as a final
rule.
Meanwhile, the Coast Guard has been working with MERPAC to
determine whether there is a need for more explicit physical standards
for entry-level personnel. The Coast Guard is also continuing to work
with the Maritime Administration in promoting the
[[Page 13288]]
Seafarers Health Improvement Program, which includes guidance for
physical examinations for both entry of seafarers into, and retention
in, the U.S. merchant marine.
The Coast Guard is also in the process of reviewing and revising
Navigation and Inspection Circular Number (NVIC) 6-89, ``Physical
Evaluation Guidelines for Merchant Mariners' Documents and Licenses,''
which identifies disqualifying medical conditions. As noted in one
comment submitted to the docket in response to the notice published on
August 2, 1995, medical-fitness standards must take into account the
job description for the positions to be filled by the individual
concerned, and the implications for both employees and employers under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Taking the preceeding discussion into account, the Coast Guard is
not venturing into any specific new medical-fitness standards in this
proposed rule. However, to ensure compliance with the requirements of
new STCW Regulation I/9, this rule includes a provision stating that
each applicant for an entry-level MMD must provide a document issued by
a qualified medical practitioner attesting the prospective seaman's
medical fitness for anticipated shipboard duties (Sec. 12.02-07).
The Coast Guard invites comments on the need for and feasibility of
establishing more prescriptive medical standards for entry-level
personnel and particularly for personnel with duties in safety or
pollution-prevention. It also invites comment on whether a licensed
nurse practitioner should be considered a ``qualified medical
practitioner'' for assuring medical fitness under U.S. regulations.
8. Quality-standards system (QSS). The 1995 Amendments to STCW
include a new requirement (STCW Regulation I/8) for Parties to ensure
that all training and assessment are ``continuously monitored through a
quality-standards system to ensure achievement of defined objectives,
including those concerning the qualifications and experience of
instructors and assessors.'' Furthermore, the new STCW Regulation
provides that an evaluation be conducted periodically by qualified
persons, not involved in the activities concerned. The associated
sections of the STCW Code expand on this STCW Regulation by outlining
the requirements for a QSS in Part A, and then by additional guidance
in Part B. For example, A-I/8 states that independent evaluations of
assessments are to be conducted ``at intervals of not more than 5
years.'' Furthermore, the results of these evaluations are to be
reported to IMO, in accordance with STCW Regulation I/7.
To a large degree, the current process of the Coast Guard for
course approval meets the requirements of new STCW Regulation I/8, but
this process is limited to specific required training (such as
firefighting or radar), or training intended to substitute for part of
a sea-service requirement. As discussed in more detail relative to 46
CFR Part 10 under Approved training, the 1995 Amendments to STCW expand
the instances where approved training must or may be used to meet
competence requirements. A QSS will be required for all such training.
This proposed rule incorporates elements that conform to the STCW
requirements for a QSS for training and assessment activities, but that
would at the same time take into consideration the impact on Coast
Guard resources that may be needed for effective supervision. The
proposed rule is intentionally drafted to allow for a variety of QSSs
that may be tailored to suit particular programs of training and
assessment. They are also designed to ensure that no QSS imposes
unreasonable costs on small enterprises or entities that offer training
programs whether limited in scope or offered only to a restricted pool
of seafarers and programs that, regardless, may be conducted either on
board ship or at shoreside.
The Coast Guard invites comments on the extent to which the
following systems or processes, or a combination of such systems or
processes, should be accepted as meeting the QSS requirements of the
1995 Amendments to STCW:
(a) Periodic accreditation under a recognized process like the
regional accreditation used by high-level academic institutions in the
United States, such as the Middle States Association of Colleges and
Schools, provided that the process can be appropriately modified to
explicitly cover maritime training and take into account guidance
regarding quality-standards provided in part B-I/8 of the STCW Code.
(b) Periodic Accreditation by an independent professional agency,
or a voluntary association of trade and technical schools, that has
membership standards and a procedure for accreditation that takes into
account guidance regarding quality-standards provided in part B-I/8 of
the STCW Code.
(c) Periodic certification, by a State board of education, or other
suitable regulatory body at the State level, establishing that a
particular training program or institution is authorized to issue
certificates of completion of training requirements in a relevant
maritime field, if the supervising process takes into account guidance
regarding quality-standards provided in part B-I/8 of the STCW Code.
(d) Periodic certification by an organization accepted or
authorized by the Coast Guard, such as a ship-classification society,
that has developed a certification process for maritime-training
programs based on guidance regarding quality-standards provided in part
B-I/8 of the STCW Code, or has suitably adapted such a process from the
standards, guidelines, and principles contained in the ISO 9000 series,
or from the equivalent Quality management and Quality Assurance
Standards developed by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI).
(e) Periodic evaluation by a panel or team of maritime-education
specialists, made up of professional staff from the State or Federal
maritime academies, or from other recognized maritime-training
institutions. The evaluation would be based on an industry standard to
be developed, and guidance regarding quality-standards provided in part
B-I/8 of the STCW Code.
The Coast Guard is continuing to work with MERPAC to identify how
best to introduce an effective QSS. It will consider the
recommendations of MERPAC that came from its first meeting in 1996 in
drafting the final rule.
For further discussion on qualifications of instructors and
assessors, see the section on Approved training other than approved
courses.
9. Simulators. The 1995 Amendments to STCW promote the use of
simulators for training and assessment by (a) requiring the proper use
of radar and ARPA simulators in training, and (b) allowing the use of
simulation as a tool for assessing the competence of candidates for
certification. The amendments also set out performance standards for
simulators used for conducting required training or assessment. An
opportunity for grandfathering simulators installed or brought into use
before February 1, 2002, is provided under STCW Regulation I/12.
Current domestic rules require the use of simulators for those
training to qualify as radar observers (46 CFR 10.305 and 10.480) and
promote the use of simulator training promoted by allowing it to count,
in conjunction with approved training, as an equivalency for
[[Page 13289]]
up to 25 percent of required sea service (46 CFR 10.304(d)).
A new study by the Marine Board of the National Research Council
(NRC) examines the role of ship-bridge simulation in the professional
development and licensing of mariners responsible for vessels'
navigation and piloting. The study, entitled ``Simulated Voyages''
recommends steps to increase the use of simulators in maritime training
and assessment. The Coast Guard considers this proposed rule for
implementing STCW to be consistent with the study and its conclusions.
This rule is intended to allow introduction of the most effective use
of simulators into maritime training and assessment taking place in the
United States.
In this regard, the Coast Guard has also been working with the
maritime academies in developing guidelines on the use of simulators
there. The Maritime Academies Simulator Committee (MASC) includes
representatives from the six State maritime academies, the Maritime
Administration (MARAD), and the Coast Guard. The outcome of the efforts
of this committee will figure in drafting the final rule.
Because of the wide variety of interpretations given to the term
``simulation,'' the Coast Guard invites comments on the need for
introducing definitions, or technical performance standards, into the
rules, and on the extent to which, or the conditions under which,
personal computer-based training should be classified as falling within
the scope of simulator training.
10. Effective dates. As noted earlier, the 1995 Amendments to STCW
come into force on February 1, 1997. However, STCW Regulation I/15, on
transitional provisions, allows some requirements to come into force
more gradually. The Coast Guard will be working at IMO to establish an
international agreement on precisely which requirements must come into
force as of February 1, 1997. Any agreement reached at IMO will be
taken into figure in drafting the final rule.
STCW Regulation I/15 provides that a Party may continue, until
February 1, 2002, to issue certificates (licenses) in accordance with
the domestic rules it has in place before the 1995 Amendments come into
force (February 1, 1997) only in respect to seafarers who begin their
sea service or their approved maritime training before August 1, 1998.
Candidates who begin their service or their training after then will be
subject to the full application of the revised STCW requirements.
Where options presented by this proposed rule would be to the
advantage of the maritime industry in the United States, there may be
no need to defer or delay implementation. Comments on the most suitable
effective dates for new requirements associated with such matters as
the QSS and the process for identifying qualified instructors and
assessors should be submitted to the docket.
46 CFR Part 10--Licensing of Maritime Personnel
1. Purpose of Regulations
The Coast Guard would revise Sec. 10.101(a) to reflect that the
purpose of part 10 is twofold. This proposed rule is intended to
provide, first, a means of determining that an applicant is qualified
to hold a U.S. license and, second, a means of determining that an
applicant is competent to hold an STCW certificate or endorsement to
serve in a particular shipboard position. The use of the term ``STCW
certificate or endorsement'' would allow the Coast Guard to combine the
U.S. license and the STCW endorsement into a single document at some
time in the future, for administrative convenience.
2. Approved Training
The Coast Guard would revise Sec. 10.101(c) to indicate that
Subpart C of Part 10 would apply not only to approved training used for
remission of seagoing service but also to all training and assessment
that must be approved as meeting the requirements of STCW. For
additional discussion of approved training see the discussion of
Sec. 10.309 under Approved training other than approved courses.
3. Incorporation by Reference
The Coast Guard would introduce the necessary language in
Sec. 10.102 to allow technical requirements of the 1995 Amendments to
STCW and to the STCW Code to be incorporated by reference into specific
rules in part 10.
4. Definitions
The Coast Guard would add a number of new definitions in
Sec. 10.103. These include approved training because virtually all
training required under STCW is subject to approval to ensure that it
meets the relevant provisions of STCW. However, such training is
distinct from training provided in the context of a course approved by
the Coast Guard for use as a substitute for sea service. Under this
proposed rule, training could be ``approved'' for the purposes of STCW
if it met certain minimal conditions, as set out in Sec. 10.309. Refer
to the discussion of that section (paragraph 12) for more details.
The proposal also includes a definition for Coast-Guard-accepted.
This term is used in a number of regulations to indicate that, although
the Coast Guard would not in some cases engage in a formal approval
process, it would maintain certain standards of practice by accepting
materials or processes as meeting the applicable requirements, or by
authorizing a third party to do so on its behalf under a Memorandum of
Agreement.
This proposed rule also defines approved instructor as a person
trained or instructed in instructional techniques and qualified to
provide required training to candidates for licenses, documents, and
endorsements.
A definition of STCW endorsement also appears in Sec. 10.103
because that term occurs with some frequency in the proposed rule, and
the definition would give this endorsement a special legal significance
as a document issued under Part 10 to those found in compliance with
STCW Standards of Competence.
For the purposes of this proposed rule, the Coast Guard assumes
that Part 10 will also include a number of new definitions along the
lines of those being developed for docket number CGD 94-055, the
project on licensing requirements for officers of towing vessels,
including the following:
(a) Designated examiner means an individual trained or instructed
in assessment techniques and otherwise qualified to evaluate whether a
candidate for a license, document, or endorsement has achieved the
level of competence necessary to hold the license, document, or
endorsement. This individual may be personally designated by the Coast
Guard, or be designated within the context of a Coast-Guard-approved
program of training or assessment.
(b) Standard of competence means the level of proficiency necessary
for the proper performance of duties on board vessels in accordance
with national and international criteria.
(c) Practical demonstration means the performance of an activity
under the direct observation of a designated examiner for the purpose
of establishing that the performer is sufficiently proficient in a
practical skill to meet a specified standard of competence or other
objective criterion.
These are not final definitions, and comments made on their
applicability to STCW requirements will be taken into account in the
rule on towing vessels to ensure that that final rule winds up
consistent with all the changes being made to Part 10 by this. Both
rules will also maintain uniformity with the definitions of identical
terms used in
[[Page 13290]]
part 12. This will be discussed further under Sec. 12.01-6.
5. Paperwork Approval
If this proposed rule finally results in new reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sec. 10.107 will refer to the appropriate
OMB control numbers.
6. Eligibility for Licenses
The Coast Guard would revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 10.207 to
reflect that, in some cases, candidates must provide proof of having
successfully completed practical demonstrations of certain skills.
Demonstration requirements are further specified in proposals relating
to Secs. 10.205, 10.910, and 10.950.
7. Issuance of Licenses
The Coast Guard would revise Sec. 10.202 to ensure that anyone
qualified for an STCW certificate or endorsement is issued the
appropriate documents at the same time as a license.
8. Requirements for Original Licenses
Under Sec. 10.205, the Coast Guard would incorporate a number of
new requirements from the 1995 Amendments to STCW, as follows:
(a) Firefighting. Under paragraph (g) of Sec. 10.205, every
candidate for a license--as master or mate of a vessel on near-coastal
or ocean service, as an operator of an uninspected passenger vessel
operating beyond the boundary line, for service on a MODU, and as an
engineer--will have to meet the standard of competence in basic and
advanced firefighting set out in STCW Regulations VI/1 and VI/3 and in
Part A of the associated sections of the STCW Code. This proposed rule
assumes that operators of seagoing towing vessels will be classified as
masters or mates under a separate rulemaking [CGD 94-055]. If they are
not, then the final rule in this will restore the reference to
operators of such vessels.
A second provision would allow the Coast Guard to approve a
firefighting course or training program specially designed for a
particular ship or type of service. This is consistent with the
exemption in STCW Regulation II/3 of the 1995 Amendments, which
concerns certification of masters and mates on ships of less than 500
GT and states that
[t]he Administration, if it considers that a ship's size and the
conditions of its voyage are such as to render the application of
the full requirements of this regulation and section A-II/3 of the
STCW Code unreasonable or impracticable, may to that extent exempt
the master and the officer in charge of a navigational watch on such
a shop or class of ships from some of the requirements, bearing in
mind the safety of all ships that may be operating in the same
waters.
The Coast Guard expects to apply this flexibility, for instance, in
approval of a firefighting course or training program for licensed
personnel serving on small passenger vessels engaged in near-coastal
voyages. In these cases, the Coast Guard would take into consideration
the firefighting equipment whose fitting is actually required on such
vessels, as well as the complexity of firefighting that may take place
on such vessels. The Coast Guard invites comments on the scope,
content, and skills-assessment techniques that it should include in
these limited or modified courses or training programs.
(b) Automatic Radar-Plotting Aids (ARPA). The Coast Guard would
revise Sec. 10.205 by adding a new STCW requirement for every candidate
for a license--as master or mate of vessels on near-coastal or ocean
service, or as operator of uninspected passenger vessels operating
beyond the boundary line--to establish competence in the use of ARPA.
Candidates would have to have ARPA-simulator training. However, this
requirement would not apply to those who will be serving on vessels not
fitted with ARPA; in such cases, the license and STCW endorsement would
state the lack of the training. (For further discussion of radar-
training requirements, see the discussion of Sec. 10.480 at page 46.)
(c) Certificate for Operator of Radio in Global Maritime Distress
and Safety System (GMDSS). The Coast Guard would revise Sec. 10.205 by
adding a new STCW requirement that every candidate for a license--as
master or mate of a vessel on near-coastal or ocean service--hold a
Certificate for Operator of Radio in Global Maritime Distress and
Safety System issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
under its regulations (47 CFR Part 13), or a certificate of completion
of an FCC-approved or Coast Guard-approved Certificate for Operator of
Radio in Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. However, this
requirement would not apply to those who will be serving on vessels not
required to participate in the GMDSS system under FCC regulations (47
CFR Part 80) and Chapter IV of the International Convention on Safety
of Life At Sea (SOLAS). Seagoing cargo ships of 300 GTs and seagoing
passenger ships must meet GMDSS requirements. On the other hand, some
mates or masters may have to hold GMDSS certificates before this
proposed rule would become final in any form, if they are designated to
serve as primary or secondary GMDSS operators under FCC regulations.
One comment submitted in response to the request for comments
published in the Federal Register on August 2, 1995 [60 FR 39306],
urged the Coast Guard to provide for ``maintenance of GMDSS and radio
equipment in the revisions of the licensing and documentation
regulations to reflect the STCW Amendments.'' The comment also said ``a
communications and electronics position should be established
incorporating the skills of the traditional Radio Officer and those of
an electronics specialist.'' The comment also asserted that the Coast
Guard, rather than the FCC, should certify training facilities and
testing facilities for the GMDSS. Lastly, the comment said the Coast
Guard should consider establishing standards of competence for
shipboard radio-electronics personnel responsible for distress and
emergency communications.
For regulatory purposes, the Coast Guard considers this comment to
raise four distinct issues. Only two of these fall directly in the
scope of the present rulemaking, to implement the 1995 Amendments to
STCW. Qualifications of those who will be maintaining GMDSS and radio
equipment, and their training and testing, are subjects within the
scope of this project. A proposal for establishing an electronics-
technician endorsement appears under part 12 (in new Sec. 12.25-45).
Proposals for the establishment of a new crew position on U.S.
ships, to be dedicated to communications and electronics, or
modification of radio officers' role to encompass all GMDSS-related
responsibilities, lie outside the scope of this rulemaking. STCW does
not impose manning requirements on seagoing ships. On the other hand,
the new certification standards may have implications for crew
complements; therefore, the Coast Guard has included a proposal for
revising part 15 concerning the ability of the electronics technician
to perform at-sea maintenance of GMDSS installations when the ship is
required to have that onboard-maintenance capability as one of the
options under the GMDSS provisions of SOLAS. That proposal pertains to
Sec. 15.401.
With respect to the role of the Coast Guard and the FCC in
regulating maritime communications, the Coast Guard currently
recognizes the FCC as the agency with primary responsibility for
establishing U.S. requirements for holding radiocommunications licenses
or radio operators' certificates. This responsibility is complemented
by the
[[Page 13291]]
Coast Guard's authority for issuing radio officers' licenses. This
proposed rule honors the complementary roles of both agencies, while
taking into account the fact that adjustments may be made in the future
on how these roles are allocated and carried out. Comment to the docket
is welcome on whether the Coast Guard should be involved in approving
the GMDSS training program, as it is proposing to be. The Coast Guard
will also be looking at this issue in light of section 365 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104) which will allow a
vessel to operate without a radio officer if it is determined that the
vessel is properly fitted with equipment to implement GMDSS, and the
equipment is in good working condition.
(d) Personal survival techniques. The Coast Guard is proposing to
revise Sec. 10.205 by adding a new STCW requirement--for every
candidate for a license as master, mate, or engineer on a vessel on
near-coastal or ocean service, or for a license as operator of
uninspected passenger vessels operating beyond the boundary line, or
for a license for service on a MODU--to present proof of having
received approval training or instruction in personal survival
techniques (i.e., survival at sea in the event of abandoning ship). The
object of the training is to ensure that the candidate meets the
standard of competence in personal survival techniques set out in STCW
Regulation VI/1 and in table VI/1-1 in section A/VI/1 of the STCW Code.
The Coast Guard intends to accept training and assessment which is
based on documented practical experience.
The Coast Guard is also proposing to approving a personal survival
course of training especially designed for a particular ship or type of
service. This is consistent with the flexibility conferred by section
A-VI/1, paragraph 3, of the STCW Code that concerns familiarization and
basic safety-training and states that
[t]he Administration may, in respect of ships other than passenger
ships of more than 500 gross tonnage engaged on international
voyages and tankers, if it considers that a ship's size and the
conditions of its voyage are such as to render the application of
the full requirements of this section of the STCW Code unreasonable
or impracticable, exempt to that extent the seafarers on such a ship
or class of ships from some of the requirements, bearing in mind the
safety of people on board, the ship and property and the protection
of the environment.
The Coast Guard expects to apply this flexibility, for instance, in
approval of personal survival training for licensed personnel serving
on small vessels engaged in near-coastal voyages. The Coast Guard
invites comment on the scope, content, and skills-assessment techniques
that should be included in this limited or modified training.
(e) Personal safety and social responsibilities. The Coast Guard is
proposing to revise Sec. 10.205 by adding a new STCW requirement--for
every candidate for a license as master, mate, or engineer on a vessel
in near-coastal or ocean service, or for a license as an operator of
uninspected passenger vessels operating beyond the boundary line, or
for a license for service on a MODU--to present a certificate of
completion of approved training in personal safety and social
responsibilities (e.g., taking proper actions in emergencies, taking
precautions to prevent pollution, observing safe working practices,
understanding and communicating orders, and contributing to effective
human relationships on board ship by being aware of employment
conditions, individual rights and obligations, dangers of alcohol
abuse, etc.). The object is to ensure that the candidate meets the
standard of competence in personal safety and social responsibility set
out in STCW Regulation VI/1 and in table A-VI/1-4 in section A/VI/1 of
the STCW Code.
The Coast Guard is also proposing to let itself approve a course in
personal safety and social responsibilities especially designed for a
particular ship or type of service. This is consistent with the
exemption in section A-VI/1, paragraph 3, of the STCW Code quoted under
paragraph (d) Personal survival techniques.
The Coast Guard invites comments on the scope, content, and skill-
assessment techniques that belong in this limited or modified training.
The Coast Guard anticipates that the requirements for firefighting,
personal survival, and personal safety and social responsibility
including pollution prevention can be combined into a single course of
training or instruction, which also includes elementary first aid, to
meet the basic safety-training requirements of section A-VI/1,
paragraph 2, of the STCW Code. This will be particularly true with
respect to operators of uninspected passengers vessels (OUPVs)
operating seaward of the boundary line. The Coast Guard intends to
develop a checklist of elementary basic safety-instruction that
candidates for OUPV licenses could have confirmed by boating-safety
instructor from the Coast Guard Auxiliary or the Red Cross, or by a
suitable official from the local firefighting department. The Coast
Guard invites comments on what belongs in this elementary basic safety
checklist.
After receiving the basic safety-training or instruction, the
license-holder must every 5 years provide evidence of having maintained
the required standard of competence, by providing evidence at the time
of renewal that he or she has demonstrated competence and has been
examined or continuously assessed as part of an approved training
program, in accordance with the tables in section A-VI/1, paragraph 2,
of the STCW Code. This matter gets closer scrutiny in the discussion
under paragraph 9, Requirements for renewal of licenses.
(f) Procedures for bridge team-work. The Coast Guard would revise
Sec. 10.205 by adding a new STCW requirement for every candidate for a
license as master, or mate, on a vessel on near-coastal or ocean
service to know effective bridge-team-work procedures as an essential
element of the competence to maintain a safe navigational watch. The
Coast Guard understands bridge-team-work procedures to encompass the
processes by which the watchkeeping personnel work together efficiently
and effectively to maintain a continuously safe watch. The concepts
applied in training and assessment to that end should reflect the
principles of bridge-resource management that contribute to the most
effective performance of watchkeeping duties. In this regard, refer to
the principles of bridge-resource management outlined in section B-VIII
of the STCW Code.
(g) Practical demonstration. The Coast Guard would add a new
subsection to Sec. 10.205 to require that, when a practical
demonstration of a skill is called for under this section or under a
provision of STCW referred to in this section the candidate must
provide sufficient evidence that the skill has been demonstrated
properly in the presence of a designated examiner. A written record,
including skills demonstrated, identity of the designated examiner, and
the results of the demonstration, must be maintained in the applicant's
license file. The Coast Guard invites comments on the best format for
maintaining this record. For related proposals, refer to the discussion
on tables 10.910 and 10.950.
9. Requirements for Raise in Grade of License
The Coast Guard would revise Sec. 10.207 to require proof that
candidates for a raise in grade of license have been examined and
otherwise assessed, to establish that they meet standards of
competence. In many cases, STCW will
[[Page 13292]]
require assessment by examination and by demonstration of practical
skills, which will be in addition to any basic qualifications such as
age, seagoing experience, and training.
10. Requirements for Renewal of Licenses
The Coast Guard is proposing to add a new subsection under
Sec. 10.209 to indicate that after July 31, 1998, applicants for
renewals will have to meet new requirements for holding the original
licenses at the grades concerned.
Candidates for renewal of licenses as masters or mates for service
on vessels in ocean or near-coastal service, or as operators of
uninspected passenger vessels operating beyond the boundary line, will
have to have the appropriate training or instruction in firefighting,
personal survival techniques, and personal safety and social
responsibility. If the instruction took place more than 5 years ago,
the candidates will also have to provide proof that competence was
assessed and validated within the last 5 years. Regardless of the
schedule under which a candidate's license is renewed, he or she will
need to receive basic safety training in accordance with dates of
compliance established in paragraph (b) of Sec. 15.403 for service on a
seagoing vessel. The Coast Guard intends to accept training and
assessment which is based on documented practical experience.
Candidates for renewal of licenses will also need to be trained in
ARPA if they will be serving on vessels fitted with ARPA and they will
need to hold a Certificate for Operator of Radio in Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System if they will be serving on vessels that
participate in GMDSS.
The proposed deadline of July 31, 1998, derives from the
transitional provisions of the 1995 Amendments to STCW, which allow for
a phase-in of new requirements up to August 1, 1998. STCW Regulation I/
15 permits a Party to renew certificates (licenses) until February 1,
2002, in accordance with rules that will be in effect before February
1, 1997. However, to meet the target for full implementation in 2002,
it is necessary to process renewals in accordance with new requirements
beginning in 1998.
With these changes, the renewal process will conform to the
requirements of new STCW Regulation I/11 (Revalidation of Certificates)
of the 1995 Amendments.
11. Required use of Training--And Assessment--record Books
As noted, the 1995 Amendments to STCW require the use of a
training- and assessment-record book under some circumstances. The
Coast Guard is proposing to revise Sec. 10.304 to require use of Coast-
Guard-accepted training- and assessment-record books when candidates
for deck licenses are using training to substitute of service, and when
candidates for engineer licenses need onboard training to meet the
requirements of STCW. A training- and assessment-record book must
provide certain basic information including an indication, by means of
the initials or signature of a clearly identified, designated examiner,
that the candidate has established, through practical demonstrations,
that he or she is competent in each of the subjects of knowledge,
understanding, and proficiency set forth in the tables of the
appropriate section in Part A of the STCW Code.
The Coast Guard proposes to require the designated examiner to
certify that he or she has in fact personally witnessed the practical
demonstration by the candidate.
STCW requires the training- and assessment-record book to be
``approved.'' The Coast Guard plans to issue a NVIC or suitable
regulation in due course that would set out the format or formats that
it will consider approved (i.e., Coast-Guard-accepted) for the purposes
of complying with this regulation. Formal approval would take place
when the record book is submitted as proof that competence has been
assessed.
12. Approved Training Other Than Approved Courses
The 1995 Amendments to STCW refer to ``approved training'' in the
following eight contexts:
(a) STCW Regulation II/1 states that a candidate for certification
as officer in charge of a navigational watch must have approved
seagoing service of not less than 1 year ``as part of an approved
training program which includes onboard training which meets the
requirements of section A-II/1 of the STCW Code and is documented in an
approved training-record book.'' In the absence of an approved training
program, the candidate must have at least 3 years of approved seagoing
service.
(b) STCW Regulation III/1 states that a candidate for officer in
charge of an engineering watch, or for designated duty engineer, must
have completed ``approved education and training of at least 30 months
which includes onboard training documented in an approved training-
record book and meets the standards of competence specified in section
A-II/1 of the STCW Code.''
(c) STCW Regulation IV/2 states that candidates for certification
as persons in charge of or performing radio duties on a ship required
to participate in the GMDSS must have completed ``approved education
and training and meet the standard of competence specified in section
A-IV/2 of the STCW Code.''
(d) STCW Regulation V/1 requires certain personnel on tankers to
have completed ``an approved tanker familiarization course'' and ``an
approved specialized training program.''
(e) STCW Regulation V/2 requires certain personnel on ro-ro
passenger ships to have completed ``approved training in crisis
management and human behavior.''
(f) Section A-VI of the STCW Code refers to ``approved
familiarization training'' for all persons employed or engaged on
seagoing ships other than passengers, and to ``approved basic training
or instruction'' for seafarers with designated safety or pollution-
prevention duties.
(g) The table of competence for deck officers (A-II/1) refers to
``approved radar simulator and ARPA simulator training.''
(h) The tables of competence throughout part A of the STCW Code
refer to ``approved training,'' ``approved simulator training'' and
``approved laboratory equipment training'' as alternative methods
constituting evidence to prove a candidate's competence.
The Coast Guard's current course-approval system, as provided in
Secs. 10.301 to 10.307, applies only to specific mandatory courses such
as firefighting, radar, and first aid or cardiopulmonary resuscitation,
and to training used as a substitute for required service or for a
written examination. There are almost 400 Coast-Guard-approved courses.
(The procedures necessary to process course approvals appear (as
outlined in NVIC 5-95, ``Marine Licensing Program's Quality Standards
System for Approved Training''). An alternative system may be needed to
regulate approved training conducted to meet STCW requirements but not
used for remission of seagoing service under Part 10.
The Coast Guard is working with MERPAC to identify the criteria for
instructors of approved courses. MERPAC is also looking at the
relationship of these criteria to the overall requirements for
monitoring
[[Page 13293]]
training under a quality-standards system that ensures the meeting of
training objectives. Preliminarily, the MERPAC working groups engaged
in these efforts have settled on a concept under which the Coast Guard
would individually certify instructors and examiners whom it finds to
meet professional and instructional experience. The status and content
of MERPAC's recommendations on these criteria will influence the final
rule.
The Coast Guard is including in this proposed rule an alternative
to its current course-approval system. Proposed new Sec. 10.309 rests
on the principle of self-certification with minimum Coast Guard
oversight based on acceptance by the Coast Guard of certain materials
and procedures to maintain standards. In other words, completion
certificates issued by training programs that meet the conditions
stated in that section could be accepted as meeting the ``approved
training'' requirements of STCW when such training is not being used
for remission of seagoing service.
This could be done by a process like that used to credit ``approved
seagoing service'' after the fact, on sufficient documentary proof. If
the Coast Guard learned that the conditions set out in new Sec. 10.309
were not being met by a particular training program, it would not
accept certificates of completion as proof that the necessary training
had been completed. The conditions for conducting approved training
other than approved courses are set out in new Sec. 10.309.
This proposal is intended to comply with the requirements of new
STCW Regulations I/6 and I/8 of the 1995 Amendments. STCW Regulation I/
6 concerns qualifications of those who train or assess the competence
of seafarers; and STCW Regulation I/8 requires that training and
assessment of seafarers be continuously monitored through a quality-
standards system to ensure achievement of defined objectives, including
those concerning the qualifications and experience of instructors and
assessors.
The Coast Guard welcomes comments on this alternative approach,
particularly with respect to (a) Coast Guard involvement in conducting
oversight and maintenance of standards through a Coast-Guard-acceptance
procedure and (b) specific training or instruction in instruction or
assessment that those who instruct or assess candidates for STCW
certificates or endorsements should be proficient in.
13. Radar Training
The Coast Guard would revise Sec. 10.480 to require that radar
simulators used in radar training meet the performance standards set
out in section A-I/12 of the STCW Code.
14. Requirements for Radio Operators' Certificates
The Coast Guard would expand Secs. 10.601 and 10.603 to cover
certification or radio operators for service on ships required to
participate in GMDSS. Candidates must meet the standard of competence
set forth in STCW Regulation IV/2 of the 1995 Amendments.
This proposal is intended to complement that under Sec. 10.205,
which would require masters and mates to hold a Certificate for
Operator of Radio in Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)
if they serve on vessels that participate in GMDSS, and with FCC
regulations in 47 CFR parts 13 and 80 also allows persons other than
masters and mates to acquire radio operators certificates from the
Coast Guard if they have the necessary training and have met standards
of competence by means of an examination and practical demonstration.
The Coast Guard invites comment on the most effective process for
implementing the Certificate requirements for GMDSS radio operator,
particularly in light of section 365 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 which promotes implementation of GMDSS on U.S. vessels.
15. Practical Demonstration
Subpart I of part 10 (Secs. 10.901 through 10.950) is currently
limited to identification of subjects in which candidates must be
examined to qualify for certain licenses. Because qualification for
STCW certificates or endorsements under the 1995 Amendments to the
Convention will typically require candidates to prove their competence
by means of both an examination and a demonstration of skills, the
Coast Guard is proposing to expand Sec. 10.901 to cover practical
demonstrations.
Proposed new Sec. 10.901 provision would incorporate by reference
the tables in Part A of the STCW Code, with the effect of permitting
candidates for U.S. licenses to demonstrate their competence by any of
the methods authorized under those tables.
The table of subjects (a) adds subjects that will be treated under
STCW; (b) highlights those subjects for which candidates must perform
practical demonstrations; and (c) suggests subjects that can be removed
from the table because not treated under STCW.
The Coast Guard is also proposing a new subsection to require that
simulators used in assessment of competency or demonstration of
continued proficiency must meet the appropriate performance standards
set out in section A-I/12 of the STCW Code. However, simulators
installed or brought into use before February 1, 2002, would be exempt
from full compliance with these standards to the extent that they
remained capable of meeting the objectives of the assessment of
competence or demonstration of continued proficiency.
16. Ro-Ro Passenger Ships
The 1995 Amendments to STCW include new special provisions for
personnel serving on ro-ro passenger ships. New STCW Regulation V/2 in
Chapter V of the Annex, and section A-V/2 of the STCW Code, establish
mandatory minimum standards for the training and certification of
masters, officers, ratings (i.e., unlicensed seamen with certain
ratings), and other personnel on ro-ro passenger ships.
Because there are a number of ro-ro passenger ships documented in
the United States, of which six operate on international voyages
between the United States and Canada, the Coast Guard is proposing to
add a new subpart J in part 10, on ``Professional requirements for
officers serving on ro-ro passenger ships,'' to implement STCW
Regulation V/2 in the U.S. licensing system. Primarily, the new subpart
would incorporate by reference STCW Regulation V/2 and section A-V/2 of
the STCW Code. This proposed rule would apply only to U.S. Ro-Ro
passenger ships to which SOLAS Certificates are issued. Comments on
whether application should be expanded to other classes of U.S. ro-ro
passenger ships may be submitted to the docket.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) will be undertaking
further work to clarify certain requirements under STCW Regulation V/2.
In particular, the STCW of IMO will consider training in crisis
management for masters and senior officers. Any recommendations that
IMO ultimately adopts in this regard will influence the Coast Guard in
approving training programs or course materials on this subject.
[[Page 13294]]
46 CFR Part 12--Certification of Seamen
1. Purpose of Regulations
The Coast Guard would revise Sec. 12.01-1 to reflect that the
purpose of part 12 is twofold. Part 12 is intended to provide, first, a
means of determining the qualifications an applicant must possess to be
eligible for certification to serve on U.S. merchants vessels and,
second, a means of determining whether an applicant is competent under
STCW to serve in a particular shipboard position. The Coast Guard is
also proposing to indicate that new subpart 12.03 prescribes the
requirements applicable to training and assessment associated with
meeting the standards
FR Doc. 96-7019 Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW)
of competence under amended STCW.
2. Incorporation by Reference (Sec. 12.01-3)
The Coast Guard would introduce the necessary language in
Sec. 12.01-3 to allow technical requirements of the 1995 Amendments to
STCW and to the STCW Code to be incorporated by reference into specific
rules in Part 12.
3. Definitions
As noted in the discussion of Sec. 10.103, the Coast Guard intends
to maintain consistency in the definitions for identical terms used in
parts 10 and 12. Consequently, the Coast Guard is proposing for
Sec. 12.01-6 a number of new definitions that correspond with those
proposed for Sec. 10.103. These comprise approved training, Coast-
Guard-accepted, designated examiner, practical demonstration, qualified
instructor, STCW endorsement, and standard of competence.
4. When Documents are Required
The Coast Guard would revise Sec. 12.02-7 to require individuals
serving in certain capacities on seagoing ships to hold STCW
certificates or endorsement stating that they are so qualified.
5. General Provisions Respecting Merchant Mariner's Document (MMD)
The Coast Guard is proposing to revise Sec. 12.02-11 to ensure that
everyone qualified for an STCW certificate or endorsement is issued the
appropriate certificate or endorsement when he or she is issued an MMD,
or when the MMD is renewed or endorsed. One may be qualified to hold an
endorsement for a rating forming part of a navigation or engineering
watch, under STCW Regulation II/4 or III/4 and the corresponding
section of the STCW Code (A-II/4 or A-III/4), without being qualified
as an AB or QMED.
The Coast Guard is also proposing to allow the endorsement of an
MMD to indicate that the holder has received the familiarization or
basic safety-training required by chapter VI of STCW as amended. This
would not be mandatory, but it should be a convenience to those who
move from ship to ship, or company to company. As in the relevant parts
of Sec. 10.205, the Coast Guard would be able to approve courses which
are designed for particular ships or types of service, within the
limits allowed by STCW.
6. Medical Fitness
The Coast Guard is proposing to add a new subsection to Sec. 12.02-
17, requiring an applicant for an MMD to present documents issued by a
qualified medical practitioner attesting the applicant's medical
fitness to perform the functions for which the document is issued.
There are currently no medical-fitness requirements for entry-level
seamen.
This proposal is intended to comply with new STCW Regulation I/9 of
the 1995 Amendments, which states that ``each party shall establish
standards of medical fitness for seafarers, particularly regarding
eyesight and hearing.'' For further discussion of medical fitness,
refer to General, at page 9.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether additional procedures
or criteria belong in the rule to regulate medical fitness of entry-
level seamen.
7. Approved Training Other Than Approved Courses
As discussed under Sec. 10.309, the Coast Guard is proposing an
alternative to the course-approval system, for accepting training
programs as ``approved'' to satisfy STCW as amended. The proposal in
Sec. 12.03-1 is almost identical to the proposal in Sec. 10.309 (with
necessary editorial adjustments to fit in the context of Part 12). The
conditions are intended to meet the quality-standards provisions of
STCW as amended.
8. Able Seaman
The Coast Guard is proposing to revise the able seamen
qualifications in Subpart 12.05 to conform with the requirements of the
1995 Amendments to STCW.
Section 12.05-3 would expand the reference to ``lifeboatman'' to
include everyone with ``proficiency in survival craft and rescue
boats.''
This section would also add a new subsection to require candidates
for AB certificates for service on seagoing vessels to receive approved
basic safety-training as set out in STCW Regulation VI/1 and section A-
VI/1 of the STCW Code (i.e., personal survival techniques; firefighting
and fire prevention; elementary first aid; and personal safety and
social responsibilities). As in the relevant parts of Sec. 10.205, the
Coast Guard would be able to approve courses designed for particular
ships or types of service, within the limits allowed by STCW. Also, as
in Sec. 10,209, an applicant for renewal of an MMD with an AB
endorsement would have to prove that competency was assessed within the
last 5 years, if instruction took place more than 5 years ago.
Section 12.05-3 would also require a candidate for an AB
certificate for service on seagoing ships of 500 GT or more to meet the
requirements of STCW Regulation II/4, and be qualified to hold an STCW
certificate or endorsement for a rating forming part of a navigational
watch. The standard of competence set out in section A-II/4 of the STCW
Code would be incorporated by reference.
The table in section A-II/4 of the STCW Code includes a number of
subjects areas (such as use of gyro compasses, change-over from auto-
pilot, maintenance of a safe watch, knowledge of EPIRBs, and avoidance
of false alerts) that are not currently required under Sec. 12.05-9
(examination and demonstration of ability). That section would refer to
the STCW table.
Also, each candidate would have to prove that he or she had a
stated minimum of seagoing service including training and experience
associated with navigational watchkeeping under the direct supervision
of the Master, the officer in charge of the navigational watch, or a
qualified rating.
The Coast Guard is also proposing to revise Sec. 12.05-11 (general
provisions respecting MMDs endorsed for able seaman) to indicate that,
on seagoing ships of 500 GT ton and more, ABs who serve in navigational
watchkeeping must hold STCW certificates or endorsements for a rating
forming part of a navigational watch and be qualified in accordance
with STCW Regulation II/4.
9. Lifeboatman
The Coast Guard is proposing to revise the lifeboatman
qualifications in subpart 12.10 to conform with the requirements of the
1995 Amendments to STCW.
Section 12.10-3 would expand the reference to ``lifeboatman'' to
include every mariner with ``proficiency in survival craft and rescue
boats.'' This section would require candidates to (a) be at least 18
years of age and (b) have a minimum of 6 months of seagoing
[[Page 13295]]
service when associated with approved training.
This section would also add a new subsection to require a candidate
for a certificate for lifeboatman or survival craft to receive approved
basic safety-training as set out in STCW Regulation VI/1 and section A-
VI/1, paragraph 2, of the STCW Code (i.e. personal survival techniques;
firefighting and fire prevention; elementary first aid; and personal
safety and social responsibilities). As in the relevant parts of
Sec. 10.205, the Coast Guard would be able to approve courses designed
for particular ships or types of service, within the limits allowed by
the STCW. Also, a candidate for renewal of an MMD with a lifeboatman
endorsement would have to prove that competence was established within
the last 5 years if instruction took place more than 5 years ago.
Section 12.10-5 would incorporate by reference the standard of
competence set out in STCW Regulation VI/2 and section A-VI/2 of the
STCW Code. This would expand the coverage under this section to such
subjects as methods of starting survival-craft engines use of the fire
extinguisher provided method of helicopter rescue, effects of
hypothermia, use of rescue boats for persons in the sea, use of EPIRBS
and pyrotechnic distress signals, and first aid for survivors. The
Coast Guard would be able to approve courses designed for a particular
class of ship or type of service, to take into account such conditions
as small ships required only to carry liferafts. It would place an
appropriate limitation on the certificate issued on the basis of such
training.
The Coast Guard is proposing to delete Sec. 12.10-7. Individuals
qualified under STCW Regulation VI/2 must hold certificates stating
they are qualified. However, by policy, the Coast Guard proposes to
grandfather those who currently hold AB endorsements. Until August 1,
1998, it would issue to holders of MMDs with AB endorsements,
endorsements for proficiency in survival craft when they renew their
MMDs.
The Coast Guard is proposing to add a new Sec. 12.10-9 on
certificates of proficiency in fast rescue boats. This section would
incorporate by reference both the requirements of STCW Regulation VI/2,
paragraph 2, and the relevant portions of section A-VI/2 of the STCW
Code, including table A-VI/2-2. Fast rescue boats are those that can
sustain speeds of over 20 knots with crews of 3, and over 8 knots with
full complements of persons and equipment.
The Coast Guard is also proposing to add a new Sec. 12.10-11 for
those designated to provide medical care on board ship. This section
would incorporate by reference the requirements of STCW Regulation VI/4
and those of section A-VI/4 of the STCW Code. This allows individuals
not already having to be trained in first aid under other regulations
(e.g., Sec. 10.205(h) for licenses and certificates of registry) to
acquire endorsements to provide medical care on board ship.
10. Qualified Member of the Engine Department
The Coast Guard is proposing to revise the qualifications for
qualified members of the engine department (QMEDs) in subpart 12.15 to
conform with the requirements of the 1995 Amendments to STCW.
Section 12.15-3 would get a new subsection to require candidates
for QMED certificates for service on seagoing vessels driven by main
propulsion machinery of 750 kW [1,000 hp] of propulsion power or more
to receive approved basic safety-training as set out in STCW Regulation
VI/1 and section A-VI/1 of the STCW Code (i.e., personal survival
techniques; firefighting and fire prevention; elementary first aid, and
personal safety and social responsibilities, including pollution
prevention). As in the relevant parts of Secs. 10.205 and 12.05-3, the
Coast Guard would be able to approve courses designed for particular
ships or types of service, within the limits allowed by the STCW. Also,
as in Sec. 12.05-3, an applicant for renewal of an MMD with a QMED
endorsement would have to prove that competency was assessed within the
last 5 years if instruction took place more than five years ago.
Section 12.15-3 would also require candidates for QMED certificates
for service on seagoing vessels driven by main propulsion machinery of
750 kW [1,000 hp] of propulsion power or more to meet the requirements
of STCW Regulation III/4, and either be qualified to hold an STCW
certificate or endorsement for a rating forming part of a watch in a
manned engine-room or be designated to perform duties in a periodically
unmanned engine-room. The standard of competence set out in section A-
III/4 of the STCW Code would be incorporated by reference.
The table in section A-III/4 of the STCW Code includes a number of
subjects (such as engine-room watchkeeping and knowledge of escape
routes from machinery spaces) not currently covered under Sec. 12.15-9.
Section 12.15-7 would require a minimum of seagoing service
performing duties associated with engine-room watchkeeping under the
direct supervision of a qualified engineer officer or of a member of a
qualified rating.
Section 12.15-9 would refer to table A-III/4 of the STCW Code, and
would require practical demonstration of abilities.
Section 12.15-11 would indicate that, on seagoing vessels driven by
main propulsion machinery of 750 kW [1,000 hp] of propulsion power or
more, QMEDs who serve in a watchkeeping capacity in a manned engine-
room or are designated to perform duties in a periodically unmanned
engine-room must hold STCW certificates or endorsements stating that
they are qualified in accordance with STCW Regulation III/4.
11. Electronics Technician
The Coast Guard would establish a new rating under part 12 by
adding a section to Subpart 12.25 (Certificates of service for ratings
other than AB or QMED). New Sec. 12.25-45 would allow an individual to
hold a certificate or MMD stating that he or she is qualified to serve
as an electronics technician on board a vessel.
Section 12.25-45 would require candidates for this endorsement to
provide sufficient proof of competence. This would comprise (a) a
certificate of completion from a Coast Guard-approved training program
that includes instruction and assessment by qualified instructors and
designated examiners, and makes the student complete appropriate
examinations and practical demonstrations to establish competence in
the basic skills, knowledge, and understanding necessary to perform
maintenance, diagnosis, and repair of electronic equipment and
installations on board ships, in accordance with the manuals normally
provided for such equipment and installations and (b) a certificate of
completion from a course approved by the FCC or Coast Guard and
covering at least the scope and content of training outlines in the
relevant sections of B-IV/2 of the STCW Code relating to maintenance of
GMDSS installations on board ships.
Under Sec. 12.25-45 an individual could receive an electronic-
technician rating without completing the GMDSS course. However, in that
case, the endorsement would contain a limitation to the effect that the
individual could not serve as the person designated to perform at-sea
maintenance of GMDSS installations when such a person was necessary to
meet the maintenance requirements imposed by SOLAS Regulation IV/15
(i.e., ``electronics technician--non-GMDSS)''. When at-sea maintenance
is
[[Page 13296]]
to be used as a means of meeting the SOLAS requirement for maintenance
of GMDSS, the person designated to perform the maintenance must have an
electronics-technician endorsement, without the limitation. While this
proposed rule would establish an electronics-technician endorsement in
part 12, the intent is not that there be any restriction on the ability
of a licensed engineer to acquire the endorsement. The Coast Guard
solicits comments on whether Part 10 should include additional
requirements on electronics as a shipboard skill or responsibility,
particularly in light of section 365 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 which promotes the implementation of GMDSS on U.S. vessels.
12. Qualifications for Service on Ro-Ro Passenger Ships
The Coast Guard would add a new subpart (Sec. 12.30) under part 12
to establish requirements for certification (i.e., by endorsement of an
MMD) of unlicensed seamen for service on ro-ro passenger ships. The
requirements would essentially incorporate by reference the provisions
of STCW Regulation V/2 as they relate to personnel with specific duties
on such ships, and those with duties for care of passengers. The
proposed rule would apply only to U.S. ro-ro passenger ships to which
SOLAS certificates are issued. Comments on whether application should
be expanded to other classes of ro-ro passenger ships may be submitted
to the docket.
46 CFR Part 15--Manning Requirements
The 1995 Amendments to STCW contain a number of provisions that
affect manning and watchkeeping on seagoing vessels, as well as
conditions that must be met before crewmembers can be assigned to
duties. The Coast Guard is proposing to revise part 15 to incorporate
these new requirements on U.S. merchant vessels that operate seaward of
the boundary line.
1. Incorporation by Reference (Sec. 15.105)
The Coast Guard would introduce the necessary language in
Sec. 15.105 to allow technical requirements of the 1995 Amendments to
STCW and to the STCW Code to be incorporated by reference into specific
rules in part 15.
2. Definitions (Sec. 15.301)
The Coast Guard would revise this section to reflect changes
proposed in parts 10 and 12. For example, a reference to GMDSS radio
operator, electronics technician--non-GMDSS, and electronics technician
must each be added to paragraph (b) or (c).
3. Employment and Service Within Restrictions of License or Document
(Sec. 15.401)
The Coast Guard would expand this section to include references to
STCW certificates and endorsements. The section would also propose
that, as of February 1, 2002, only persons with the appropriate
training and certification as GMDSS radio operators be employed or
engaged as masters, chief mates, or officers in charge of navigational
watches on ships required to participate in the GMDSS system under
SOLAS Chapter IV. Additionally, only persons trained in the use of ARPA
could be employed or engaged as masters, chief mates, officers in
charge of navigational watches, or operators of uninspected passenger
vessels on vessels fitted with ARPA. These requirements would
complement those for Secs. 10.205 and 10.209.
Section 15.401 would also, as of February 1, 2002, let only persons
holding electronic-technician endorsements not limited to non-GMDSS
electronics installations be designated to perform at-sea maintenance
of GMDSS installations, when such designation is used to meet the
maintenance requirements imposed by SOLAS Regulation IV/15. This would
complement the proposal for Sec. 12.25-45.
Section 15.401 would also allow only those with proper training
under subpart J of part 10 and Sec. 12.24-30 of part 12 to be employed
or engaged on ro-ro passenger ships.
4. Familiarization and Basic Safety-Training (Sec. 15.403)
The Coast Guard would implement STCW Regulation VI/1 of the 1995
Amendments by adding new Sec. 15.403 to Part 15 on familiarization and
basic safety-training. The section would propose that after February 1,
1997 no person may be assigned to perform any duties on a seagoing
vessel unless he or she has received approved familiarization training
in personal survival or has received sufficient information and
instruction in a number of subjects affecting personal safety, in
accordance with A-VI/1 of the STCW Code.
This section would also state that no person may be employed or
engaged in any capacity on board a seagoing vessel in the business of
that vessel as part of the crew with designated duties for safety or
pollution prevention in the operation of the ship unless he or she has
received approved basic safety-training or instruction in accordance
with A-VI/1 of the STCW Code. Designated duties for safety include
those associated with fire-team emergency squads and with assisting
passengers in emergencies.
Additionally, this section would provide that no person may perform
duties on board a seagoing vessel unless he or she has received the
required familiarization training or instruction, or has achieved the
required standard of competence through basic safety-training, as
appropriate.
Under the relevant parts of Secs. 10.205 and 12.02-11, the Coast
Guard would be able to approve training designed for particular ships
or types of service, within the limits allowed by STCW.
One comment submitted to the docket following the public meeting in
August expressed concern about the application of these requirements of
familiarization and basic safety-training to personnel serving on
MODUs. Again, to the extent a MODU was a seagoing ship under STCW, the
implementing regulations being proposed at this time would apply to its
personnel. On the other hand, in approving specific training, the Coast
Guard will take into consideration, and use as the basis for its
evaluation, any IMO resolutions that provide special guidance on the
training of personnel on MODUs.
5. Maintenance of Seamen's Records by Owner or Operator (Sec. 15.411)
STCW Regulation I/14 of the 1995 Amendments requires
Administrations to impose certain responsibilities on companies that
own or operate seagoing vessels. These responsibilities are fundamental
to good management, are consistent with the principles reflected in the
International Management Code for Safe Operation of Ships (ISM Code),
and are to a large extent already covered by domestic regulations.
For example, the obligation under item 1.1 of STCW Regulation I/14,
concerning the need to ensure that each seafarer holds the appropriate
STCW certificate, is addressed by 46 CFR 15.401. The obligation in item
1.2 of STCW Regulation I/14, concerning compliance with manning
requirements, is addressed by 46 CFR 15.401 and 15.515, and to some
extent by 46 CFR 15.801, with statutory support (e.g., 46 U.S.C. 8101
(c) and (f) and 8104(j)). Similarly, the object of item 1.4 of STCW
Regulation I/14, ensuring that seafarers are familiar with ship-
specific arrangements, equipment, and so forth, before being assigned
to duties, is already addressed in 46 CFR 15.405.
But, because Sec. 15.405 does not explicitly require companies to
ensure
[[Page 13297]]
that a level of familiarity has been achieved, the Coast Guard is
inviting comment on whether it should be revised. If so, the Coast
Guard also invites comments on whether the term company (or,
alternatively, the term owner or operator) should be defined in Part
15. The Coast Guard also invites comments on how Sec. 15.405 should be
revised to effectively implement paragraph 2 of section A.I/14 of the
STCW code, which states the following:
The company shall provide written instructions to the master of
each ship to which the Convention applies, setting forth the
policies and the procedures to be followed to ensure that all
seafarers who are newly employed on board the ship are given a
reasonable opportunity to become familiar with the shipboard
equipment, operating procedures and other arrangements needed for
the proper performance of their duties, before being assigned to
those duties.
To some extent, the requirements for maintaining certain records,
as set out in item 1.3 of STCW Regulation I/14, are already addressed
by statutory and regulatory provisions on shipping articles and other
records of seamen (e.g., 46 U.S.C. 10302, 10320, and 10502 and 46 CFR
part 14). Additionally, it is considered routine practice for U.S.
companies that employ seaman to maintain a personnel record for each
employee, or to ensure that one is maintained by an agency acting on
behalf of the company in such matters (such as a labor union that has
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement).
Taking the above into account, the rule proposed as Sec. 15.411
focuses on the recordkeeping requirements in STCW Regulation I/14 of
the 1995 Amendments. The object is to allow companies a suitable range
of flexibility for complying with these requirements in a manner most
consistent with good management. Furthermore, the policy of the Coast
Guard will be to presume, in the absence of information to the
contrary, that companies holding valid ISM certificates, issued in
accordance with the appropriate international, and domestic
regulations, are fulfilling their obligations under STCW Regulation I/
14.
One comment submitted in response to the notice published on August
2, 1995 [60 FR 39306], asked that the requirements of item 1.4 of STCW
Regulation I/14 (on familiarization with specific equipment and
procedures) not be extended to apply to duties of industrial personnel
on industrial vessels (e.g., MODUs) or research crew on research
vessels. The Coast Guard would not expect this proposed rule to impose
an unreasonable obligation on companies that employ such personnel.
However, in keeping with earlier statements in this preamble, the Coast
Guard recognizes that IMO will be giving further consideration to
issues of industrial personnel. Therefore, the proposals relating to
paragraph 1.4 of STCW Regulation 1/14 should be understood not to apply
to industrial personnel on MODUs or research personnel on research
vessels. Such personnel, however, would be subject to the
familiarization and basis safety training requirements, of STCW
Regulation VI/I, as described in section 4.
6. Watchkeeping Arrangements
The Coast Guard is proposing to revise Sec. 15.705 (Watches) by
requiring masters on seagoing vessels to observe the principles on
watchkeeping arrangements set out in STCW Regulation VIII/2 of the 1995
Amendments.
7. Workhours and Rest Periods
The Coast Guard is proposing to implement the rest-hour
requirements of STCW Regulation VIII/1 of the 1995 Amendments, and of
section A-VIII/1 of the STCW Code, by adding new subparagraphs to
Sec. 15.710. Essentially, the STCW Amendments will require that every
person assigned duty as an officer in charge of a watch or as a rating
forming part of a watch shall receive a minimum of 10 hours of rest in
any 24-hour period. These 10 hours of rest may be divided into two
parts as long as one segment is at least 6 hours.
Deviation from the requirement for 10 total and 6 continuous hours
of rest is permissible in the case of ``an emergency or drill or in
other overriding operational conditions.'' Additionally, the 10 hours
of rest in a 24-hour period may drop to 6 consecutive hours in a 24-
hour period over 2 days, as long as the watch-keeper receives 70 hours
of rest in each 7-day period. Watch schedules that ensure compliance
with these rest-hour requirements must be posted when they are easily
accessible to watchkeeping personnel and to port-control officers in
foreign ports.
Section B-VIII/1 of the STCW Code provides some guidance on the
meaning of the terms used in section A-VIII/1, and on the correct
interpretation of the rest-hour requirements when calculating workhours
outside of the periods of watchkeeping responsibility. For instance, it
construes the phrase ``overriding operational conditions'' to mean
``only essential shipboard work which cannot be delayed for safety or
environmental reasons or which could not reasonably have been
anticipated at the commencement of the voyage.''
The guidance in section B-VIII/1 of the STCW Code also states that
the minimum rest periods should not be interpreted as implying that all
other hours may be devoted to watchkeeping or other duties. It also
invites administrations to consider a requirement for recordkeeping to
ensure compliance with that for hours of the rest.
One comment submitted in response to the notice published on August
2, 1995 [60 FR 39306], expressed concern that an individual serving in
a two-watch rotation on a towing vessel would be considered unfit for
duty if he or she got only 5 hours of sleep in one 6-hour off-duty
period, and 2 hours of sleep in the next off-duty period. The Coast
Guard does not view the rest-hour requirements of STCW as mandating a
period in which the individual concerned is actually in his or her bunk
asleep. However, over any period of 24 hours, the watchkeeping
personnel must be provided the opportunity for an uninterrupted period
of rest for at least 6 hours, and an additional 4-hour period during
which no duties are assigned or performed. The operative word is
``opportunity''. This would not prevent a person from attending to
routine personal affairs, or engaging in recreational or other off-duty
activities.
Another comment submitted on this matter suggested that the rest-
hour requirements of STCW could have an adverse impact on the operation
of towing vessels and small passenger vessels because it would permit a
14-hour workday or a 98-hour workweek, in violation of U.S. statutory
and regulatory provisions that limit the number of hours a seaman may
be required to work.
Note, however, that the introduction of a rest-hour requirement
into U.S. regulations would not change any existing work-hour limits or
rest-hour requirements that apply to personnel on U.S. vessels. Limits
that apply to seagoing ships under 46 U.S.C. 8104 and 46 CFR 15.705 and
15.710 would remain fully in effect. Additionally, operators of towing
vessels and tankers already have to comply with both the work-hour
limits under 46 U.S.C. 8104(h) and 8104(n), respectively, and the rest-
hour requirements under STCW and 46 U.S.C. 8104(a).
In any specific set of circumstances, the stricter rule would
apply. For example, although the rest-hour requirements proposed here
would technically permit the operator of a seagoing towing vessel to
stand watch for up to 14 hours a day, 46 U.S.C. 8104(h) would limit the
operator to no more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period.
[[Page 13298]]
Similarly, although 46 U.S.C. 8104(n) technically permits a mate on a
tanker to work up to 15 hours in a 24-hour period, the rest-hour
requirements proposed here would limit his or her periods of duty to
not more than 14 hours in that same 24-hour period, unless there were
an emergency or other overriding operational condition; and then an
adjustment would subsequently be necessary to ensure that the mate
received 70 hours of rest in 7 days.
Although calculating work and rest may be complex under some non-
routine circumstances, the Coast Guard considers the STCW rest-hour
requirements of STCW and the existing work-hour limits in U.S. statutes
and regulations to be compatible and enforceable, and in keeping with
the object of safe watchkeeping.
Further comment to the docket is welcome, on the implementation of
the rest-hour requirement, and particularly on the extent to which the
terms rest hours and overriding operational conditions should be
clarified or interpreted either in this proposed rule itself or in the
policy on its enforcement. Comment is also welcome on the kinds of
shipboard activity (such as personal housekeeping) that should be
allowed to watchkeeping personnel who are off duty and on the need for
recordkeeping to ensure compliance with the rest-hour requirements.
Incorporation by Reference
The following material would be incorporated by reference in
Secs. 10.102, 12.01-3, and 15.105: Amendments to the Annex to the
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, and the associated Seafarers'
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) Code, as adopted under
resolutions 1 and 2, respectively, by the Conference of Parties to the
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, held at IMO from June 26 to July 7,
1995.
Copies of the material are available for inspection where indicated
under ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are also available from IMO, 4
Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR, England, telephone in London 0171-
735-7611.
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 proposed rule 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 not been reviewed 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)].
A preliminary regulatory assessment has been prepared and is
available for inspection where indicated under ADDRESSES.
The regulatory assessment is preliminary at this stage. The Coast
Guard published a notice of inquiry on November 13, 1995 [60 FR 56970],
to solicit information that would be useful in calculating the costs
and benefits of implementing the 1995 Amendments to STCW. Some of those
calling the Coast Guard to discuss the notice said they could not give
a detailed or accurate assessment of impacts until they had seen the
specific proposals. Others indicated they did not foresee a cost impact
since they felt that their current practices and procedures generally
conformed with the requirements of the amendments to STCW.
To a great extent, the STCW revisions are introducing, as
requirements, practices already successfully promoted through the
current U.S. regulations (e.g., use of approved training, and the use
of simulators in training as predicates of remission of seagoing
service). In most cases, the new requirements would involve
modification or enhancement of existing training and oversight rather
than establishment of new programs.
The Coast Guard estimates that the proposal will affect
approximately 19,500 seafarers over a 5-year period. The estimated
composition of this group is 10,335 deck and other officers, 1,755
engineering officers, 3,900 able seamen, and 3,510 qualified members of
the engineering department.
The approximate vessel population that operate outside the boundary
line and may be affected by the proposed regulation are 136 MODUs; 95
industrial vessels; 271 freight ships; 103 oil recovery vessels; 696
offshore supply vessels; 20 passenger vessels; 2,112 small passenger
vessels; 14 research vessels; 14 maritime school ships; 162 tank ships;
15 towboats and tugboats; 462 tank barges; 3 ferries; and 486 freight
barges.
Costs
The Coast Guard estimates that costs fall into the following
categories: medical fitness, training costs, training infrastructure
costs, company and/or owner/operator costs, and government costs.
The Coast Guard estimates that approximately 12,000 seafarers apply
for MMDs annually. Approximate costs of $1,900,000 annually are
estimated for mariners certifying their medical fitness when applying
for an MMD.
Deck, radio, and other officers will be required to demonstrate
competency and knowledge in a combination of courses including GMDSS,
ARPA, Personal Survival, Personal Safety and Social Responsibility, and
Bridge Teamwork. The Coast Guard estimates that as many as 4,091
officers may be affected annually while the proposed regulation has a
high level of flexibility built into it for mariners, the Coast Guard
has assumed that mariners will attend formal, classroom courses to
comply with the requirements. Annual training costs for deck, radio,
and other officers are estimated at $21,804,580.
Engineering officers will be required to demonstrate competence and
knowledge in a combination of courses including Personal Survival,
Personal Safety and Social Responsibility, and Electronic and Control
Engineering. The Coast Guard estimates that as many as 645 engineering
officers may be affected annually. Annual training costs for
engineering officers are estimated at $3,247,575.
ABs will be required to demonstrate competence and knowledge in a
combination of courses including Personal Survival, Personal Safety and
Social Responsibility, Shipboard Orientation, Firefighting and Fire
Prevention, and estimates that as many as 1,369 ABs may be affected
annually. Annual training costs for ABs are estimated at $11,568,050.
QMEDs will be required to demonstrate competence and knowledge in a
combination of courses including Personal Survival, Personal Safety and
Social Responsibility, Shipboard Orientation, and Firefighting and Fire
Prevention. The Coast Guard estimates that as many as 1,253 QMEDs may
be affected annually. Annual training costs for QMEDs are estimated at
$7,580,650.
Ro/Ro personnel will be required to attend specialized training
including crowd management, passenger safety, cargo safety, and hull
integrity. The Coast Guard estimates that this may affect 225 Seafarers
every 5 years. Estimated annual cost is $67,500.
The Coast Guard has estimated a new electronics technician rating
for vessels equipped with GMDSS. Electronic technicians will be
required to demonstrate competence and knowledge to perform
maintenance,
[[Page 13299]]
diagnosis and repair of electronic equipment and installations. The
Coast Guard estimates that this may affect 1,128 Seafarers. The Coast
Guard has estimated this as a one-time cost of $6,204,000.
The Coast Guard has determined that training infrastructure costs
include QSS, Approved Instructor, Designated Examiner, Capital
Investments, and Course Development.
For QSS, the Coast Guard estimates that 100 training institutions
may be affected at an initial cost of $7,500, $1,000 annual maintenance
costs, and an independent evaluation estimated at $5,000. Total cost is
estimated at $1,750,000.
For Approved Instructors, the Coast Guard estimates that 1,500
instructors at 100 training institutions may be affected. Annual
approved instructor costs are estimated at $1,500,000.
For Designated Examiners, the Coast Guard estimates each will be
required to provide 20 hours of service. Annual designated examiner
costs are estimated at $3,900,000 for 1997 through 2001 and $780,000
for 2002 through 2003.
The Coast Guard has determined that there are likely to be some
GMDSS and ARPA Capital Investments necessary by training institutions
to accommodate the anticipated annual through-put of deck and other
officers. A one-time cost of $3,160,000 is estimated.
The Coast Guard has determined that there are likely to be some
course-development costs associated with the proposed rulemaking. A
one-time cost of $889,000 is estimated.
The Coast Guard has determined that costs for companies and for
owners and operators are likely to include those associated with rest-
hour and recordkeeping requirements.
The Coast Guard has determined that rest-hour requirements are
likely to affect 83 vessels annually. Crew augmentation costs for these
vessels is estimated at $2,120,650 annually.
The Coast Guard has determined that records on Seafarer training
and competence, medical fitness, and rest hour requirements will be
required. The Coast Guard estimates that this will likely affect 19,500
seafarers annually at an estimated cost of $1,462,500.
The Coast Guard does not anticipate any additional costs in
implementing the regulation at this time.
Total Costs
Costs of the proposal are forecast to 2003. The Coast Guard
estimates that these requirements will be fully integrated into the
marine infrastructure by 2003 and, thus, a regular part of doing
business. Costs are estimated at $45,789,021 in 1997, $36,218,521 in
1998, $35,568,521 in 1999 through 2001, $12,767,724 in 2002, and
$13,200,224 in 2003. The present value of the costs of this proposed
regulation discounted at 7 percent to 1997 would total $172,685,673.
Benefits
The Coast Guard has determined that the proposed rule has potential
economic benefits and a potential to reduce marine casualties.
Economics play a significant role in safety. While the U.S.
commercial fleet has long been among the safest in the world,
differences between U.S. standards and those of other maritime nations
put our vessels at a competitive disadvantage. Responsible operators
can be forced to operate with lower profit margins and less capital to
invest in safe operations, and in some cases forced out of the market
entirely. More aggressively holding all ships to the same standards set
for U.S. ships is key to shifting the balance. This proposal would
allow the U.S. to hold mariners aboard all vessels entering its ports
to the same competency standards which the U.S. holds its own vessels,
without foreign retaliation. Consequently, U.S. vessels visiting
foreign ports would not be faced with increased scrutiny that could
result in costly vessel delays. Such delays would otherwise likely
decrease the value of trade carried in U.S. bottoms. Conversely, under
this proposal, the U.S. could expect to increase its market share of
cargo carried which could result from the more even competitive playing
field accorded U.S. and foreign fleets because of this proposal.
Appendix F provides a summary of the value of U.S. international trade
and ocean trade worldwide.
U.S. ships only carry about 8 percent of the value of U.S. export
trade and 7 percent of the value of U.S. import trade. If, as a result
of complying with international standards proposed in this rulemaking,
U.S. vessels gain one tenth of one percent of the value of U.S.
international trade in any given year of implementation (approximately
$56,000,000), the annual benefits will outweigh the costs.
On average, there were 29 fatalities and 76 injuries annually as a
result of errors that potentially could be linked to training
deficiencies. The training required by this proposal has the potential
to significantly decrease the number of fatalities and injuries in
maritime transportation. Based on the $27,700,000 value of a human
life, if this proposal causes a reduction in the number of fatalities
by 17 in 1997, 13 in 1998-2001, and 55 in 2002-2003, the benefits will
exceed the costs.
The complex cumulative effect of human error makes it difficult to
quantify the exact benefits of the proposed rulemaking. One way to
reduce the risks associated with human error in operating seagoing
ships is to ensure that seafarers maintain the highest practicable
standards of training, certification, and competence. The proposal is
intended to reduce the risk of maritime casualties and pollution
incidents caused by human error. Benefits are expected to accrue from a
reduction of shipboard accidents and injuries because personnel will
have an increased awareness of safe shipboard practices. As the Coast
Guard reviews comments resulting from the proposal and formulates a
final rule, further review of benefits based on risk is anticipated.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, would have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' may 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). ``Small entities'' also include
small not-for-profit organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions.
The proposed rule has built in sufficient flexibility and options
to allow small entities to comply with its proposed requirements at
modest cost. For the most part, it is expected to affect only large
business enterprises and individuals mariners. There is no requirement
that one entity perform all the STCW training and assessment
requirements that are being proposed.
Those small entities engaged in training may choose to obtain
assessment from individual qualified assessors who may also be
organized as small entities. The Coast Guard does not limit the
arrangements as to who may offer instruction or assessment. Any
combination may be used by a mariner to achieve the desired
qualifications licenses, or certificates.
The proposed rule applies to individual mariners and allows for
small entities to remain in and actively compete in the maritime-
training sector of the maritime industry with options to teach and
assess as many courses or functions as any entity chooses. The proposal
covers requirements that
[[Page 13300]]
would not begin to go into effect until early 1997, through the phase-
in period.
Because of these accommodations and characteristics, 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
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.], the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each proposed rule that
contains a collection-of-information requirement to determine whether
the practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by
its collection. Collection-of-information requirements include
reporting, recordkeeping, notification, and other, similar
requirements.
This proposal contains collection-of-information requirements in
the following sections: 10.304 (training and assessment-record books);
10.309 and 12.03-1 (approved training); and 15.411 (maintenance of
seamen's records by owner or operator). The following particulars
apply:
Training conducted on board ships, when part of an approved program
based on 1 year of seagoing service for deck licenses (6 months for
engineer licenses), would have to make use of a training- and
assessment-record book to document that required training and
assessment of competency has been completed properly. The books would
be submitted to the Coast Guard as part of an application for a
license.
The QSS that would monitor training and assessment to ensure that
they were meeting objectives would compel organizations offering
training to document certain information and to maintain records for 1
year. The records would cover such matters as the course syllabus,
students performance, and the qualifications of instructors and
examiners. Additionally, an independent evaluation would need to be
documented periodically. Records would be subject to review by the
Coast Guard in its oversight function to ensure that training and
assessment satisfy minimum conditions.
The proposed rule would allow for wide variation in the means for
complying with new requirements to ensure that the scope of the QSS is
reasonably related to the scope of training and assessment conducted by
the entity concerned.
Companies owning or operating U.S.-documented seagoing vessels
would have to arrange for the maintenance of certain records concerning
the medical fitness, experience, training, and competence, of the
seamen employed or engaged on their ships. The records could be
maintained by a third party on behalf of the company, but they would
need to be readily accessible to those in management responsible for
the safety of vessel operations and the prevention of marine pollution.
The recordkeeping requirement would be in effect only during the period
of service of the seaman concerned.
The proposed rest-hour schedule would require documentation
necessary for the safe operation of the vessel. This would ensure that
the crew was informed of rest-hour requirements.
The proposed recordkeeping generally reflects routine practices for
U.S. ship-operating companies and training institutions. However, the
international rules in STCW were drafted to apply to companies and
training programs worldwide. In due course, by its obligation under
STCW as amended, the United States must demonstrate to the IMO that it
has in place certain specific regulations that implement the
international rules.
Dot No: 2115.
Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.
Title: Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978 (STCW).
Need for Information: To ensure compliance with international
requirements, and to maintain an acceptable level of quality in the
training and assessment of merchant mariners.
Proposed use of Information: The Coast Guard would have access to
information to monitor compliance with regulations and to identify
where corrective action may be needed. Coast Guard officials involved
in issuing licenses, documents, and STCW certificates would have a
reliable source for determining whether training and assessment had
been completed by candidates in accordance with domestic and
international rules.
Frequency of Response: Under this proposed rule, records would have
to be maintained for 1 year. In one case a certification of continued
compliance would have to be provided to the Coast Guard once a year.
Burden Estimate: 40,215 hours.
Respondents: 28,645.
Form(s): N/A.
Average Burden-Hours per Respondent: 1.4 hours.
The Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to OMB for review
under Sec. 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Persons submitting
comments on the requirements should submit their comments both to OMB
and to the Coast Guard where indicated under ADDRESSES.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This rulemaking should not have a direct impact on State, local, or
tribal governments. However, States that operate or charter maritime-
training institutions would have to bring the relevant training
programs into line with the new requirements. For the most part, the
existing State-sponsored maritime-training institutions have programs
that would need little adjustment to meet the new requirements. And the
accreditation process for these institutions should satisfy the new
quality-assurance provisions.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this
proposed rule proposal and concluded that, under paragraph
2.B.2.e(34)(C) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1B, this rulemaking is
categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.
This rulemaking would have no direct environmental impact. The
implementation of the 1995 Amendments to STCW should reduce the risk
that human error will result in a maritime casualty or pollution
incident by ensuring that seafarers on seagoing ships are meeting the
highest practicable standards of competence. However, there are few
objective criteria for quantifying the reduction in this risk. A
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under addresses.
List of Subjects
46 CFR Part 10
Fees, Marine safety, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 12
Fees, Marine safety, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 15
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Incorporation by reference,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
[[Page 13301]]
Schools, Seamen, Vessel manning, Vessels.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR parts 10, 12, and 15 as follows:
PART 10--LICENSING OF MARITIME PERSONNEL
1. the authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 7101, 7106, 7107; 49
CFR 1.45, 1.46; Sec. 10.107 also issued under the authority of 44
U.S.C. 3507.
2. Section 10.101 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 10.101 Purpose of regulations.
(a) The purpose of the regulations in this part are to provide--
(1) A comprehensive means of determining the qualifications an
applicant must possess to be eligible for a license as deck officer,
engineer, pilot, radio officer, or radio operator on merchant vessels,
or for a license to operate uninspected towing vessels or uninspected
passenger vessels, or for a certificate of registry as staff officer;
and
(2) A means of determining that an applicant is competent to serve
as a master, chief mate, officer in charge of a navigational watch,
chief engineer officer, second engineer officer, officer in charge of
an engineering watch, designated duty engineer, or radio operator, in
accordance with the provisions of the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978, as amended (STCW), and to receive the appropriate certificate or
endorsement as required by STCW.
* * * * *
(c) The regulations in subpart C of this part prescribe the
requirements applicable to--
(1) Each approved training course if the training course is to be
acceptable as a partial substitute for service or for a required
examination, or as training required for a particular license or
license endorsement; and
(2) All training and assessment associated with meeting the
standards of competence established by STCW.
3. Section 10.102 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 10.102 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 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 the material must
be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard,
Operating and Environmental Standards Division, 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001, 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 as follows:
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR, England.
Amendments to the Annex to the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978 (STCW), and the associated Seafarers' Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code), as adopted under resolutions 1 and 2,
respectively, by the Conference of Parties to the International
Convention of Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978, held at IMO from June 26 to July 7, 1995--10.103;
10.205; 10.304; 10.480; 10.602; 10.901.
4. Section 10.103 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
following new definitions to read as follows:
Sec. 10.103 Definitions of terms used in this part.
Approved training means training that is approved by the Coast
Guard or meets the requirements of Sec. 10.309.
* * * * *
Coast-Guard-accepted means that the Coast Guard has officially
acknowledged in writing that the material or process at issue meets the
applicable requirements; that the Coast Guard has issued an official
policy statement listing or describing the material or process as
meeting the applicable requirements; or that an entity acting on behalf
of the Coast Guard under a Memorandum of Agreement has determined that
the material or process meets the applicable requirements.
* * * * *
Designated examiner means an individual who has been trained or
instructed in techniques of training or assessment and is otherwise
qualified to evaluate whether a candidate for a license, document, or
endorsement has achieved the level of competence required to hold the
license, document, or endorsement. This individual may be designated by
the Coast Guard or by a Coast-Guard-approved program of training or
assessment.
* * * * *
Practical demonstration means the performance of an activity under
the direct observation of a designated examiner for the purpose of
establishing that the performer is sufficiently proficient in a
practical skill to meet a specified standard of competence or other
objective criterion.
Qualified instructor means an individual who has been trained or
instructed in instructional techniques and is otherwise qualified to
provide required training to candidates for licenses, documents, and
endorsements.
* * * * *
Standard of competence means the level of proficiency to be
achieved for the proper performance of duties on board vessels in
accordance with national and international criteria.
STCW endorsement means a certificate or endorsement issued in
accordance with the International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW).
An STCW endorsement issued by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection,
will be valid only when accompanied by the appropriate U.S. license or
document; and, if the license or document is revoked, then the
associated STCW endorsement will no longer be valid for any purpose.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 10.107, paragraph (b)(3) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 10.107 Paperwork approval.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) OMB 2115--46 CFR 10.304, 10.309.
6. In Sec. 10.201, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 10.201 Eligibility for licenses and certificates of registry,
general.
(a) The applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of the
Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), that he or she possesses
all of the qualifications necessary (e.g., age, experience, character
references and recommendations, physical examination, citizenship,
approved training, passage of a professional examination, as
appropriate, and, when required by this part, a practical demonstration
of skills) before the OCMI will issue a license or certificate of
registry.
* * * * *
[[Page 13302]]
7. In Sec. 10.202, paragraph (j) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 10.202 Issuance of licenses and certificates of registry.
* * * * *
(j) When an original license is issued, renewed, upgraded, or
otherwise modified, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI),
will determine whether the holder of the license must hold an STCW
certificate or endorsement for service on a seagoing vessel and, if so,
and if the holder is qualified, will issue the appropriate certificate
or endorsement. The OCMI will also issue an STCW certificate or
endorsement at other times, if circumstances so require and if the
holder of the license is qualified to hold the certificate or
endorsement.
8. In Sec. 10.205, paragraph (g) is revised, and paragraphs (k),
(l), (m), (n), (o), and (p) are added, to read as follows:
Sec. 10.205 Requirements for original licenses and certificates of
registry.
* * * * *
(g) Firefighting certificate. (1) Applicants for licenses in the
following categories shall each present a certificate of completion
from an approved course or approved training in firefighting. The
course must be sufficient to establish that the applicant meets the
standard of competence in basic and advanced firefighting set forth in
STCW Regulations VI/1 and VI/3. The course must have been completed 5
years or less before the date of application for the license requested:
(i) All masters' or mates' licenses for service on vessels in ocean
or near-coastal service.
(ii) All licenses for operators of uninspected passenger vessels
for service beyond the boundary line.
(iii) All licenses for service on mobile offshore drilling units.
(iv) all engineers' licenses.
(2) The officer in charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), may accept a
certificate of completion from an approved course or approved training
in firefighting designed for a particular ship or type of service;
however, in that case, the OCMI will limit the endorsement by
indicating the ship or type of service.
* * * * *
(k) Competence in the use of Automatic Radar-Plotting Aids (ARPA).
(1) Subject to paragraph (j)(2) of this section, all candidates for
masters' or mates' licenses for service on vessels in ocean or near-
coastal service, or for licenses for operators of uninspected passenger
vessels for service beyond the boundary line, shall each present a
certificate of completion from an approved course or approved training
on an ARPA simulator. The course must be sufficient to establish that
the applicant is competent to maintain safe navigation through the
proper use of ARPA, by correctly interpreting and analyzing the
information obtained from that device and taking into account both the
limitations of the equipment and the prevailing circumstances and
conditions. The simulator used in the course must meet or exceed the
performance standards established under STCW Regulation I/12 of the
1995 Amendments.
(2) Training and assessment in the use of ARPA is not required for
those who serve exclusively on ships not fitted with ARPA. However,
when the simulator training has not been completed, the license must be
endorsed to indicate this limitation.
(l) Certificate for operator of radio in the Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System (GMDSS). (1) Subject to paragraph (l)(2) of
this section, candidates for all masters' or mates' licenses for
service on vessels in ocean or near-coastal service shall each present
either a certificate for operator of radio in the GMDSS issued by the
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) or a certificate of completion
from a Coast-Guard- or an FCC-approved course for operator of radio in
the GMDSS. The course must be sufficient to establish that the
applicant is competent to perform radio duties on a ship participating
in the GMDSS and meets the standard of competence under STCW Regulation
IV/2 of STCW.
(2) Candidates intending to serve only on ships not required to
comply with the provisions of the GMDSS in Chapter IV of SOLAS need not
comply with those of paragraph (k)(1) of this section.
(m) Personal survival techniques. (1) Applicants for licenses in
the following categories shall each present a certificate of completion
from an approved course or approved training in personal survival
techniques. The course must be sufficient to establish that the
applicant meets the standard of competence under STCW Regulation VI/1
and table A-VI/1-1 of the STCW Code. The course must have been
completed 5 years or less before the date of application for the
license requested:
(i) All masters' or mates' licenses for service on vessels in ocean
or near-coastal service.
(ii) All licenses for operators of uninspected passenger vessels
for service beyond the boundary line.
(iii) All licenses for service on mobile offshore frilling units.
(iv) All engineers' licenses.
(2) The officer in charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), may accept a
certificate of completion from an approved course or approved training
in firefighting designed for a particular ship or type of service;
however, in that case the OCMI will limit the endorsement by indicating
the ship or type of service.
(n) Personal safety and social responsibilities. (1) Applicants for
licenses in the following categories shall each present a certificate
of completion from an approved course or approved training in personal
safety and social responsibilities. The course must be sufficient to
establish that the applicant meets the standard of competence under
STCW Regulation VI/1 and table A-VI/1-4 of the STCW Code. The course
must have been completed 5 years or less before the date of application
for the license requested:
(i) All masters' or mates' licenses for service on vessels in ocean
or near-coastal service.
(ii) All licenses for operators of uninspected passenger vessels
for service beyond the boundary line.
(iii) All licenses for service on mobile offshore drilling units.
(iv) All engineers' licenses.
(2) The officer in charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), may accept a
certificate of completion from an approved course or approved training
in firefighting designed for a particular ship or type of service;
however, in that case, the OCMI will limit the endorsement by
indicating the ship or type of service.
(o) Procedures for bridge team-work. Candidates for all masters' or
mates' licenses for service on vessels in ocean or near-coastal service
shall each present sufficient documentary proof that they understand
and can effectively apply procedures for bridge team-work as an
essential aspect of maintaining a safe navigational watch, taking into
account the principles of bridge-resource management enumerated in
section B-VIII/2 of the STCW Code.
(p) Practical demonstration of skills. Candidates for original
licenses must each successfully complete any practical demonstrations
required under this part and appropriate to the particular licenses
concerned, to prove that they are sufficiently proficient in skills
required under subpart I of this part. The OCMI must be satisfied as to
the authenticity and acceptability of all evidence that each candidate
has successfully completed those demonstrations in the presence of a
designated examiner. The OCMI will place in each candidate's file a
written record of the skills required, the results
[[Page 13303]]
of the practical demonstrations, and the identification of the
designated examiner in whose presence those occurred.
9. In Sec. 10.207, the section heading, the heading for paragraph
(c), and paragraph (c)(1) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 10.207 Requirements for raise in grade of license.
* * * * *
(c) Age, experience, training, and assessment. (1) Applicants for a
raise of grade of licenses shall establish that they possess the age,
experience, and training qualifications necessary, and that they have
been examined and otherwise assessed as may be required by this part to
establish competence to hold the particular license requested, before
they are entitled to a raise in grade of license.
* * * * *
10. In Sec. 10.209, paragraphs (k), (l), and (m) are added to read
as follows:
Sec. 10.209 Requirements for renewal of licenses and certificates of
registry.
* * * * *
(k) After July 31, 1998, each applicant for renewal of a license in
any of the following categories shall meet the applicable requirements
of Secs. 10.205(g), 10.205(l), and 10.205(m) unless he or she has
previously done so:
(1) All masters' or mates' licenses for service on vessels in ocean
or near-coastal service.
(2) All licenses for operators of uninspected passenger vessels for
service beyond the boundary line.
(3) All licenses for service on mobile offshore drilling units.
(4) All engineers' licenses.
(l) After July 31, 1998, each applicants for renewal of a license
in any of the following categories of license shall provide evidence of
having both demonstrated competence in firefighting, personal survival
techniques, and personal safety and social responsibility and been
examined or continuously assessed in these areas as part of an approved
training program, within the previous 5 years:
(1) All masters' or mates' licenses for service on vessels in ocean
or near-coastal service.
(2) All licenses for operators of uninspected passenger vessels for
service beyond the boundary line.
(3) All licenses for service on mobile offshore drilling units.
(4) All engineers' licenses.
(m) After July 31, 1998, each applicant for renewal of any master's
or mate's license for service on vessels in ocean or near-coastal
service, or any license for operator of an uninspected passenger vessel
for service beyond the boundary line, shall meet the applicable
requirements of Secs. 10.205(k), 10.205(l), and 10.205(o) if he or she
has not previously done so.
11. In Sec. 10.304, the heading is revised and paragraphs (e), (f),
and (g) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 10.304 Substitution of training for required service, and use of
training- and assessment-record books.
* * * * *
(e) Where a candidate for ocean and near-coastal deck licenses uses
completion of approved training to substitute for required service,
then not less than 1 year of the remaining service must be part of
approved training that meets the appropriate requirements of Chapter II
of STCW and the requirements of subpart C of this part. The candidate's
training must be documented in a Coast-Guard-accepted training- and
assessment-record book.
(f) Each candidate for an engineer's licenses for service on
seagoing vessels shall complete onboard training as part of approved
training that meets the appropriate requirements of Chapter III of STCW
and the requirements of subpart C of this part. The training must be
documented in a Coast-Guard-accepted training- and assessment-record
book.
(g) The training- and assessment-record book referred to in
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section must contain at least the
following:
(1) Identification of the candidate, including full name, home
address, photograph or photo-image, and personal signature.
(2) The objectives of the training and assessment.
(3) The tasks to be performed or the skills to be demonstrated,
based on the standards of competence set forth in the tables of the
appropriate sections in Part A of the STCW Code.
(4) The criteria to be used in determining that the tasks or skills
have been performed properly, based on the standards of competence set
forth in the tables of the appropriate sections in Part A of the STCW
Code.
(5) A place for a qualified instructor to indicate by his or her
initials that the candidate has received training in the proper
performance of the task or skill.
(6) A place for a qualified examiner to indicate by his or her
initials that the candidate has successfully completed a practical
demonstration and has proved competent in the task or skill under the
criteria.
(7) Identification of each qualified instructor by full name, home
address, employer, job title, ship name or business address, number of
any Coast Guard license or document held, and personal signature.
(8) Identification of each designated examiner by full name, home
address, employer, job title, ship name or business address, number of
any Coast Guard license or document held, and personal signature
confirming that his or her initials certify that he or she has
witnessed the practical demonstration of a particular task or skill by
the candidate.
12. Section 10.309 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 10.309 Approved training other than approved courses.
(a) When the training and assessment of competence required by
these regulations are not subject to Sec. 10.302 of this part and are
not being used to substitute for seagoing service, they must meet the
following requirements:
(1) The training and assessment program must have written, clearly
defined objectives that emphasize specific knowledge, skills, and
abilities, and include criteria to use in establishing a candidate's
successful achievement of the objectives.
(2) The training must be set out in a written syllabus that
conforms to a Coast-Guard-accepted outline for such training and
includes--
(i) The sequence of subjects to be covered;
(ii) The number of classroom hours in the presence of a qualified
instructor to be spent on each subject;
(iii) The identity and professional qualifications of the
instructor(s) to be conducting the training;
(iv) The identification of other media or facilities to be used in
conducting training; and
(v) Measurements at appropriate intervals of each candidate's
progress toward acquisition of the specific knowledge, skills, and
abilities stated in the objectives.
(3) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this
section, documentary evidence must be readily available to establish
that all instructors--
(i) Have experience, training, or instruction in effective
instructional techniques;
(ii) Are qualified in the task for which the training is being
conducted; and
(iii) Hold the level of license, endorsement, or other professional
credential required of those who would apply, on board a vessel, the
relevant level of knowledge, abilities, and skills described in the
training objectives.
(4) Neither a specialist in a particular field of non-maritime
education, such as
[[Page 13304]]
mathematics or first aid, nor an individual with at least 3 years of
service as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States
specializing in the field in which he or she is to conduct training,
need hold a maritime license or document to conduct training in that
field.
(5) A simulator may be used in training if--
(i) The simulator meets applicable performance standards;
(ii) The instructor has gained practical operational experience on
the particular type of simulator being used; and
(iii) The instructor employing the simulator has received
appropriate guidance in instructional techniques involving the use of
simulators.
(6) Essential equipment and instructional materials must afford all
candidates adequate opportunity to participate in exercises and acquire
practice in performing required skills.
(7) A process or routinely assessing the effectiveness of the
instructors, including the use of confidential evaluations by
candidates, must be in place.
(8) Records of candidates' performance must be maintained for at
least a year.
(9) To ensure that the training is meeting its objectives and the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, its offeror must monitor
it at suitable intervals in accordance with a Coast-Guard-accepted
quality-standards system, which must include the following features:
(i) Those monitoring the trading, shall be persons knowledgeable
about the subjects being monitored and about the national and
international requirements that apply to the training, and they shall
not themselves be involved in the training.
(ii) Those monitoring the training must enjoy convenient access to
all appropriate documents and facilities, and opportunities both to
observe all appropriate activities and to conduct confidential
interviews when necessary.
(iii) Arrangements must be such as to ensure that persons
monitoring the training are not penalized or rewarded, directly or
indirectly, by the sponsor of the training for making any particular
observations or for reaching any particular conclusions.
(10) Those monitoring the training shall communicate their
conclusions to the Coast Guard within 1 month of the completion of the
monitoring.
(11) Upon prior notice by the Coast Guard, those providing the
training shall let the Coast Guard observe the training and review
documentation relating to paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(10) of this
section.
(b) The Coast Guard will maintain a list of training each of whose
providers annually submits a certificate, signed by the provider or its
authorized representative, starting that the training fully complies
with requirements of this section. Training on this list will
presumptively offer the training necessary for licenses and STCW
endorsements under this part. The Coast Guard will update this list
periodically and make it available to members of the public on request.
(c) If the Coast Guard determin
FR Doc. 96-7019 Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW)
es, on the basis of observations or
conclusions either of its own or by those monitoring the training, that
particular training does not satisfy one or more of the conditions
described in paragraph (a) of this section--
(1) The Coast Guard will so notify the provider of the training by
letter enclosing a report of the observations and conclusions;
(2) The provider will have a specified period to appeal the
conclusions to the appropriate official at Coast Guard Headquarters, or
to bring the training into compliance; and
(3) If the appeal is denied--or the deficiency is not corrected in
the allotted time, or within any additional period held by the Coast
Guard, considering progress toward compliance, to be appropriate--the
Coast Guard will remove the training from the list referred to in
paragraph (b) of this section until it can verify full compliance; and
it may deny applications based in whole or in part on training not on
the list until additional training or assessment can be documented.
13. In Sec. 10.480, paragraph (d)(1) is added and paragraph (d)(20
is added and reserved to read as follows:
Sec. 10.480 Radar observer.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Each applicant for an STCW certificate or endorsement as master
or deck officer must complete approved radar-simulator training that
meets the appropriate requirements of sections A-I/12 and A-II of the
STCW Code.
* * * * *
14. Section 10.601 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 10.601 Applicability.
This subpart provides for the licensing of radio officers for
employment on vessels, and for the certification of radio operators for
service on ships subject to the provisions on the Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) of Chapter IV of SOLAS.
15. In Sec. 10.603, the heading is revised, and paragraphs (d) and
(e) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 10.602 Requirements for radio offices' licenses and radio
operators' certificates.
* * * * *
(d) Each applicant for a radio operator's certificate required for
service on ships subject to the Global Maritime Distress and Safety
System (GMDSS) shall provide evidence that he or she meets the standard
of competence set out in STCW Regulation IV/2 including the competence
to transmit and receive information using subsystems of GMDSS, to
fulfill the functional requirements of GMDSS, and to provide radio
services in emergencies.
(e) Evidence required by paragraph (d) of this section must include
a certificate of completion of a Coast Guard-approved or FCC-approved
course on the GMDSS.
16. In Sec. 10.901, paragraphs (c) and (d) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 10.901 General provisions.
* * * * *
(c) Each applicant for a license for service in the following
capacities on vessels that operate beyond the boundary line must also
provide sufficient documentary evidence that he or she has successfully
performed practical demonstrations using one or more of the methods for
demonstrating competence authorized under the tables set out under the
appropriate regulations of STCW:
(1) Deck Department--(i) Officer in charge of the navigational
watch on seagoing ships of 500 gross tons or more.
(ii) Officer in charge of the navigational watch on seagoing ships
of less than 500 gross tons not engaged on near-coastal voyages.
(iii) Officer in charge of the navigational watch on seagoing ships
of less than 500 gross tons engaged on near-coastal voyages.
(iv) Master and chief mate on seagoing ships of 3,000 gross tons or
more.
(v) Master and chief mate on seagoing ships of between 500 and
3,000 gross tons or more.
(vi) Master on seagoing ships of less than 500 gross tons not
engaged on near-coastal voyages.
(vii) Master on seagoing ships of less than 500 gross tons engaged
on near-coastal voyages.
(2) Engine Department--(i) Officer in charge of the an engineering
watch in a manned engine-room on a seagoing ship.
[[Page 13305]]
(ii) Designated duty engineer in a periodically unmanned engine-
room on a seagoing ship.
(iii) Chief engineer officer of a seagoing ship driven by main
propulsion machinery of 3,000 kW [4,000 hp] of propulsion power or
more.
(iv) Second engineer officer of a seagoing ship driven by main
propulsion machinery of 3,000 kW [4,000 hp] of propulsion power or
more.
(v) Chief engineer officer of a seagoing ship powered by main
propulsion machinery of between 750 kW [1,000 hp] and 3,000 kW [4,000
hp] of propulsion power or more.
(vi) Second engineer officer of a seagoing ship driven by main
propulsion machinery of between 750 kW [1,000 hp] and 3,000 kW [4,000
hp] of propulsion power or more.
(d) Simulators used in assessment of competence under paragraph (c)
of this section must meet the appropriate performance standards set out
in section A-I/12 of the STCW Code. However, simulators installed or
brought into use before February 1, 2002, need not meet them so far as
they fulfill the objectives of the assessment of competence or
demonstration of proficiency.
17. In Sec. 10.910, the introductory text and table 10.910-2 are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 10.910 Subjects for deck licenses.
On each topic indicated by an ``X'', each applicant for an ocean or
near-coastal license is subject to an assessment of his or her command
of the practical skills included within each professional topic, as
well as to a written test of his or her knowledge. On each topic
indicated by a ``T'' he or she is subject only to an assessment of
evidence obtained from his or her completion of approved training. On
each topic indicated by an ``A'' he or she is subject only to an
assessment of his or her command of those practical skills.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
[[Page 13306]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR96.003
[[Page 13307]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR96.004
[[Page 13308]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR96.005
[[Page 13309]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR96.006
[[Page 13310]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR96.007
BILLING CODE 4910-14-C
[[Page 13311]]
18. Section 10.950 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 10.950 Subjects for engineer licenses.
(a) On each topic indicated by an ``X'', each applicant for an
engineering license is subject to a written test of his or her
knowledge. On each topic indicated by a ``T'', he or she is subject
only to an assessment of evidence obtained from his or her completion
of approved training. On each topic indicated by an ``A'' he or she is
subject only to an assessment of his or her practical skills assessed
by an established regime of on-board practical factors, simulator
demonstration, or a combination.
(b) A distinct engineering license for steam-driven vessels of
limited power or tonnage is no longer practicable, because of the small
number of these vessels. When such a license is necessary for these
vessels, the owner or operator is responsible for the engineer's
competence in the operation of steam propulsion. Engineer licenses
endorsed for steam must first hold a comparable license for motor-
driven vessels and attend a course approved for limited steam engines.
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
[[Page 13312]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR96.008
[[Page 13313]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR96.009
[[Page 13314]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR96.010
BILLING CODE 4910-14-C
[[Page 13315]]
19. Subpart J, consisting of Secs. 10.1001 through 10.1005, is
added to read as follows:
Subpart J--Ro-Ro Passenger Ships
Sec.
10.1001 Purpose or regulations.
10.1003 Definitions.
10.1005 General requirement for license-holders.
Subpart J--Ro-Ro Passenger Ships
Sec. 10.1001 Purpose of regulations.
The purpose of the regulations in this subpart is to establish
requirements for officers serving on roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) passenger
ships.
Sec. 10.1003 Definitions.
Roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) passenger ship means a passenger ship with
ro-ro cargo spaces or special-category spaces as defined in the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
amended (SOLAS), and to which a SOLAS certificate is issued.
Sec. 10.1005 General requirement for license-holders.
To serve on a ro-ro passenger ship after January 30, 1997, a person
licensed as master, chief mate, licensed mate, chief engineer, or
licensed engineer shall meet the appropriate requirements of STCW
Regulation V/2 and section A-V/2 of the STCW Code, and hold documentary
evidence to show his or her meeting these requirements.
PART 12--CERTIFICATION OF SEAMEN
1. The authority citation for part 12 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110, 7301,
7302, 7503, 7505, 7701; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Section 12.01-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 12.01-1 Purpose of regulations.
(a) The purposes of the regulations in this part are to provide--
(1) A comprehensive and adequate means of determining the identity
or the qualifications an applicant must possess to be eligible for
certification to serve on merchant vessels of the United States; and
(2) A means of determining that an applicant is competent to serve
in a ``rating forming part of a navigational watch'' or a ``rating
forming part of an engine-room watch'', or is otherwise ``designated to
perform duties in a periodically unmanned engine-room'', on a seagoing
ship, in accordance with the provisions of the International Convention
on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978, as amended (STCW), and to receive the certificate or endorsement
required by STCW.
(b) The regulations in subpart 12.03 of this part prescribe the
requirements applicable to all training and assessment associated with
meeting the standards of competence established by STCW.
3. Section 12.01-3 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 12.01-3 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 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 the material must
be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard,
Operating and Environmental Standards Division, 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC, 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 as follows:
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR, England.
Amendments to the Annex to the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978 (STCW), and the associated Seafarers' Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code), as adopted under resolutions 1 and 2,
respectively, by the Conference of Parties to the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978, held at IMO from June 26 to July 7, 1995--12.01-1;
12.01-6; 12.02-7; 12.02-11; 12.05-3; 12.05-7; 12.10-3; 12.10-9; 12.10-
11; 12.15-3; 12.15-7; 12.25-45; 12.30-5.
4. Section 12.01-6 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
following new definitions to read as follows:
Sec. 12.01-6 Definitions of terms used in this part.
Approved training means training that is approved by the Coast
Guard or otherwise meets the requirements of Sec. 12.03-1.
Coast-Guard-accepted means that the Coast Guard has officially
acknowledged in writing that the material or process at issue meets the
applicable requirements; that the Coast Guard has issued an official
policy statement listing or describing the material or process as
meeting the applicable requirements; or that an entity acting on behalf
of the Coast Guard under a Memorandum of Agreement has determined that
the material or process meets the applicable requirements.
Designated examiner means an individual who is trained or
instructed in assessment techniques and is otherwise qualified to
evaluate whether a candidate for a license, document, or endorsement
has achieved the level of competence required to hold the license,
document, or endorsement. This individual may be designated by the
Coast Guard, or is designated as part of a Coast Guard-approved
training or assessment program.
* * * * *
Practical demonstration means the performance of an activity under
the direct observation of a designated examiner for the purpose of
establishing that the performer is sufficiently proficient in a
practical skill to meet a specified standard of competence or other
objective criterion.
Qualified Instructor means an individual who has been trained or
instructed in instructional techniques and is otherwise qualified to
provide required training to candidates for licenses, documents, and
endorsements.
* * * * *
Standard of competence means the level of proficiency to be
achieved for the proper performance of duties on board vessels in
accordance with national and international criteria.
STCW endorsement means a certificate or endorsement issued in
accordance with the International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW).
An STCW endorsement issued by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
shall be valid only when accompanied by the appropriate U.S. license or
document; and if the license or document is revoked, then the
associated STCW endorsement is no longer valid for any purpose.
5. In Sec. 12.02-7, paragraphs (d) and (e) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 12.02-7 When documents are required.
* * * * *
(d) Every individual serving as a rating forming part of a
navigational watch on a seagoing ship of 500 gross tons or more shall
hold an STCW
[[Page 13316]]
endorsement certifying him or her as qualified to perform the
navigational function at the support level, in accordance with STCW.
(e) Every individual who are serving in a rating forming part of a
watch in a manned engine-room or designated to perform duties in a
periodically unmanned engine-room, on a seagoing ship driven by main
propulsion machinery of 750 kW [1,000 hp] of propulsion power or more,
shall hold an STCW endorsement certifying him or her as qualified to
perform the marine-engineering function at the support level, in
accordance with STCW.
6. In Sec. 12.02-11, the heading is revised, and paragraphs (h) and
(i) are added, to read as follows:
Sec. 12.02-11 General provisions respecting merchant mariners'
documents.
* * * * *
(h) When a merchant mariner's document is issued, renewed, or
endorsed, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), will
determine whether the holder of the document is required to hold an
STCW endorsement for service on a seagoing vessel and, if so, and if
the holder is qualified, will issue the appropriate endorsement. The
OCMI will also issue an STCW endorsement at other times, if
circumstances so require if the holder of and the document is qualified
to hold the endorsement. The OCMI will issue an STCW endorsement for
the following ratings:
(1) A rating forming part of a navigational watch on a seagoing
ship of 500 gross tons or more if the holder of the document is
qualified in accordance with STCW Regulation II/4 and section A-II/4 of
the STCW Code, to perform the navigational function at the support
level.
(2) A rating forming part of a watch in a manned engine-room, if
the holder of the document is designated to perform duties in a
periodically unmanned engine-room, on a seagoing ship driven by main
propulsion machinery of 750 kW [1,000 hp] of propulsion power or more
and if the holder is qualified in accordance with STCW Regulation III/4
and section A-III/4 of the STCW Code, to perform the marine-engineering
function at the support level.
(i) At the request of the holder of the document, the OCMI may add
an endorsement to indicate that the holder has received familiarization
or basic safety-training required under, Chapter VI of STCW.
7. In Sec. 12.02-17, paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 12.02-17 Rules for the preparation and issuance of documents.
* * * * *
(e) An applicant for a merchant mariner's document shall provide a
document issued by a qualified medical practitioner attesting the
applicant's medical fitness to perform the functions for which the
document is issued.
* * * * *
8. Subpart 12.03, consisting of Sec. 12.03-1, is added to read as
follows:
Subpart 12.03--Approved Training
Sec.
12.03-1 Approved training other than approved courses.
Subpar 12.03--Approved Training
Sec. 12.03-1 Approved training other than approved courses.
(a) When training and assessment of competence required by these
regulations is not subject to the course-approval provisions of
Sec. 10.302 of this chapter, such training and assessment must meet the
following requirements:
(1) The program must have written, clearly defined objectives that
emphasize specific knowledge, skills, and abilities, and include
criteria to be used in establishing a student's successful achievement
of the training objectives.
(2) The course of training must be set out in a written syllabus
which conforms to a Coast-Guard-accepted outline for such training and
includes--
(i) The sequence of subjects to be covered;
(ii) The number of classroom hours (i.e., in the presence of a
qualified instructor) to be spent on each subject;
(iii) The identify and professional qualifications of the
instructor(s) to be conducting the training;
(iv) Identification of other media or facilities to be used in
conducting the training; and
(v) Measurements at appropriate intervals of each student's
progress toward acquisition of the specific knowledge, skills and
abilities stated in the training objectives.
(3) Documentary evidence must be readily available to establish
that all instructors--
(i) Have experience, training, or instruction in effective
instructional techniques;
(ii) Are qualified in the task for which the training is being
conducted; and
(iii) Hold the level of license, endorsement, or other professional
credential required of those who would apply, on board a vessel, the
relevant level of knowledge, abilities, and skills described in the
training objectives; provided, however--
(A) A specialist in a particular field of non-maritime education,
such as mathematics or first-aid, and an individual with at least 3
years of service as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States
specializing in the field in which he or she is to conduct training,
need not hold a maritime license or document to conduct training in
that field; and
(B) A simulator may be used in training if--
(1) The instructor employing the simulator has received appropriate
guidance in instructional techniques involving the use of simulators;
(2) The instructor has gained practical operational experience on
the particular type of simulator being used; and
(3) The simulator meets applicable performance standards.
(4) Essential equipment and instructional materials must be
conveniently available to allow all students adequate opportunity to
participate in exercises and acquire practice in performing required
skills.
(5) A process of routinely assessing the effectiveness of the
instructors, including the use of confidential student evaluations,
must be in place.
(6) Records of student performance must be maintained for a period
of not less than 1 year.
(7) A process must be in place for monitoring at suitable intervals
that the training program is meeting its training objectives and is
consistently applying the requirements in accordance with a Coast
Guard-accepted quality-standards system, which shall include, as a
minimum, the following:
(i) Those monitoring the training program shall be individuals who
are knowledgeable about the subject area being monitored and about the
national and international requirements which apply to the training
program, and they shall not themselves be involved in the activities
being monitored.
(ii) Persons engaged to conduct monitoring of training programs
must be provided convenient access to all appropriate documents and
facilities, as well as opportunities to observe all appropriate
activities, and to conduct confidential interviews when necessary.
(iii) Arrangements shall be such as to ensure that persons
performing monitoring activities shall not be directly or indirectly
penalized or rewarded by the sponsor of the training program being
monitored for making any particular observations or for reaching any
particular conclusions.
(8) The results of the monitoring must be communicated to the Coast
Guard within 1 month of completion of those activities.
[[Page 13317]]
(9) Upon prior notification by the Coast Guard, an opportunity must
be provided for the Coast Guard to observe training activities and
review documentation relating to paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(10) of
this section.
(b) The Coast Guard will maintain a list of training programs which
annually submit a certification, signed by the sponsor or an authorized
representative of the sponsor, stating that the program is conducted in
a manner which fully complies with the requirements in offering a
specified course of approved training. Programs on this list will be
presumptively considered to offer approved training for the purposes of
evaluating materials supporting applications for licenses and STCW
endorsements under this part. This list shall be updated periodically
and made available to members of the public on request.
(c) If the Coast Guard determines, on the basis of an observation
of training activities or a review of relevant documentation, that a
particular program does not meet one or more of the conditions
described in paragraph (a) of this section--
(1) The Coast Guard will so notify the managers or sponsors of the
program by letter enclosing a report of the Coast Guard's observations
and its conclusions;
(2) The managers or sponsors of the program will have a specified
period to appeal the Coast Guard's conclusions to the appropriate
official at Coast Guard Headquarters, or to come into compliance with
the requirement where the program has been found to be deficient; and
(3) If the appeal is denied, or the deficiency is not corrected in
the allotted time, or within any additional period considered by the
Coast Guard to be appropriate considering progress toward compliance,
the training program shall be removed from the list referred to in
paragraph (b) of this section until full compliance can be established
by the Coast Guard, and applications which are based in whole or in
part on training received from a program at a time when it was not on
the list may be denied until additional training or assessment can be
documented.
9. In Sec. 12.05-3, paragraph (d) is revised, paragraph (e) is
amended by removing the period at the end and adding a semicolon in its
place, and paragraphs (f) and (g) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 12.05-3 General requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Pass an examination demonstrating ability as an able seaman and
lifeboatman with proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats;
* * * * *
(f) Complete approved basic safety-training as set out in STCW
Regulation VI/1 and section a-VI/1 of the STCW Code. This training must
encompass personal survival, firefighting and fire prevention,
elementary first aid, and personal safety and social responsibilities.
The Coast Guard may approve a basic safety-training program designed
for a particular ship or type of service; however, in that case, the
Coast Guard will limit the endorsement by indicating the ship or type
of service. The training must have been completed 5 years or less
before the date of application for the endorsement. For renewal, the
applicant shall prove that his or her competence in all the subjects
encompassed by the training has been assessed and established within
the last 5 years; and
(g) Meet the requirements of STCW Regulation II/4 and section A-11/
4 of the STCW Code, if the applicant will be serving in a rating
forming part of a navigational watch on a seagoing ship of 500 gross
tons or more.
10. In Sec. 12.05-7, paragraph (a)(5) is added before the note to
read as follows:
Sec. 12.05-7 Service or training requirements.
(a) * * *
(5) For a candidate to qualify to receive an STCW endorsement for
service in a ``rating forming part of a navigational watch'' on a
seagoing ship of 500 gross tons or more, the candidate's seagoing
service must include training and experience associated with
navigational watchkeeping and involve the performance of duties carried
out under the direct supervision of the master, the officer in charge
of the navigational watch, or a qualified rating. The training and
experience must be sufficient to establish that the candidate has
achieved the required standard of competence prescribed in table A-II/4
of the STCW Code, in accordance with the methods of demonstrating
competence and the criteria for evaluating competence specified in that
table.
* * * * *
11. In Sec. 12.05-11, the heading and paragraph (a) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 12.05-11 General provisions respecting merchant mariner's
document endorsed for service as able seaman.
(a) The holder of a merchant mariner's document endorsed for the
rating of able seaman may serve in any unlicensed rating in the deck
department without obtaining an additional endorsement; provided,
however, that the holder shall hold the appropriate STCW endorsement
when serving in a ``rating forming part of a navigational watch'' on a
seagoing ship of 500 gross tons or more.
* * * * *
12. In Sec. 12.10-3, the heading, paragraph (a) introductory text,
and paragraph (a)(6) are revised, and paragraph (c) is added, to read
as follows:
Sec. 12.10-3 General requirements.
(a) To be eligible for certification as lifeboatman with
proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats, an applicant shall be
at least 18 years of age, shall meet the requirements of STCW
Regulation VI/2, paragraph 1, and the appropriate provisions of section
A-VI/2 of the STCW Code, and shall meet one of the following
requirements:
* * * * *
(6) Successful completion of a training course, approved by the
Commandant, that includes a minimum of 30 hours' actual lifeboat
training; provided that the applicant produces evidence of having
served a minimum of 6 months at sea aboard ocean or coastwise vessels.
* * * * *
(c) To be eligible for certification as lifeboatman with
proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats, an applicant shall
receive approved basic safety-training as set out in STCW Regulation
VI/1 and section A-VI/1 of the STCW Code. This training must encompass
personal survival, firefighting and fire prevention, elemental first
aid, and personal safety and social responsibilities. The Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), may approve a basic safety-training
program designed for a particular ship or type of service; however, in
that case, the OCMI will limit the endorsement by indicating the
particular ship or type of service. The training must have been
completed 5 years or less before the date of application for the
endorsement. For renewal, an applicant shall prove that his or her
competence has been assessed and established within the last 5 years.
Sec. 12.10-7 [Reserved].
13. Section 12.10-7 is removed and reserved.
14. Section 12.10-9 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 13318]]
Sec. 12.10-9 Certificates of proficiency in fast rescue boats.
(a) Every person engaged or employed in a rating as a lifeboatman
with proficiency in fast rescue boats shall hold a certificate of
proficiency in these boats or a merchant mariner's document endorsed
for proficiency in them.
(b) To be eligible for a certificate of proficiency in fast rescue
boats or a merchant mariner's document endorsed for proficiency in
these boats, an applicant must--
(1) Be qualified as a lifeboatman with proficiency in survival
craft and rescue boats under this subpart; and
(2) Provide sufficient proof that he or she has met the
requirements for training and competence of STCW Regulation VI/2,
paragraph 2, and the appropriate requirements of section A-VI/2 of the
STCW Code.
15. Section 12.10-11 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 12.10-11 Requirements for those designated to provide medical
care on board ship.
(a) Every person designated to provide medical first aid on board
ship, or to take charge of medical care on board ship, shall hold
documentary evidence indicating that the holder has attended a course
of training in medical first aid or medical care, as appropriate.
(b) The Coast Guard will issue such documentary evidence to the
person, or endorse his or her license or document, on being satisfied
that the training required under paragraph (a) of this section was
sufficient to establish that he or she meets the standards of
competence set out in STCW Regulation VI/4 and the provisions of
section A-VI/4 of the STCW Code.
16. In Sec. 12.15-3, paragraphs (d) and (e) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 12.15-3 General requirements.
* * * * *
(d) To be eligible for certification as qualified member of the
engine department, an applicant shall complete approved basic safety-
training as set out in STCW Regulation VI/1 and section A-VI/1 of the
STCW Code. This training must encompass personal survival, firefighting
and fire prevention, elementary first aid, and personal safety and
social responsibilities. The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
(OCMI), may approve a basic safety-training program designed for a
particular ship or type of service; however, in that case, the OCMI
will limit the endorsement by indicating the particular ship or type of
service. The training must have been completed within 5 years or less
before the date of application for the endorsement. For renewal, the
applicant shall prove that his or her competence in all the subjects
encompassed by the training has been assessed and established within
the last 5 years.
(e) To be eligible for certification as qualified member of the
engine department, an applicant shall meet the requirements of STCW
Regulation III/4 and section A-II/4 of the STCW Code, if he or she will
be either serving in a rating forming part of a watch in a manned
engine-room or designated to perform duties in a periodically unmanned
engine-room on a seagoing ship driven by main propulsion machinery of
750 kW [1,000 hp] propulsion power or more.
17. in Sec. 12.15-7, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 12.15-7 Service or training requirements.
* * * * *
(c) To qualify to receive an STCW endorsement as ``rating forming
part of a watch in a manned engine-room or designated to perform duties
in a periodically unmanned engine-room'' on a seagoing vessel driven by
main propulsion machinery of 750 kW [1,000 hp] propulsion power or
more, an applicant shall prove seagoing service that includes training
and experience associated with engine-room watchkeeping and involves
the performance of duties carried out under the direct supervision of a
qualified engineer officer or a member of a qualified rating. The
training must be sufficient to establish that the applicant has
achieved the standard of competence prescribed in table A-I/4 of the
STCW Code, in accordance with the methods of demonstrating competence
and the criteria for evaluating competence specified in that table.
18. in Sec. 12.15-11, the heading is revised, paragraphs (a)
through (j) are redesignated as paragraphs (1) through (10), the
introductory text is designated as paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) is
added, to read as follows:
Sec. 12.15-11 General provisions respecting merchant mariner's
document endorsed for service as qualified member of the engine
department.
* * * * *
(b) The holder of a merchant mariner's document endorsed for the
rating of qualified member of the engine department shall hold the
appropriate STCW endorsement when either serving in a ``rating forming
part of a watch in a manned engine-room or designated to perform duties
in a periodically unmanned engine-room'' on a seagoing vessel driven by
main propulsion machinery of 750 kW [1,000 hp] propulsion power or
more.
19. Section 12.25-45 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 12.25-45 Electronics technician.
(a) An applicant is eligible to have his or her merchant mariner's
document endorsed for the rating of electronics technician if he or she
holds a certificate of completion from--
(1) Approved training that includes instruction and assessment by
qualified instructors and designated examiners, and requires the
student both to complete appropriate examinations and practical
demonstrations to establish competence in the basic knowledge,
understanding, and skills necessary to perform maintenance, diagnosis,
and repair of electronic equipment and installations on board ships and
to make practical use of maintenance and repair manuals provided for
such equipment and installations; or
(2) An FCC- or Coast-Guard-approved course that covers at least the
scope and content of training outlined in section B-IV/2 of the STCW
Code for training in maintenance of GMDSS installations on board ships.
(b) Only an applicant fulfilling the requirements of paragraph
(a)(2) of this section may be designated to perform at-sea maintenance
requirements imposed by SOLAS Regulation IV/15.
(c) An applicant fulfilling only the requirements of paragraph
(a)(1) of this section will have his or her document endorsed as
follows: ``electronics technician--non-GMDSS.'' No one whose document
bears this endorsement may be designated to perform at-sea maintenance
of GMDSS installations when such a designation is used to meet the
maintence requirements imposed by SOLAS Regulation IV/15.
20. Subpart 12.30, consisting of 12.30-1 through 12.30-5, is added
to read as follows:
Subpart 12.30--Ro-Ro Passenger Ships
Sec.
12.30-1 Purpose of regulations.
12.30-3 Definitions.
12.30-5 General requirements.
Subpart 12.30--Ro-Ro Passenger Ships
Sec. 12.30-1 Purpose of regulations.
The purpose of the regulations in this subpart is to establish
requirements for certification of seamen serving on roll-on/roll-off
(Ro-Ro) passenger ships.
Sec. 12.30-3 Definitions.
Roll-on/roll-off (Ro-Ro) passenger ship means a passenger ship with
ro-ro cargo
[[Page 13319]]
spaces or special-category spaces as defined in the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (SOLAS), and
to which a SOLAS Certificate is issued.
MMD means merchant mariner's document.
12.30-5 General requirements.
To serve on a ro-ro passenger ship after January 30, 2002, a person
holding an MMD and performing duties toward safety, cargo-handling, or
care for passengers shall meet the appropriate requirements of STCW
Regulation V/2 and section A-V/2 of the STCW Code, and have his or her
MMD endorsed to show his or her meeting those requirements.
PART 15--MANNING REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3703, 8105; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Section 15.105 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 15.105 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 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 the material must
be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC and at the U.S. Coast Guard,
Operating and Environmental Standards Division, 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001, 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 as follows:
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR, England.
Amendments to the Annex to the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978 (STCW), and the associated Seafarers' Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code), as adopted under resolutions 1 and 2,
respectively, by the Conference of parties to the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978, held at IMO from June 26 to July 7, 1995--15.401;
15.403; 15.705.
3. In Sec. 15.301, the periods at the ends of paragraphs (b)(7) and
(b)(10) are removed, a semicolon is added in each place, the word
``and'' is added after the semicolon after paragraph (b)(10), and
paragraph (b)(11) is added; and paragraphs (c)(7) and (c)(8) are added
to paragraph (c) as that paragraph will stand after the revision
effective on March 31, 1996, all to read as follows:
Sec. 15.301 Definitions of terms used in this part.
* * * * *
(b)* * *
(11) GMDSS radio operator.
(c) * * *
(7) Electronics technician.
(8) Electronics technician--Non-GMDSS.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 15.401, the heading is revised, the existing text is
designated as paragraph (a), and paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f),
(g), (h), and (i) are added, to read as follows:
Sec. 15.401 Employment and service within restrictions of license,
document, and STCW endorsement.
* * * * *
(b) On a vessel operating beyond the boundary line, no person may
employ or engage any person to serve, and no person may serve, in a
position in which a person shall hold an STCW endorsement, including
master, chief mate, chief engineer, second engineer, officer of the
navigational or engineering watch, or radio operator, unless the person
serving holds an appropriate, valid STCW certificate or endorsement
issued in accordance with part 10 or 12 of this chapter.
(c) On a seagoing vessel of 500 gross tons or more, no person may
employ or engage any person to serve, and no person may serve, in a
rating forming part of the navigational watch, except for training,
unless the person serving holds an appropriate, valid STCW certificate
or endorsement issued in accordance with part 12 of this chapter.
(d) After January 31, 1997, no person may either be engaged or
employed to serve on a roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) passenger ship to which
a SOLAS certificate has been issued, or perform duties on such a ship,
unless he or she holds a license or document endorsed for service on
ro-ro passenger ships in accordance with Sec. 10.1005 or Sec. 12.30-5,
of this chapter, whichever is appropriate to the service or the duties.
(e) On a seagoing vessel driven by main propulsion machinery of 750
kW [1,000 hp] propulsion power or more, no person may employ or engage
any person to serve, and no person may serve, in a rating forming part
of a watch in a manned engine-room, nor may any person be designated to
perform duties in a periodically unmanned engine-room, except for
training or for the performance of duties of an unskilled nature,
unless the person serving holds an appropriate, valid STCW certificate
or endorsement issued in accordance with part 12 of this chapter.
(f) After January 31, 2002, on a seagoing vessel required to comply
with provisions of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
(GMDSS) in Chapter IV of SOLAS, no person may employ or engage any
person to serve, and no person may serve, as the master, chief mate, or
officer of the navigational watch, unless the person serving holds the
appropriate Certificate for Operator of Radio in Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).
(g) After January 31, 1997, on a seagoing vessel required to comply
with provisions of the GMDSS in Chapter IV of SOLAS, no person may
employ or engage any person to serve, and no person may serve, as the
person designated to perform at-sea maintenance of GMDSS installations,
when such designation is used to meet the maintenance requirements
imposed by STCW Regulation IV/15, unless the person serving holds an
electronic-technician endorsement not limited to non-GMDSS electronic
installations.
(h) After January 31, 2002, on a seagoing vessel fitted with an
Automatic Radar-Plotting Aid (ARPA), no person may employ or engage any
person to serve, and no person may serve, as the master, chief mate, or
officer of the navigational watch, unless the person serving has been
trained in the use of ARPA in accordance with Sec. 10.205 or
Sec. 10.209 of this chapter.
(i) The provisions of paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section
are effective as of August 1, 1998.
5. Section 15.403 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 15.403 Familiarization and basic safety-training.
(a) After January 31, 1997, on a seagoing vessel, no person may
assign any person to perform shipboard duties, and no person may
perform those duties, unless the person performing them has received--
(1) Familiarization training in personal survival techniques as set
out in the standard of competence under STCW Regulation VI/1; or
(2) Sufficient training or instruction, to be able to--
[[Page 13320]]
(i) Communicate with other persons on board on elementary safety
matters and understand information symbols, signs, and alarm signals
covering information on safety;
(ii) Know what to do if a person falls overboard; if fire or smoke
is detected; or if the fire or abandon-ship alarm sounds;
(iii) Identify stations for muster and embarkation, and emergency-
escape routes;
(iv) Locate and don life-jackets;
(v) Raise the alarm and know the use of portable fire
extinguishers;
(vi) Take immediate action upon encountering an accident or other
medical emergency before seeking further medical assistance on board;
and
(vii) Close and open the fire, weathertight, and watertight doors
fitted in the particular ship other than those for hull openings.
(b) After January 31, 1997, on a seagoing vessel, no person may
assign any person on board a ship, as part of the complement with
designated safety or pollution-prevention duties in the operation of
the ship, to perform shipboard duties, and no person may perform those
duties, unless the person performing them has--
(1) Received approved basic safety-training or instruction as set
out in the standards of competence under STCW Regulation VI/1,
particularly with respect to personal survival techniques, fire
prevention and fire-fighting, elementary first aid, and personal safety
and social responsibilities; and
(2) Established competence within the last 5 years as part of an
approved training program, in accordance with the methods and criteria
prescribed under STCW Regulation VI/1.
(c) Each person who has met the requirements of either Secs. 10.205
and 10.209 of this chapter or Secs. 12.05-3, 12.10-3, and 12.15-3 of
this chapter meets the requirements of this section without further
training or assessment.
6. Section 15.411 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 15.411 Maintenance of seamen's records by owner or operator.
Each owner or operator of a U.S.-documented vessel that operates
beyond the boundary line shall ensure that procedures are in place, in
respect of licensed and unlicensed seamen who serve on each such
vessel, to ensure that the following information is maintained
throughout their service, and is readily accessible to those in
management responsible for the safety of vessels and prevention of
marine pollution:
(a) Medical fitness.
(b) Experience and training relevant to assigned shipboard duties.
(c) Assessment of competence in performance of assigned shipboard
duties.
7. In Sec. 15.705, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 15.705 Watches.
* * * * *
(f) Masters of vessels that operate beyond the boundary line shall
observe the principles concerning watchkeeping as set out in STCW
Regulation VIII/2 and section A-VIII/2 of the STCW Code.
8. In Sec. 15.710, the heading is revised, paragraphs (a) through
(d) are redesignated as paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively, the
introductory text is designated as paragraph (a), and paragraphs (b)
and (c) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 15.710 Working hours and rest periods.
* * * * *
(b) After January 31, 1997, each person assigned duty as officer in
charge of a navigational or engineering watch, or duty in a rating
forming part of a navigational or engineering watch, on any vessel that
operates beyond the boundary line shall receive a minimum period of 10
hours of rest in any 24-hour period, except in an emergency, a drill,
or any other overriding operation condition, provided--
(1) The hours of rest are divided into no more than two periods,
one of which must be at least 6 hours in length; and
(2) The minimum period of 10 hours of rest may be reduced to not
less than 6 consecutive hours as long as--
(i) No reduction extends beyond 2 days; and
(ii) He or she receives at least 70 hours of rest in each 7-day
period.
(c) The Master shall post watch schedules where they are easily
accessible. Each schedule must include each affected person.
(d) For purposes of applying this section--
(1) Rest period means a period of time during which no tasks are
assigned to the person concerned, the person is not scheduled to
perform any duty, and the person is allowed to sleep without being
interrupted; and
(2) Overriding operational conditions means circumstances in which
essential shipboard work cannot be delayed for reasons of safety or
environment or for reasons not foreseeable at the commencement of the
voyage.
Dated: 5 March 1996.
Joseph J. Angelo,
Acting Chief, Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental
Protection.
[FR Doc. 96-7019 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.