issue-1995-11-03•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-03
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-03
issue-1995-11-03Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-03Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 95-27348 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Page, AZ
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55813-55814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27348]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWP-36]
Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Page, AZ
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Page, AZ. The development of a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 15 has made this
proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide
adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at Page Municipal Airport, Page, AZ.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 13, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Attn: Manager, System Management Branch, AWP-
530, Docket No. 95-AWP-36, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box 92007,
Worldway Postal Center, Los Angeles, California 90009.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Western Pacific Region, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 6007, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business at
the Office of the Manager, System Management Branch, Air Traffic
Division at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Speer, Airspace Specialist,
System Management Branch, AWP-530, Air Traffic Division, Western-
Pacific Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 15000 Aviation
Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261, telephone (310) 725-6533.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, 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 the comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
[[Page 55814]]
AWP-36.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
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 System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
at 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, 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 NPRM
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
System Management Branch, P.O. Box 92007, Worldway Postal Center, Los
Angeles, California 90009. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by amending the Class E airspace
area at Page, AZ. The development of a GPS SIAP at Page Municipal
Airport has made this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this
proposal is to provide adequate Class E airspace for aircraft executing
the GPS RWY 15 SIAP at Page Municipal Airport, AZ. 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
this 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 10034; 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 would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 is revised 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 the 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
* * * * *
AWP AZ E5 Page, AZ [Revised]
Page Municipal Airport, AZ
(Lat. 36 deg.55'34'' N, long. 111 deg.26'54'' W)
Page VOR/DME
(Lat. 36 deg.55'41'' N, long. 111 deg.27'02'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Page Municipal Airport; and within
3-miles either side of the Page VOR 340 deg. radial, extending from
the 6.5-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of the Page VOR/DME. That
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within
6.5 miles northeast and 10 miles southwest of the Page VOR/DME
340 deg. radial and 160 deg. radial, extending from the 18-miles
northwest to 8-miles southeast of the Page VOR/DME and that airspace
bounded by a line beginning at lat. 37 deg.11'00'' N, long.
111 deg.41'00'' W; to lat. 37 deg.22'00'' N, long. 111 deg.46'00''
W; to lat. 37 deg.26'00'' N, long. 111 deg.35'00'' W; to lat.
37 deg.19'30'' N, long. 111 deg.20'30'' W; to lat. 37 deg.10'30'' N,
long. 111 deg.25'00'' W; to lat. 37 deg.15'00'' N, long.
111 deg.27'00'' W, thence to the point of beginning and that
airspace bounded by a line beginning at lat. 36 deg.56'00'' N, long.
111 deg.18'00'' W; to lat. 36 deg.35'00'' N, long. 111 deg.09'30''
W; to lat. 36 deg.35'00'' N, long. 111 deg.30'00'' W; to lat.
36 deg.41'00'' N, long. 111 deg.32'00'' W, thence to the point of
beginning.
* * * * *
Issued in Los Angeles, California, on October 23, 1995.
Richard R. Lien,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 95-27348 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27347 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Fremont, NE
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55814-55815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27347]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-3]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Fremont, NE
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Fremont, NE. A new standard instrument approach procedure (SIAP) is
being developed to Runway 13 at Fremont Municipal Airport, Fremont, NE,
utilizing the Scribner VOR, which would provide pilots additional
controlled airspace at Fremont, NE.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 4, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Air
Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
Docket No. 95-ACE-4, 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 a.m.
and 3 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: (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory
[[Page 55815]]
decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects
of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket
number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. 95-ACE-3.'' 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 application 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
Fremont Municipal Airport. The additional airspace would segregate
aircraft operating under VFR conditions from aircraft operating under
IFR procedures. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical
charts thereby enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area or otherwise
comply with IFR procedures. Class E airspace designations for airspace
areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the
earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending From 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth
* * * * *
ACE NE E5 Fremont, NE [Revised]
Fremont Municipal Airport, NE.
(Lat. 41 deg.26'49''N, long. 96 deg.31'03''W)
Fremont NDB
(Lat. 41 deg.27'01''N, long. 96 deg.31'05''W)
Scribner VOR
(Lat. 41 deg.36'19''N, long. 96 deg.37'44''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Fremont Municipal Airport and within
2.6 miles each side of the 306 deg. bearing from the Fremont NDB
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7 miles northwest of the
airport, and within 2 miles each side of the Scribner VOR 153 deg.
radial extending from the Scribner VOR to the 6.4-mile radius of the
Fremont Municipal Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on October 4, 1995.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 95-27347 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27346 Direct Broadcast Satellite Service
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55822-55827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27346]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 100
[IB Docket No. 95-168; PP Docket No. 93-253; FCC 95-443]
Direct Broadcast Satellite Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission has adopted a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that proposes a number of new rules for the Direct
Broadcast Satellite (``DBS'') service, including the use of competitive
bidding to resolve mutually exclusive applications for DBS resources.
The Commission seeks comment on all of its tentative conclusions and
proposed rules.
As part of its decision in Advanced Communications Corporation, FCC
95-428 (released October 18, 1995), the Commission reclaimed for the
public 51 channels of DBS spectrum at two orbital locations (27
channels at 110 deg. W.L. and 24 channels at 148 deg. W.L.) that had
previously been assigned to Advanced Communications Corporation
(``ACC''). The Commission proposes to revise rules and policies in the
DBS service in order to update the current ``interim'' rules and to
reassign, by auction or other means, channels at orbital locations
previously assigned to ACC.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 1995; reply
comments must be submitted on or before November 30, 1995. Written
comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information
collections are due November 20, 1995. Written comments must be
submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') on the
proposed and/or modified information collections on or before January
2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20554. 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 NW., Washington, DC
20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB
Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or
via the Internet to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bill Wiltshire or Suzanne Hutchings, International Bureau, (202) 418-
0420; or Diane Conley, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-
0660. For additional information concerning the information
collections, 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 Rulemaking in IB Docket No. 95-168; PP Docket No. 93-253;
FCC 95-443, adopted October 27, 1995 and released October 30, 1995. The
complete text of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC,
and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street NW.,
Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
This Notice contains proposed or modified information collections
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), Pub. L. No.
104-13. It has been submitted to OMB for review under Section 3507(d)
of 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.
Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making
I. Introduction
1. Over six years ago, in Continental Satellite Corporation, 4 FCC
Rcd 6292 (1989), the Commission stated that
[[Page 55823]]
existing DBS permittees would have first right to additional channel
assignments upon surrender or cancellation of a DBS construction
permit. the Notice tentatively concludes that this reassignment policy,
adopted in an era before Congress explicitly authorized the
Commission's use of auctions and well before any DBS system actually
went into operation, no longer serves the public interest, and
therefore should be abandoned.
2. Accordingly, the Notice proposes new rules for reassigning DBS
resources. In the Notice, the Commission tentatively concludes that it
has the statutory authority to auction DBS construction permits if the
Commission receives mutually exclusive applications, and that the
objectives of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
309(j), would be served by doing so. Specifically, the Notice proposes
to auction two DBS construction permits: one for all 28 channels now
available at the 110 deg. orbital location (27 channels from ACC plus 1
channel that was never assigned), and another for all 24 channels now
available at the 148 deg. orbital location. The Commission tentatively
concludes that these two permits should be awarded through a
sequential, oral outcry auction. The Notice seeks comment on both the
proposed use of auctions in the DBS service and the proposed auction
rules.
3. The Notice also proposes new rules for the DBS service. In
particular, the proposed rules would: (1) Establish additional
performance criteria for new permittees; (2) guard against potential
anticompetitive conduct by DBS providers; and (3) ensure timely DBS
service to Alaska and Hawaii. The Notice also requests comment on
existing Commission policy governing the extent to which DBS resources
may be put to alternative uses. These rules are proposed in order to
foster swift utilization of DBS orbital/channel assignments, and to
ensure that the public reaps the full benefit of DBS spectrum
resources. The Notice seeks comment on these proposed service rules as
well.
II. Proposed Service Rules
A. Due Diligence Milestones
4. The Notice tentatively concludes that combining existing due
diligence requirements with additional milestones for construction and
operation of DBS systems by new permittees will prevent unnecessary
delays in the commencement of service. Accordingly, the Notice proposes
rules to add two additional performance criteria for those receiving
DBS construction permits after the effective date of the proposed rule:
(1) Completion of construction of the first satellite in a DBS system
within four years of authorization; and (2) launch and operation of all
satellites in a DBS system within six years of authorization.
B. Use of DBS Capacity
5. The Notice requests comment on the Commission's existing policy
for non-conforming uses of DBS resources. That policy requires each DBS
licensee to begin DBS operations before the end of its first license
term, but allows otherwise unrestricted use during that term. After
expiration of the first term, a DBS operator may continue to provide
non-DBS service only on those transponders on which it also provides
DBS service, and only up to half of the use of each transponder each
day. As an example of the comments sought, the Notice suggests that the
existing restrictions on each DBS transponder could be restated in
terms of capacity rather than time, so as to accomplish the same goals
without unduly restricting decisions as to satellite configuration and
operation, and further invites comment on whether and how to formulate
a rule to better account for the flexibility of digital transmission
and compression.
6. The Notice also refers to the possibility that, as a result of a
separate proceeding, operators using DBS channels and orbital locations
may be permitted to provide both domestic and international service. In
light of that possibility, and the discussion of the permissible non-
standard uses of DBS channels, the Notice requests comment on whether
the U.S. has the authority to auction permits which may include the
provision of international service.
C. Pro-Competitive Rules and Policies Spectrum Aggregation Limitations
7. In order to promote competition and prevent undue concentration
of limited DBS resources, the Notice tentatively concludes that it may
now be prudent and appropriate to adopt rules designed to further those
goals, especially when DBS resources are controlled by the provider of
a competing, non-DBS service. The analysis begins by tentatively
concluding that the market in which multichannel video programming
distributors (``MVPDs'') compete--the market for the delivery of
multichannel video programming--is an appropriate ``product market'' in
which to determine the competitive effect of having DBS resources under
the control of the provider of another type of multichannel video
distribution service. The Notice also tentatively concludes that (1)
DBS service rules should address competitive issues relating to the use
of DBS spectrum to provide the wholesale distribution of DBS services
to cable operators and other MVPDs; (2) the effect of DBS competition
in the broader MVPD market will principally be felt in essentially
local markets; and (3) cross-ownership between DBS operators and other
MVPDs may present opportunities for anticompetitive strategic conduct
that potentially has adverse effects at the firm or national level.
8. Accordingly, the Notice proposes that any DBS licensee or
operator affiliated with another MVPD be permitted to control or use
DBS channel assignments at only one of the four orbital locations
capable of serving the entire contiguous United States (``full-
CONUS''), and seeks comment on whether the proposed spectrum
limitations should be related to the size of the MVPD involved and
whether such limitations should differentiate between cable operators
and other MVPDs. The Notice also proposes that aggregation of DBS
channel assignments by any DBS permittee or licensee be limited to a
total of 32 channels at any combination of full-CONUS orbital
locations, and further seeks comment on whether the Commission should
impose a limitation on an operator owning a significant number of
channels at each of multiple full-CONUS orbital locations--e.g.,
prohibiting a DBS permittee or licensee holding more than 16 channels
at one full-CONUS orbital location from holding channels at any other
full-CONUS location.
9. The Notice proposes that any permittee or licensee that acquires
control over channels in excess of the proposed spectrum limitations be
given ninety days from the date of Commission approval of such
acquisition in which to either surrender to the Commission its excess
channels, or file with the Commission a transfer or assignment
application in order to divest sufficient channels to bring the
applicant into compliance with all applicable spectrum limitations.
10. For purposes of implementing the proposed spectrum aggregation
limitations, the Notice proposes to consider four orbital locations--
61.5 deg. W.L., 101 deg. W.L., 110 deg. W.L., and 119 deg. W.L.--to be
capable of full-CONUS service. The Notice tentatively concludes that
applying the spectrum cap to these four orbital locations will ensure
that there is sufficient channel capacity for a minimum of four full-
CONUS DBS providers. It also
[[Page 55824]]
concludes that channels at the other four DBS orbital locations, which
are not capable of full-CONUS service, probably cannot match the
economies of scale in domestic service achieved by full-CONUS
operators, and thus should be exempt from the proposed spectrum
limitations.
11. In order to maintain the integrity of the channel aggregation
limitations, the Notice tentatively concludes that it is necessary to
count against the spectrum limitations all channels held by DBS
operators that share some level of common ownership or control. Because
of concerns that entities could engage in anticompetitive conduct not
only through control of DBS channels, but also through use of such
channels, the Notice concludes that it is appropriate to apply spectrum
limits not only to DBS permittees and licensees, but also to DBS
operators, defined as any person or group of persons who provide
services using DBS channels and directly or through one or more
affiliates own an attributable interest in such satellite system; or
who otherwise control or are responsible for, through any arrangement,
the management and operation of such a satellite system. For purposes
of implementing the spectrum aggregation limitations, the Notice
proposes to attribute both controlling interests and any interest of
five percent or more in a DBS permittee, licensee, or operator. The
Notice proposes to rely on existing case law for making control
determinations where such issues arise. Specifically, the Notice
proposes to adopt rules that attribute to the holder any interest of
five percent or more, whether voting or nonvoting, and all partnership
interests, whether general or limited. In addition, the Notice proposes
to adopt attribution rules that (1) attribute any interest of ten
percent or more held by an institutional investor or investment
company, rather than a five percent interest; (2) employ a multiplier
for determining attribution of interests held through intervening
entities; (3) provide for attribution of interests held in trust; (4)
attribute the positional interests of officers and directors; (5)
attribute limited partner interests based not only upon equity but also
upon percentages of distributions of profits and losses; and (6)
provide for attribution based upon certain management agreements and
joint marketing agreements. For purposes of the spectrum limitations,
the Notice also proposes to identify any individual or entity as an
affiliate of a licensee, permittee, or operator, or of a person holding
an attributable interest in a licensee, permittee, or operator, if such
individual or entity: (i) Directly or indirectly controls or has the
power to control the licensee, permittee, or operator; (ii) is directly
or indirectly controlled by the licensee, permittee, or operator; or
(iii) is directly or indirectly controlled by a third party or parties
that also has the power to control the licensee, permittee, or
operator. The Notice also seeks comment on whether the definition of an
affiliate should also include individuals or entities that have an
identity of interest with the licensee, permittee, or operator.
Conduct Rules To Protect Competition
12. In addition to the structural solutions designed to promote
competition by preventing the potential for undue concentration of DBS
and MVPD resources, the Notice also proposes conduct limitations on the
use of DBS channels and orbital locations to encourage, to the maximum
extent possible, rivalry among MVPDs. Specifically, the Notice further
proposes to (1) extend the conditions placed on Tempo Satellite, an
existing DBS permittee that is wholly owned by a cable operator, to all
MVPD providers that own DBS resources, such that they cannot offer DBS
service primarily as an ancillary service to their own programming
distribution services, or provide DBS service to subscribers of their
non-DBS systems under different terms than are being offered to non-
subscribers; and (2) prevent a DBS operator from selling, leasing, or
otherwise providing transponder capacity to any entity that enters into
an agreement with an MVPD granting that MVPD the exclusive right to
distribute DBS services within, or adjacent to, its service area. The
Notice also requests comment on whether existing program access and
program carriage rules adequately address vertical integration concerns
arising from common ownership among DBS operators, other MVPDs, and
program vendors, especially in connection with ``headend in the sky''
wholesale distribution from DBS satellites.
Other Concerns
13. The Notice observes that in the Advanced Communications
Corporation proceeding, commenters raised a number of other concerns
about potential strategic conduct that could arise from cable-
affiliated ownership of full-CONUS DBS spectrum. Those commenters
argued that cable-affiliated ownership of full-CONUS DBS spectrum
should be prohibited, or in the alternative, that several remedial
conditions should be imposed. The Notice seeks comment on the extent to
which those and related concerns are implicated by the proposed auction
of DBS construction permits, and if so, whether additional DBS service
rules might be appropriate to address those concerns.
East/West Paired Assignments
14. The Notice tentatively concludes that progress in the DBS
service since Continental was issued has rendered unnecessary the
policy, developed in that decision, of assigning DBS channels only in
east/west pairs, with eastern half-CONUS service permitted only from
the four eastern orbital locations and western half-CONUS service
permitted only from the four western orbital locations.
D. Service to Alaska and Hawaii
15. The Notice proposes: (1) To require that all new permittees
must provide service to Alaska and Hawaii if such service is
technically feasible from their orbital locations; and (2) to condition
the retention of channels assigned to current permittees at western
orbital locations on provision of such service, from either or both of
their assigned orbital locations.
E. License Term
16. The Notice proposes to increase the term of a non-broadcast DBS
license from 5 years to 10 years, the maximum allowed under the
Communications Act, which better reflects the useful life of a DBS
satellite and is consistent with the current proposal for extending the
term of satellite licenses in other services.
III. Proposed Auctioning of DBS Permits
A. Authority To Conduct Auctions
17. The Notice tentatively concludes that the Commission has
authority under Section 309(j) to use competitive bidding to award
construction permits for the DBS spectrum reclaimed from ACC as well as
other available DBS spectrum. The Notice tentatively concludes that
construction permits available for reclaimed DBS spectrum are
``initial'' within the meaning of Section 309(j). The Notice also
tentatively concludes that it is likely that mutual exclusivity will
exist among applications for the DBS channels reclaimed from ACC as
well as other DBS channels that may become available in the future. The
Notice further tentatively concludes that there are no means of
avoiding mutual exclusivity in the DBS service that are consistent with
the objectives of Section 309(j). The Notice proposes to consider
mutual exclusivity to occur only when the number of DBS channels sought
at a given orbital location exceeds the
[[Page 55825]]
number available there, and it asks for possible alternative criteria
for identifying mutually exclusive applications. The Notice also
tentatively concludes that the ``principal use'' requirement of Section
309(j) is satisfied because DBS is likely to be primarily a
subscription-based service, and that using competitive bidding to award
DBS authorizations would promote the objectives of Section 309(j).
B. Competitive Bidding Design
18. The Notice explains that the Commission has previously
concluded that the objectives of Section 309(j) will generally best be
achieved by auctions designed to award authorizations to the parties
that value them most highly. Such parties are most likely to deploy new
technologies and services rapidly, and to promote the development of
competition for the provision of those and other services.
19. The Notice proposes that available channel assignments be
auctioned sequentially in two blocks: one block of 28 channels at
110 deg., including the 27 channels reclaimed from ACC and one channel
that has never been assigned; and one block of 24 channels at 148 deg.,
which were reclaimed from ACC. The Notice tentatively decides not to
divide the available blocks into smaller parcels because it appears
from the configuration of current DBS systems that channels are most
effectively utilized when they are available in a substantial quantity
at a given orbital location. The Notice also tentatively concludes that
there would be little to gain by conducting simultaneous auctions of
the DBS channels reclaimed from ACC because the channels at 110 deg.
and those at 148 deg. are not likely to be close substitutes in the
near term and there is no evidence of synergies between the channels at
the two orbital locations. If sequential auctioning is used, the Notice
proposes to auction the channels at 110 deg. first because all of the
information available indicates that the channels at 110 deg. have the
highest value of those currently available. The Notice asks whether the
channels at 110 deg. and at 148 deg. should be offered in a different
configuration, and whether there are foreseeable circumstances in which
simultaneous auctions of DBS permits would be more appropriate than
sequential auctions. The Notice also seeks comment on any general
principles that may be used to determine the sequence of future DBS
auctions that may be held if construction permits are auctioned
sequentially.
20. The Notice tentatively concludes that multiple round bidding
would be the best method of auctioning the channels reclaimed from ACC,
because the value of the construction permits is likely to be very high
and at the same time may be somewhat uncertain. Single round sealed
bidding would be a simple method of awarding DBS construction permits,
but bidders would have to guess about the value that other bidders
place on the permits and there is a substantial risk that the party
that values a permit most highly may not submit the winning bid. The
Notice requests comment on the advantages and disadvantages of both
single round, sealed bidding and multiple round bidding as a method of
auctioning DBS permits in the future.
21. The Notice also tentatively concludes that oral outcry would be
the best method of submitting bids in the case of DBS, and that this
method should be used for the channels reclaimed from ACC. An oral
outcry auction has the advantage of being simple and rapid, and it
avoids the additional complications associated with electronic filing.
The Notice seeks comment on whether an oral outcry auction could pose
problems for bidders that need time between bidding rounds to arrange
for additional financing if bidding goes higher than anticipated. The
Notice also seeks comments on whether a combined sealed bid-oral outcry
auction may be appropriate for the channels available at 110 deg. and
148 deg. to help reduce the risk of collusion while retaining the
benefits of a multiple round auction.
C. Bidding Procedures
22. In the event multiple round auctions are used, imposing a
minimum bid increment would speed the progress of the auction and help
to ensure that the auction concludes within a reasonable period. If
oral outcry is used, the Notice tentatively concludes that the
auctioneer should have discretion to establish bid increments--and
raise or lower them in the course of an auction--consistent with
directions provided by the Commission. The Notice also asks for
suggestions as to how bid increments should be determined if bids are
submitted electronically. The Notice also proposes to establish a
minimum opening bid for the 28 channels available at 110 deg., both to
help ensure that the auction proceeds quickly and to increase the
likelihood that the public receives fair market value for the spectrum.
The Notice asks interested parties to suggest the appropriate level of
a minimum opening bid for the channels at 110 deg., and it seeks
comment on whether and how a minimum bid should be established for the
channels at 148 deg. and other channels that may become available in
the future.
D. Procedural and Payment Issues
23. The Notice proposes to apply its general procedural and payment
rules for auctions to the DBS service, along with certain modifications
discussed below. In keeping with previous practice, the Notice also
proposes that the Commission retain discretion to implement or modify
certain procedures that would be announced by Public Notice prior to
particular auctions, including rules governing the timing of
application and payment requirements and any activity and stopping
rules that may be appropriate.
24. Under the procedures proposed in the Notice, applicants for DBS
auctions would file a short-term application, FCC Form 175, with the
Commission prior to the auction in which they wish to participate. The
Notice also tentatively concludes that it would be appropriate to allow
only for manual filing of these forms for the proposed auction of
spectrum available at 110 deg. and 148 deg., because a small number of
participants is anticipated.
25. The Notice proposes that entities that would exceed proposed
spectrum caps as a result of successful bidding in the proposed
auctions should be given 90 days following the date of grant of a
construction permit won through an auction to either surrender to the
Commission their excess channels or file an application that would
result in divestiture of the excess channels.
26. The Notice proposes to require an upfront payment in all DBS
auctions to help ensure that only serious, qualified bidders
participate. The Notices seeks comment on how the size of an upfront
payment should be determined and asks whether it would be appropriate
to establish an upfront payment of five percent of the spectrum's
estimated value. The Notice further asks how the value of spectrum
should be estimated. The Notice also asks whether a single upfront
payment should qualify parties to bid on both the 110 deg. and 148 deg.
channel blocks, and, if not, what the appropriate amount of an upfront
payment would be for each of the two channel blocks. The Notice further
asks if only the winner of the first permit should be required to
submit an additional upfront payment if it wishes to bid on the second
permit. With respect to the collection of upfront payments, the Notice
proposes that prospective bidders deposit their payments in the
Commission's lock-box bank by a date certain that would allow the
Commission sufficient time to verify the availability of the funds
before the
[[Page 55826]]
auction. The Notice tentatively concludes that such a procedure would
minimize the risk of defaults that could force the reauctioning of
spectrum and asks for comment on alternative collection methods.
27. The Notice also proposes that every DBS auction winner should
be required to submit to the Commission an amount sufficient to bring
its total deposit up to 20 percent of its winning bid within 10
business days of the announcement of winning bidders. By the same
deadline, winning bidders would be required to file information in
conformance with Part 100 of the Commission's Rules and a signed
statement describing their efforts to date and future plans to come
into compliance with the proposed spectrum caps. In addition, the
Notice proposes that winning bidders be required to submit the balance
of their winning bid within five business days of an announcement that
the Commission had dismissed or denied any and all petitions to deny.
Under this proposal, if a winning bidder failed to submit the balance
of the winning bid or the permit was otherwise denied, a default
payment would be assessed.
28. If oral outcry auctions are used, the Notice proposes to rely
on default payments to deter insincere bidding and provide an incentive
for bidders wishing to withdraw their bids to do so before bidding
ceases. Under this proposal, a default payment would be assessed if a
winning bidder fails to pay the full amount of its 20 percent down
payment or the balance of its winning bid in a timely manner, or is
disqualified after the close of an auction. The Notice proposes that
the amount of such a default payment should be equal to the difference
between the defaulting auction winner's ``winning'' bid and the amount
of the winning bid the next time the license is offered for auction by
the Commission, if the latter bid is lower. In addition, the defaulting
auction winner would be required to submit a payment of three percent
of the subsequent winning bid or three percent of its own ``winning''
bid, whichever is less.
29. If single round, sealed bid auctions for DBS used, the item
proposes to require no payments for withdrawing a bid (1) before the
bids are opened, or (2) after bids are opened but before the high
bidder has been notified. However, a payment equal to the difference
between the high bid and the next highest bid would be required of any
party that defaults after being notified that it has submitted the high
bid in a sealed bid DBS auction.
E. Regulatory Safeguards
30. The Notice proposes that any entity that acquires a DBS
authorization through competitive bidding, and seeks to transfer that
authorization within six years of the initial license grant, would be
required to file, together with its application for FCC consent, the
associated contracts for sale, option agreements, management
agreements, or other documents disclosing the total consideration
received in return for the transfer of its authorization.
31. The Notice tentatively concludes that the performance
requirements proposed as part of the DBS service rules are sufficient
to achieve the statutory goals of ensuring prompt delivery of service
to rural areas, preventing the stockpiling of spectrum, and promoting
investment in and rapid deployment of new services, and that it is
unnecessary to adopt any further performance rules in connection with
the proposed auction procedures.
32. Consistent with the Commission's general practice, the Notice
proposes that bidders be required to identify on their short-form
applications any parties with whom they have entered into any
consortium arrangements, joint ventures, partnerships or other
agreements or understandings which relate in any way to the competitive
bidding process. Bidders also would be required to certify on their
short-form applications that they have not entered into any explicit or
implicit agreements, arrangements or understandings of any kind with
any parties, other than those identified, regarding the amount of their
bid, bidding strategies or the particular properties on which they will
or will not bid.
33. The Notice further proposes to require winning bidders to
submit a detailed explanation of the terms and conditions and parties
involved in any bidding consortia, joint venture, partnership or other
agreement or arrangement they have entered into relating to the
competitive bidding process prior to the close of bidding. After short-
form applications are filed, and prior to the time the winning bidder
has submitted its lump-sum payment of the balance of its bid, all
applicants would be prohibited from cooperating, collaborating,
discussing or disclosing in any manner the substance of their bids of
bidding strategies with other applicants for licenses serving the same
or overlapping geographical areas, unless such bidders were members of
a bidding consortium or other joint bidding arrangement identified on
the bidder's short-form application. Applicants would nonetheless be
allowed to (1) modify their short-form applications to reflect
formation of consortia or changes in ownership at any time before or
during an auction, provided that such changes would not result in a
change in control of the applicant, and provided that the parties
forming consortia or entering into ownership agreements have not
applied for licenses for channels that may be used to cover the same or
overlapping geographical areas; and (2) make agreements to bid jointly
for licenses after the filing of short-form applications, provided that
the parties to the agreement have not applied for licenses that may be
used to serve the same or overlapping geographical areas. Under the
proposal, the holder of a non-controlling attributable interest in an
entity submitting a short-form application would be allowed to acquire
an ownership interest in, form a consortium with, or enter into a joint
bidding arrangement with other applicants for licenses that may be used
to serve the same or overlapping geographical areas after the filing of
short-form applications, provided that (1) the attributable interest
holder certifies to the Commission that it has not communicated and
will not communicate with any party concerning the bids or bidding
strategies of more than one of the applicants in which it holds an
attributable interest, or with which it has a consortium or joint
bidding arrangement, and which have applied for licenses that may be
used to serve the same or overlapping geographical areas, and (2) the
arrangements do not result in any change in control of an applicant.
F. Designated Entities
34. Because of the extremely high implementation costs associated
with satellite-based services, the Notice tentatively concludes that no
special provisions should be made for designated entities for the
channels currently available at 110 deg. and 148 deg.. The Notice seeks
comment on whether special provisions should be made for designated
entities in future DBS auctions, and requests comment on whether future
auctions of smaller blocks of DBS spectrum or technological advances in
the delivery of DBS service might reduce capital requirement barriers
for designated entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This Notice contains modified information collections. 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
[[Page 55827]]
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 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.
47 CFR Part 100
OMB Approval Number: None.
Title: Direct Broadcast Satellite Service.
Form No.: None.
Type of Review: Approval of existing collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for profit.
Number of Respondents: 8.
Estimated Time Per Response: 400 hours.
Total Annual Burden: 3200 hours.
Needs and Uses: In accordance with the Communications Act, the
information collected will be used by the Commission in granting DBS
authorizations, and in determining the technical, legal, and financial
qualifications of a satellite applicant, permittee or licensee.
Existing information collection requirements are set forth in Part 100
of the Commission's Rules and in Commission orders. See e.g., Inquiry
Into the Development of Regulatory Policy in Regard to Direct Broadcast
Satellites for the Period Following the 1983 Regional Administrative
Radio Conference. 90 FCC 2d 676 (1982), recon. denied, 53 RR 2d 1637
(1983); CBS, Inc., 98 FCC 2d 1056 (1983); Tempo Enterprises, Inc., 1
FCC Rcd 20, 21 (1986), United States Satellite Broadcasting Co., 3 FCC
Rcd 6858, 6861-62 (1988).
Under the existing information collection requirements in the
Commission's Rules, an entity awarded a DBS Authorization would be
required to submit the information required pursuant to 47 CFR 100.13,
100.19, 100.21, 100.51. The Commission proposed to require that DBS
auction winners submit: (1) Ownership information to determine
compliance with Parts 1 and 100 of the Commission's Rules; (2) a
statement describing their efforts to comply with the proposed spectrum
aggregation limitations; (3) an explanation of the terms and conditions
and parties involved in any bidding consortia, joint venture,
partnership, or other agreement or arrangement they enter into relating
to the competitive bidding process prior to the close of bidding; and
(4) any agreements or contracts pertaining to the transfer of the DBS
authorization acquired through auction during the six years following
grant of the authorization.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, It is Ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 7, and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157, and 309(j), Notice is Hereby Given of
the proposed amendments to Part 100 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR
Part 100, in accordance with the proposals in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and that Comment is Sought regarding such proposals.
It is Further Ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 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. Sec. 601 et seq.
Administrative Matters
This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding.
Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda
period, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission rules.
See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested
parties may file comments on or before November 20, 1995 and reply
comments on or before November 30, 1995. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original and five copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner
to receive a personal copy of your comments send additional copies to
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington,
DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the Federal Communications
Commission, Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, NW. Washington,
DC 20554. For further information concerning this rulemaking contact
Paula Ford at (202)739-0733.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement
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 and is not published in the Federal Register. 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.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 100
Radio, Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-27346 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27338 Receipt of a Petition To Designate Lands Unsuitable for Mining and To Prepare a Petition Evaluation Document and Environmental Impact Statement
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55815-55816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27338]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Parts 764 and 942
Receipt of a Petition To Designate Lands Unsuitable for Mining
and To Prepare a Petition Evaluation Document and Environmental Impact
Statement
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a combined petition evaluation
document/environmental impact statement, and notice of scoping meeting
and scoping comment period for the petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) intends to prepare a combined
petition evaluation document/environmental impact statement (PED/EIS)
for the decision on a petition to designate certain lands within the
watershed and viewshed of Fall Creek Falls State Park and Natural Area
in Van Buren and Bledsoe Counties, Tennessee, as unsuitable for surface
coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with Section 522
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. OSM
has identified four alternatives that the combined PED/EIS would
evaluate as described in the supplementary information of this notice.
OSM requests that other Federal and state agencies and the public
submit written comments or statements on the need for an EIS on the
petition and the scope of the issues which should be analyzed in the
combined document.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 5 p.m. (est), December 18,
1995. Oral comments may be presented at the scoping meeting to be held
on Thursday, November 16, 1995, at 7 p.m. (CST).
ADDRESSES: Written comments must be mailed or hand delivered to the
Office
[[Page 55816]]
of Surface Mining, Permitting Team, 530 Gay Street SW., Suite 500,
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, Attn. Willis Gainer. Copies of the petition
are available upon request from the Office of Surface Mining at the
above address. The public record on the petition is available for
review during normal working hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the OSM
office listed above. The November 16 scoping meeting will be held at
the Fall Creek Falls State Park Inn, Rt. 3, Pikeville, Tennessee.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Willis L. Gainer, at the OSM office listed above (telephone: 615-545-
4065).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 14, 1995, 49 citizens, Save Our
Cumberland Mountains, and Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning
petitioned OSM to designate the watershed and viewshed of Fall Creek
Falls State Park and Natural Area in Van Buren and Bledsoe Counties,
Tennessee, as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations pursuant to
SMCRA. The petition was amended on August 18 and September 5, 1995, and
determined administratively complete and accepted for processing on
October 5, 1995. The petition as accepted is an 80 page document with
55 exhibits and amendments. The Federal Program for Tennessee, as
administered by OSM, applies to all surface coal mining operations in
Tennessee including the processing of lands unsuitable for mining
petitions (49 FR 38874, October 1, 1984).
The petition area covers approximately 83,740 acres of the
watershed and viewshed in Van Buren and Bledsoe Counties. The petition
boundary is as follows: beginning at the Park boundary due north of
Bradden Knob lookout tower, roughly paralleling Highway 30
northwesterly to a point on Cane Creek just south of the Highway 30
crossing, then extending due west with the boundary of the Park's new
addition and extending westward to a point approximately at the city
limits of the town of Spencer, from that point southward roughly
following the path of Highway 111 to Pine Grove school, then south-
southwest to the community of Welchland, then southeast to the peak of
Smartt Mountain, then extending southeasterly following the Tennessee
Valley Divide, and following the Divide as it curves back to the
northeast to a point approximately 2 miles north of Basin Mountain,
then following a divide between Flat Creek and Pole Bridge Creek in a
northwesterly direction to the beginning.
The major allegations of the petition can be summarized as follows:
1. Surface coal mining operations would affect fragile or historic
lands, in which such operations could result in significant damage to
important historic, cultural, scientific, or esthetic values.
2. Surface coal mining operations would affect renewable resource
lands in which the operations could result in a substantial loss or
reduction in the long-range productivity of water supply or of food or
fiber products.
3. Surface coal mining operations would affect natural hazard lands
in which such operations could substantially endanger life and
property.
4. Surface coal mining operations would be incompatible with
existing state and local land use plans or programs.
5. Reclamation is not technologically and economically feasible.
OSM has identified four possible alternatives that the combined
PED/EIS would evaluate:
Alternative 1--Designate the entire petition area as unsuitable for
surface coal mining operations if OSM determines that reclamation is
not technologically and economically feasible.
Alternative 2--Not designate any of the area as unsuitable for
surface coal mining operations.
Alternative 3--Designate parts of the petition area as unsuitable
for all surface coal mining operations:
A. Designate as unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal
mining operations, including the designation of selected reserves,
those parts of the petition area in which such operations would affect
fragile or historic lands and result in significant damage to important
historic, cultural, scientific, or esthetic values.
B. Designate as unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal
mining operations, including the designation of selected reserves,
those parts of the petition area in which such operations would result
in a substantial loss or a reduction in the long-range productivity of
water supply or food or fiber products.
C. Designate as unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal
mining operations, including the designation of selected reserves,
those parts of the petition area in which such operations would affect
natural hazard lands and could substantially endanger life and
property.
D. Designate as unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal
mining operations, including the designation of selected reserves,
those parts of the petition area in which such operations would be
incompatible with existing local land use plans and programs.
Alternative 4--Designate the entire petition area as unsuitable for
surface coal mining but allow underground mining with or without
certain restrictions.
A scoping comment period is intended to raise the relevant issues
to be addressed by the combined document. OSM seeks public comments in
relation to the scope of issues to be addressed by the impact
evaluation, including impacts and alternatives that should be
addressed. Written comments should be specific and confined to issues
pertinent to the petition. The public comments received during the
scoping period will assist OSM in making decisions on the petition
evaluation and in preparing the PED/EIS. OSM believes that the proposed
action is a major Federal action that may significantly affect the
quality of the human environment and may require the preparation of an
EIS. OSM additionally gives notice here that should information or
analysis show that the proposed action does not require an EIS, it will
terminate the environmental impact statement process through an
appropriate notice in the Federal Register, prepare an environmental
assessment, and continue processing of the petition under 30 CFR Part
764 and 942 regulations.
Dated: October 31, 1995.
Mary Josie Blanchard,
Director, Program Support.
[FR Doc. 95-27338 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27306 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Industrie Model A320 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55811-55813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27306]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-90-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Industrie Model A320 Series
Airplanes
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 certain Airbus Industrie Model
A320 series airplanes. This proposal would require an inspection to
detect moisture and migrated bushings of the guide fittings of the
safety locking pins of the passenger doors, removal of any moisture,
application of grease, and reinstallation of any migrated bushing. This
proposal also would require installation of a greasing nipple on the
guide fitting of the locking pin and on three telescopic rods on the
passenger doors. This proposal is prompted by reports of difficulty
opening the passenger doors due to jamming of the locking pin. The
actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent such
jamming of the locking pin, which could result in inability to open the
passenger door. This condition, if not corrected, could impede or delay
passengers from exiting the airplane during an emergency.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 18, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-90-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
[[Page 55812]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2589; fax (206) 227-1149.
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 shall 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-NM-90-AD.'' 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, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-90-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for France, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Industrie Model A320
series airplanes. The DGAC advises that it has received reports
indicating that operators of Model A320 series airplanes have
experienced difficulty opening the passenger doors due to freezing of
the locking mechanism during cold weather conditions. Investigation
revealed that moisture and water accumulates and freezes between the
upper bushings of the vertical guide fitting of the doors. This
condition causes expansion of the bushings and compromises the
tolerances of the guide. Consequently, the safety locking pin that fits
in the guide can become jammed, which can result in inability to open
the passenger door. This condition, if not corrected, could impede or
delay passengers from exiting the airplane during an emergency.
Airbus Industrie has issued All Operators Telex (AOT) 52-06, dated
February 4, 1994, which describes procedures for a one-time inspection
to detect moisture and migrated bushings of the guide fittings of the
upper safety locking pins of the passenger doors, removal of any
moisture that may have accumulated between the bushings, application of
low temperature grease, and reinstallation of any migrated bushing.
Airbus Industrie has issued Service Bulletin No. A320-52-1057,
dated July 26, 1994, which describes procedures for installing a
greasing nipple on the guide fitting of the locking pin and on three
telescopic rods on the passenger doors. Accomplishment of the
installation will prevent jamming of the locking pin.
The DGAC classified the AOT and the service bulletin as mandatory
and issued French airworthiness directive 94-239-060(B), dated November
9, 1994, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these
airplanes in France.
This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of
the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD
action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, the proposed AD would require a one-time
inspection to detect moisture and migrated bushings of the guide
fittings of the upper safety locking pins of the passenger doors,
removal of any moisture, application of grease, and reinstallation of
any migrated bushing. The proposed AD also would require installation
of a greasing nipple on the guide fitting of the locking pin and on
three telescopic rods on the passenger doors. The actions would be
required to be accomplished in accordance with the AOT and the service
bulletin described previously.
The FAA estimates that 108 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 4 work
hours per airplane (1 work hour per door; 4 doors per airplane) to
accomplish the proposed inspection, and that the average labor rate is
$60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of
this proposed action on U.S. operators is estimated to be $25,920, or
$240 per airplane.
The FAA estimates that it would take approximately 40 work hours
per airplane to accomplish the proposed installation, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would be
supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to operators. Based on these
figures, the total cost impact of this proposed action on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $259,200, or $2,400 per airplane.
Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed
requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $285,120,
or $2,640 per airplane.
The total cost impact figure discussed above is based on
assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
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
[[Page 55813]]
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), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Airbus Industrie: Docket 95-NM-90-AD.
Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes on which Airbus
Industrie Modification No. 24389 (Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin
No. A320-52-1057, dated July 26, 1994) has not been accomplished,
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes 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 (c) of this AD 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 airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent jamming of the upper safety locking pin on the
passenger door, which could result in inability to open the
passenger door and, subsequently, could impede or delay passengers
from exiting the airplane during an emergency, accomplish the
following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 450 hours time-in-service after
one year from the delivery date of the airplane, or within 450 hours
time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Perform an inspection to detect moisture or migrated
bushings of the guide fittings of the upper safety locking pins on
each passenger door, in accordance with Airbus Industrie All
Operators Telex (AOT) 52-06, dated February 4, 1994.
(1) If any moisture is found in the guide fitting, prior to
further flight, remove the moisture, dry the guide fitting, fill it
with low temperature grease, and reinstall the guide fitting with
bolts, washers, and nuts in accordance with the AOT.
(2) If any migrated bushing is found, prior to further flight,
reinstall the bushing using Loctite 672 in accordance with the AOT.
If the bushing cannot be reinstalled prior to further flight, the
airplane may be operated without the upper locking pin for an
additional 50 hours time-in-service or three days after
accomplishing the inspection, whichever occurs first, provided that
the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), and
(a)(2)(iii) of this AD are accomplished. This compliance time
applies to each passenger door.
(i) The connecting rod to the locking shaft shall be removed.
(ii) The guide fitting shall remain installed.
(iii) The cavity in the guide fitting (which results from the
removal of the upper locking pin) shall be covered with high speed
tape to prevent moisture ingress.
(b) Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD,
install a greasing nipple on the guide fitting of the locking pin
and on three telescopic rods on the passenger doors in accordance
with Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin No. A320-52-1057, dated July
26, 1994.
(c) 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, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) 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 airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 30, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-27306 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27297 Control of Firearms and Weapons on the Installation of Fort Knox, KY
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55816-55820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27297]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
32 CFR Part 552
[USAARMC Reg 210-1]
Control of Firearms and Weapons on the Installation of Fort Knox,
KY
AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes 32 CFR Part 552, Subpart O, Control of
Firearms and Weapons, and authenticates Fort Knox regulation, USAARMC
Reg 210-1. This subpart establishes weapons authorized, prohibited, and
restricted on the Fort Knox military reservation, and the conditions
applicable to the use, possession, sale, purchase, loss, registration,
storage, and disposal of weapons authorized on the reservation. This
regulation is applicable to all
[[Page 55817]]
personnel assigned, residing, working, or visiting on the Fort Knox
reservation.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 4, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Office of
the Staff Judge Advocate, Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William G. Lacey, Operations Officer, telephone: (502) 624-4335 or
1776.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementation of this subpart by
subordinate units is prohibited.
Executive Order 12291
This proposed rule is not affected by Executive Order 12291.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act has no bearing on this proposed
rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain reporting or recordkeeping
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 552
Arms and munitions, Federal buildings and facilities, Government
employees, Military personnel.
It is proposed to add Subpart O to 32 CFR Part 552 as set forth
below:
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register, Liaison Officer.
32 CFR Part 552 is amended by adding a new Subpart O as follows:
Subpart O--Control of Firearms and Weapons on the Installation of
Fort Knox, Kentucky
Sec.
552.192 Purpose
552.193 Applicability
552.194 Definitions
552.195 Prohibitions
552.196 Requirements for possession, storage, transportation, and
registration
552.197 Requirements for carrying and use
552.198 Disposal and disposition of confiscated/ seized or
surrendered weapons.
Appendix A to Subpart O--Partial List of Publications Applicable to the
Control of Firearms and Weapons on the Installation of Fort Knox,
Kentucky
Authority: 10 U.S.C. Ch. 47.
Subpart O--Control of Firearms and Weapons on the Installation of
Fort Knox, Kentucky
Sec. 552.192 Purpose.
This subpart establishes the criteria for possessing, carrying,
transporting, and disposing of firearms and/or other deadly or
dangerous weapons and instruments on the Fort Knox installation.
Sec. 552.193 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to all Department of
Defense (DoD) military; civilian personnel; U.S. Army Reserve/National
Guard (USAR/NG) personnel on post for active duty training or inactive
training; military family members; and civilians employed on, visiting,
or traveling through or on the Fort Knox installation.
(b) This subpart will not become void in its entirety merely
because one part or portion thereof is declared unconstitutional or
void.
(c) This subpart is punitive. Military violators of the regulations
in this subpart may be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, applicable Federal law, other regulations, and/or
administrative action. Civilian visitors may be barred from the
installation of Fort Knox and prosecuted under appropriate Federal or
State laws.
Sec. 552.194 Definitions.
(a) Ammunition. Projectiles together with their fuses, propelling
charges, and primers that are designed to be expelled from a firearm.
This includes any type of military and commercial ammunition (ball,
tracer, incendiary, blank, shotgun, black powder, and shot). Items
shall only be considered as ammunition when loaded into a cartridge
with its bullets, powder, and primer.
(b) BB and pellet guns. Any type rifle, pistol, or other instrument
designed or redesigned, made or remade, modified or remodified to expel
BBs or pellets by springs, compressed air, CO2, or any other compressed
gas cartridge.
(c) Cantonment area. The central portion of the Fort Knox
Reservation excluding field training sites, firing ranges and hunting
areas, which includes commercial and government facilities and
activities, installation and unit headquarters, troop billets, and
family housing.
(d) Dangerous instruments. Any device which is designed or
redesigned, made or remade, modified or remodified to be used as an
offensive or defensive weapon. Devices of this type include but are not
limited to:
(1) ``Constant companion'' or any similar weapon designed or
redesigned, made or remade, modified or remodified to be worn as a belt
buckle, brass knuckles, ``Knucklers,'' and ``Knucks.''
(2) Studded or spiked wrist bands, or any device designed or
redesigned, made or remade, modified or remodified to fit over the hand
or wrist which can be used to cause grave bodily harm.
(3) Black jacks, slapjacks, slappers, saps, including homemade
substitutes, other bludgeons (with or without handles), and metal
pipes/weapons.
(4) ``Nanchaku'' (num-chucks), two or more sticks connected by
rope, cord or chain, and normally used as a martial arts weapon.
``Shuriken,'' a disc or any geometrical object designed to be thrown as
a weapon. ``Manrikigusari'' or ``Kusari,'' a rope or cord joined to a
weight at each end and designed to be used as a weapon.
(5) Any finger ring with blades or sharp objects that are capable
of being projected/extended from the surface of the ring.
(6) All prohibited firearms.
(e) Explosive, incendiary, and pyrotechnic devices. Any type of
military or commercial explosive, incendiary, gas (to include chemical
mace) or smoke bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine, blasting cap,
``dummy'' and/or practice device such as simulators, and other similar
detonating devices which are capable of being altered to contain a live
charge, and pyrotechnic devices such as firecrackers, cherry bombs,
bottle rockets, and star clusters.
(f) Firearms. Any type of weapon which is designed or redesigned,
made or remade, modified or remodified to expel a projectile by action
of any explosion, and the frame or receiver of any such weapon. This
does not include antique firearms, antique replicas, and those modern
firearms which have been rendered permanently incapable of being fired.
(g) Handgun. Any pistol or revolver originally designed to be fired
by the use of a single hand, or any other firearm originally designed
to be fired by the use of a single hand.
(h) Knives, sabers, swords, and machetes. Any instrument having a
sharp blade which is fastened to a handle, or made with a handle.
Measurement of the blade will be from the tip of the blade to the point
where the blade meets the handle. This includes folding knives,
switchblades, gravity knives, stilettos, lock blade knives, swords,
sabers, and machetes.
(i) Minor. A person who has not reached the full legal adult age of
18.
(j) Machine gun and automatic weapon. A weapon designed or
redesigned, made or remade, modified or remodified to automatically
fire more than one shot by single pull of the trigger.
(k) Rifle. A firearm with a rifled bore designed to be fired from
the shoulder.
(l) Shotgun. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and
intended to be fired from the shoulder,
[[Page 55818]]
and designed or redesigned, made or remade, to use the energy or the
explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either
a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of
the trigger.
(m) Sawed-off or shortened shotgun. A shotgun or any weapon made
from a shotgun whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise having
one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or if such weapon as
modified has an overall length of less than 20 inches.
(n) Sawed-off rifle. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or
remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; and designed or
redesigned, made or remade, to use the energy of the explosive in a
fixed metallic cartridge to fire only as a single projectile through a
rifle bore for each single pull of the trigger, and which has a barrel
or barrels of less than 16 inches or has an overall length of less than
26 inches.
(o) Silencer. Any device used for suppressing or diminishing the
report of any firearm.
(p) Weapon. Any instrument used in a offensive or defensive manner.
(q) Workplace. Any building, room, or establishment or part
thereof, owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal
employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing official
duties.
Sec. 552.195 Prohibitions.
(a) Prohibited items. It is prohibited to possess, carry, conceal,
transport, store, transfer, or sell any of the following weapons or
devices on, through, or within the confines of the installation unless
specifically allowed elsewhere in this subpart:
(1) Sawed off/shortened barrel shotguns, which are not generally
recognized as suitable for lawful purposes.
(2) Sawed off/shortened barrel rifle.
(3) Machine gun and automatic weapons (unless properly permitted
under federal law).
(4) Silencers.
(5) Dangerous instruments as defined in Sec. 552.194.
(6) Explosives, incendiary, gas, and pyrotechnic devices, as
defined in Sec. 552.194.
(7) Knives with automatic blade openers (i.e., switch blades,
gravity knives, stilettos) of any blade length.
(8) Any object which carries an electrical current of sufficient
wattage to deliver a shock to a person, such as cattle prods,
``taser,'' or ``public defenders.''
(b) Carrying a concealed weapon. A person commits the offense of
carrying a concealed weapon when they knowingly have or carry about
their person, unless in an open manner and fully exposed to view, any
bludgeon, metal knuckles, firearm, or knife designed for the purpose of
offense and defense, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or
instrument of like character outside their home.
(c) Possession of a firearm in a posted Federal workplace.
(1) Per the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 930a, firearms are
prohibited in all Federal workplaces when such notice is posted at each
entrance. The sign at USAARMC Regulation 210-1, appendix B, when posted
at each public entrance to a facility or activity, will serve as notice
required by 18 U.S.C. Section 930a. Any person entering such a posted
facility, in possession of a firearm, will be in violation of 18 U.S.C.
930a, and subject to apprehension.
(2) All buildings and structures on Fort Knox, which provide a
customer service function will display the notice sign at USAARMC
Regulation 210-1, appendix B. Commanders and building managers may post
notice at other buildings as they deem appropriate. Other buildings may
include, but are not limited to, command and headquarters, and mission
essential facilities not having customer service orientation.
(3) The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to firearms
carried by law enforcement and security personnel while performing
official duties.
(d) Prohibited possession and storage. It is prohibited for a
person, military or civilian, to possess or store ammunition, firearms,
knives with blades more than 3\1/2\ inches long, bows and arrows,
crossbows, and BB and pellet guns in locations other than those
locations specified in Sec. 552.196 except under conditions specified
in Sec. 552.197. Prohibited locations for these items include but are
not limited to, living spaces and common areas of billets, squad rooms,
exterior storage sheds, camper trailers, and offices. Commanders will
designate an arms room and times for weapons turn-in. During periods
when arms rooms are closed, unit staff duty personnel, i.e., Staff Duty
Officer (SDO), Charge of Quarters (CQ), etc., will ensure the weapon is
properly secured. A receipt will be given for each weapon received,
reflecting the weapon's make, serial number, identity of owner and
other data deemed appropriate. Unless otherwise authorized, weapons may
NOT be stored in vehicles.
(e) Exemptions. Nothing in this subpart shall prohibit:
(1) Soldiers or DoD civilian employees from possessing or using
military weapons, military ammunition or explosives, or military
devices in a lawful manner while in the performance of their military
duties or for training or other authorized purposes, as prescribed by
applicable Army Regulations.
(2) Military and DoD civilian personnel, while in the performance
of official law enforcement duties, from possessing or using government
ammunition, explosives or devices in a lawful manner, as prescribed by
applicable laws or regulations or by their lawful superiors.
(3) Federal, state, county, or local law enforcement personnel,
while in the performance of official law enforcement duties, from
possessing or using government or privately-owned weapons, ammunition,
explosives, or devices in a lawful manner, as prescribed by applicable
laws or regulations or by their lawful superiors.
(4) Government contractors, while in performance of their contract
from possessing or using weapons, ammunition, explosives or devices,
per the provisions of their contract and as determined by the
Contracting Officer.
(5) Individuals with Federal Firearms Licenses from possessing,
carrying, and transporting weapons per Federal regulations; however,
they are prohibited from concealing such weapons.
Sec. 552.196 Requirements for possession, storage, transportation, and
registration.
(a) Possession, transportation, and registration. DoD military and
civilian personnel, their family members, USAR/NG personnel and
civilians employed on, visiting, or traveling through this installation
may possess privately-owned firearms, ammunition, BB and pellet guns,
knives, bows and arrows, and crossbows (excluding prohibited items)
under the following conditions:
(1) Privately owned firearms, crossbows, BB and pellet guns
possessed or stored on the installation must be registered within at
the installation Provost Marshal's Office within 3 working days after
arrival on the installation, or after obtaining the weapon, except:
(i) Firearms legally brought onto the installation for the purpose
of hunting or firing at an approved firing range, and only for the
period of time the person possessing the firearms is hunting or firing
on the range.
(ii) Firearms carried by Federal, state, county, or local law
enforcement personnel when in the performance of official law
enforcement duties.
[[Page 55819]]
(iii) Firearms carried or transported, in full compliance with
Kentucky State Laws, by personnel traveling through the installation.
(2) Minors may not purchase, register, or have in their possession
any weapon, including a firearm, other than an ordinary pocket knife.
Persons under 21 years of age shall not possess a privately-owned
handgun, except:
(i) Soldiers, older than 18 years of age, but under the age of 21,
with written approval and certification of the unit commander may, for
the purpose of participating in official hunting or target shooting
activities in an authorized area register, transport, possess, and use
a firearm to include a handgun. The commander's certification/approval
must be presented at the time the firearm is registered, and be
available upon demand at any time the firearm is carried, used or
transported on the installation.
(ii) Persons under the age of 18 while hunting or target shooting
on the installation must be accompanied by a person over the age of 21
who will be responsible for compliance with the requirements of this
subpart.
(b) Storage. Personnel residing in family housing, Bachelor
Officer/Enlisted Quarters and guest housing, may store authorized
ammunition, knives with a blade measuring more than 3\1/2\ inches, bows
and arrows, registered crossbows, registered BB and pellet guns, and
registered firearms within their quarters. Firearms should be stored in
a locked container or otherwise secured by a locking device that
immobolizes the trigger and/or action.
(1) Personnel residing in troop billets may store authorized
ammunition, knives and blades measuring more that 3\1/2\ inches, bows
and arrows, registered crossbows, registered BB and pellet guns, and
registered firearms in unit arms rooms. The unit arms room should
utilize a standard weapons card and log book to document storage,
removal, and return.
(2) Persons must be in compliance with Federal and state law
regarding possession (i.e., age, criminal record restrictions, etc.).
(3) Storage, accountability, and registration procedures will be
per Army Regulation 190-11 and supplements.
Sec. 552.197 Requirements for carrying and use.
(a) Carrying and use. Persons legally authorized to possess
firearms, ammunition, knives (with blades longer than 3 \1/2\ inches),
bows and arrows, and crossbows, may carry or transport weapons under
the following conditions:
(1) For the purposes of hunting: From quarters, on or off the
installation, by the most direct route to hunting area or Pass and
Permit Office and return. Individuals must have in their possession a
weapon registration (if applicable), valid state hunting license, valid
Fort Knox hunting permit, and an area access pass (if applicable).
(2) For purposes of target shooting, selling the weapon or having
the weapon repaired: From quarters by the most direct route to approved
range or to the location where the weapon is to be sold or repaired and
returned. Individuals must have in their possession at all times their
registration (if applicable).
(i) When carried, weapons will be carried in an open manner or in a
case designed by the manufacturer to specifically store a firearm (not
concealed). Firearms will be unloaded when carried (i.e., projectiles
physically separated from the firearms, not just removed from the
chamber), except when actually engaged in hunting or shooting. Knives
will be carried in a sheath or scabbard worn in a clearly visible
manner. Commanders may authorize the carrying of a privately-owned
knife with a blade over 3\1/2\ inches to field duty, provided it is
carried fully exposed to view in a sheath/scabbard. The Provost Marshal
may authorize the carrying of a privately owned, sheathed, lock blade
knife on military and DoD police officers' pistol belts.
(ii) When transported in a vehicle, weapons will be in plain view
in the passenger area of the vehicle or secured (locked) in the trunk
or other rear compartment of the vehicle, not readily accessible from
the passenger area (i.e. locked tool box secured to bed of truck).
Firearms will be unloaded and the ammunition physically separated from
the firearms. The glove compartment of a vehicle is NOT an authorized
compartment for storing or transporting pistols on the installation.
(iii) Firearms, bows and arrows, crossbows, BB and pellet guns will
not be loaded, fired or used within the cantonment areas of the
installation; within 50 yards of any public highway, street, or Fort
Knox numbered road or across same; within 100 yards of any designated
recreation area, managed waters, building, or similar structures; any
aircraft landing facility (to include currently used landing or stage
fields); any ammunition storage area (except on approved firing range
when properly authorized).
(b) Kentucky Revised Statute 527.020--Carrying concealed deadly
weapon. Persons not affiliated with DoD or this installation when
carrying or transporting weapons through the installation must be in
full compliance with Kentucky State Law governing possession, use, and
transportation of said weapons which mandates the following:
(1) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed weapon when he
carries concealed a firearm or other deadly weapon on or about his
person.
(2) Peace officers, when necessary for their protection in the
discharge of their official duties; United States mail carriers when
actually engaged in their duties; and agents and messengers of express
companies, when necessary for their protection in the discharge of
their official duties, may carry concealed weapons on or about their
persons.
(3) Policemen directly employed by state, county, city, or urban-
county governments may carry concealed deadly weapons on or about their
person at all times within the Commonwealth of Kentucky, when expressly
authorized to do so by the government employing the officer.
(4) A deadly weapon shall not be deemed concealed on or about the
person if it is located in a glove compartment, regularly installed in
a motor vehicle by its manufacturer regardless of whether said
compartment is locked, unlocked, or does not have a locking mechanism.
(5) Carrying a concealed weapon is a Class A misdemeanor unless the
defendant has been previously convicted of a felony in which a deadly
weapon was possessed, used or displayed in which case it is a Class D
felony.
Sec. 552.198 Disposal and disposition of confiscated/seized or
surrendered weapons.
(a) Disposal. Any person may dispose of unwanted firearms by
relinquishing the weapon in person to the on-duty Military Police Desk
Sergeant located at Building 204, Fort Knox. Any firearm, to include
dangerous instruments or prohibited items, may be disposed of
anonymously by placing the weapon or item in the amnesty container
located adjacent to the front entrance of Building 1384, One-Stop
Processing Center. All personnel are encouraged to safely dispose of
any unwanted or undesired firearm/weapon by either of the methods in
this paragraph.
(b) Disposition of weapons and ammunition. All weapons, ammunition,
explosives, or other devices defined in this subpart, that are
confiscated
[[Page 55820]]
pursuant to the commission of a crime, violation of this or other
regulation, voluntarily surrendered or found unsecured/unattended on
the installation, will be immediately turned over to the Military
Police, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC), or the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for investigation, retention as
evidence, or other lawful disposition. When retention for investigation
or evidence is no longer required by Military Police, USACIDC, or other
law enforcement or judicial agencies, the items will be disposed of
under the provisions of AR 195-5, Evidence Procedures.
(c) Forfeiture. Upon conviction of any person for the violation of
any law or statute in which a weapon was used, displayed, or unlawfully
possessed by such person, the court of competent jurisdiction may order
the weapon to be forfeited and destroyed according to law.
Appendix A to Subpart O--Partial List of Publications Applicable to the
Control of Firearms and Weapons on the Installation of Fort Knox,
Kentucky
1. Control of Firearms and Weapons, USAARMC Regulation 210-1.
2. Physical Security of Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives, Army
Regulation 190-11 and supplements.
3. Evidence Procedures, Army Regulation 195-5.
These publications are available for inspection at the Office of
the Staff Judge Advocate, Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121.
[FR Doc. 95-27297 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27294 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Responsibility Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27294]
[[Page 55959]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Defense
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
48 CFR Part 9
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); Responsibility Determinations;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 213 / Friday, November 3, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55960]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 9
[FAR Case 95-007]
RIN 9000-AG66
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Responsibility Determinations
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council are proposing to amend the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to emphasize the use of commercial sources
of information in determining the responsibility of prospective
contractors. This regulatory action was not subject to Office of
Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated
September 30, 1993.
DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before January 2, 1996 to be
considered in the formulation of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments to:
General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VRS), 18th & F
Streets NW., Room 4037, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite FAR case 95-
007 in all correspondence related to this case.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Ralph DeStefano at (202) 501-1758 in reference to this FAR case.
For general information, contact the FAR Secretariat, Room 4037, GS
Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAR case
95-007.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
This proposed rule implements a recommendation of the Department of
Defense Procurement Process Reform Process Action Team. The rule
revises FAR Subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, to state
that contracting officers should use commercial sources of supplier
information in making determinations of responsibility, and to clarify
that preaward surveys should be requested only if sufficient relevant
information from other sources, including commercial sources, is
unavailable.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., because the rule
merely clarifies that commercial sources of information should be used
in determining the responsibility of prospective contractors. An
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been
performed. Comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR
subpart will be considered in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610 of the Act.
Such comments must be submitted separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. (FAR case 95-007), in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed
changes to the FAR do not impose recordkeeping or information
collection requirements, or collections of information from offerors,
contractors, or members of the public which require the approval of the
Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 9
Government procurement.
Dated: October 30, 1995.
C. Allen Olson,
Director, Office of Federal Acquisition Policy.
Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR Part 9 be amended as set
forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Part 9 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42
U.S.C. 2473(c).
PART 9--CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS
2. Section 9.105-1 is amended in the introductory text of paragraph
(c) by removing the parenthetical ``(See 48 CFR Part 42, Subpart
42.15)''; by redesignating paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6) as (c)(5)
through (c)(7), and adding a new paragraph (c)(4).
9.105-1 Obtaining information.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Commercial sources of supplier information of a type offered to
buyers in the private sector (for example, supplier performance and
evaluation reports by Dun & Bradstreet Information Services, Standard &
Poors, Moody Industrials, or similar sources).
* * * * *
3. Section 9.106-1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
9.106-1 Conditions for preaward surveys.
(a) A preaward survey is normally required only when the
information on hand or readily available to the contracting officer,
including information from commercial sources, is not sufficient to
make a determination regarding responsibility. In addition, if the
contemplated contract (1) will be for $25,000 or less or (2) will have
a fixed price of less than $100,000 and will involve commercial
products (see 11.001) only, the contracting officer should not request
a preaward survey unless circumstances justify its cost.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-27294 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27291 Workshop on the Regulation of Fuel Cycle Facilities
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27291]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 70
Workshop on the Regulation of Fuel Cycle Facilities
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Meeting notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will hold a public
workshop on the method for improving NRC's regulation of fuel cycle
facilities under 10 CFR Part 70, ``Domestic Licensing of Special
Nuclear Material.'' The workshop is open to the public; however, for
efficient conduct of the workshop, participation will be in the format
of a roundtable discussion among invited representatives from affected
interested parties. The NRC has prepared a workshop agenda and
documents that identify regulatory issues of concern in the regulation
of NRC-licensed fuel cycle facilities. These documents are available
for review prior to the workshop, and interested parties are encouraged
to review this information. The NRC will accept and consider written
comments from interested parties on these regulatory issues.
DATES: The workshop will be held on November 30, 1995, from 9 am to 5
pm. The workshop will continue, if necessary, on December 1, 1995, from
8:30 am to 12 noon. Comments on these regulatory issues should be
received no later than December 11, 1995.
ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Auditorium, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland. (Note: The NRC is accessible to the White Flint
Metro Station; visitor parking around the NRC building is limited.)
Written comments can be provided at the workshop or by December 11,
1995, to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of the
agenda and related documents can be obtained from the NRC's Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20037; Phone: 202-
634-3273; FAX: 202-634-3343.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis X. Cameron, Mail Stop O-15
B18, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555; Phone:
301-415-1642; FAX: 301-415-3200; INTERNET:[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The occurrence of several serious incidents
at NRC-licensed fuel cycle facilities led the NRC to conclude that
improvements in regulating these facilities were needed. Accordingly,
the NRC is currently reviewing its regulatory requirements for
licensing the possession and use of special nuclear material, including
general requirements for the content of license applications, in 10 CFR
Part 70. The Commission has directed the staff to continue a dialogue
with affected interested parties with the goal of improving the
regulation of fuel cycle facilities. This workshop will focus on a
number of issues related to the NRC's effort to establish a firm
regulatory base for fuel cycle facility licensing and inspection
activities and to ensure the adequacy of licensee performance.
The workshop will be an information exchange between the NRC and a
diverse group of individuals who might be affected by subsequent
changes to the method in which the NRC regulates fuel cycle facilities
licensed under Part 70. This exchange should provide the NRC and
workshop participants an opportunity to express their concerns and
views on the method for improving NRC's regulation of fuel cycle
facilities, how specific goals and objectives of improving NRC's safety
regulations can be met, and the level of risk that is considered
adequate for the protection of the public health and safety.
For efficient conduct of the workshop, the meeting format will be a
roundtable discussion among invited representatives from affected
interests, e.g., fuel cycle industry, other Federal and state
government agencies, and citizen groups. The workshop will be open to
the public, and the public will be provided opportunities throughout
the workshop to comment on the issues presented for discussion.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of October, 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck,
Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 95-27291 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27283 Extension of Maturing 1994 and Subsequent Crop Year Wheat and Feed Grain Price Support Loans
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55807-55808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27283]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 213 / Friday, November 3, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55807]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1421
RIN 0560-AE28
Extension of Maturing 1994 and Subsequent Crop Year Wheat and
Feed Grain Price Support Loans
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the regulations with respect to
the price support loan programs for wheat and feed grains, which are
administered by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) in accordance
with the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (the 1949 Act), and other
acts. Implementation of the changes made by this proposed rule will
provide CCC authority to allow producers to extend maturing wheat,
corn, grain sorghum, barley, oat, and rye loans during times of
abnormal marketing conditions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 4, 1995, in
order to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed to Grady Bilberry, Consolidated Farm
Service Agency (CFSA), United States Department of Agriculture, room
3628, South Building, P.O. Box 2415, Washington, DC 20013-2415. All
written submissions will be made available for public inspection from
7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, in room 3628, South
Building, 14th and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Wright, CFSA, USDA, room
3627, South Building, P.O. Box 2415, Washington, DC 20013-2415,
telephone 202-720-8481.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant and was
reviewed by OMB under Executive Order 12866.
Federal Assistance Program
The title and number of the Federal Assistance Program, as found in
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this rule applies
are Commodity Loans and Purchases--10.051.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable because the CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other
provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to the subject matter of these determinations.
Environmental Evaluation
It has been determined by an environmental evaluation that this
action will have no significant impact on the quality of human
environment.
Executive Order 12372
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and
local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V,
published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
Executive Order 12778
This rule has been reviewed pursuant to Executive Order 12778. To
the extent State and local laws are in conflict with these regulatory
provisions, it is the intent of CCC that the terms of the regulations
prevail. The provisions of this rule are not retroactive. Prior to any
judicial action in a court of competent jurisdiction, administrative
review under 7 CFR part 780 must be exhausted.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The amendments to 7 CFR part 1421 set forth in this proposed rule
do not contain additional information collections that require
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the provisions
of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35. Existing information collections were approved
by OMB and assigned OMB Control Numbers 0560-0087 and 0560-0129.
Comments
Comments are requested with respect to this proposed rule and such
comments shall be considered in developing the final rule.
Discussion
Producers with regular 9-month nonrecourse wheat and feed grain
price support loans currently are authorized extension of the loan
maturity date to such date as CCC determines necessary to participate
in the farmer-owned reserve (FOR) program conducted in accordance with
Secs. 1421.200 through 1421.217.
CCC allows producers with outstanding wheat and feed grain CCC
price support loans that mature during times of natural disasters to
request an extension of the original maturity date of such loans until
marketing and movement of commodities return to normal levels.
Although extensions are available to producers to allow
participation in the FOR program or during times of natural disasters,
producer's options are limited at maturity when these conditions do not
exist. Giving CCC the authority to extend loans during times of
abnormal marketing conditions to a date that will allow affected
producers to market such commodities in a normal manner may prevent a
significant number of loan forfeitures, strengthen markets, and
increase economic opportunities for affected producers.
This proposed rule would amend 7 CFR part 1421 to provide CCC
authority to allow producers to extend maturing wheat, corn, grain
sorghum, barley, oat, and rye loans when CCC has determined abnormal
marketing conditions are present.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1421
Grains, Loan programs/agriculture, Oilseeds, Peanuts, Price support
programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Soybeans, Surety
bonds, Warehouses.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 1421 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1421--GRAINS AND SIMILARLY HANDLED COMMODITIES
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1421 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1421, 1423, 1425, 1441z, 1444f-1, 1445b-3a,
1445c-3, 1445e, and 1446f; 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c. Subpart--Rice
Marketing Certificate Program is also issued under authority of 7
U.S.C. 1441-2; 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c.
[[Page 55808]]
2. Section 1421.6 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1421.6 Maturity and expiration dates.
* * * * *
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, CCC may
allow producers with wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oat, and rye
loans maturing during times of abnormal marketing conditions, as
determined by CCC, to extend such loans beyond the maturity date
specified in paragraph (a) of this section. If CCC determines that the
commodity pledged as collateral for such loans cannot be marketed
because of such abnormal marketing conditions, CCC may authorize such
loans to be extended to a date that will allow affected producers to
market such commodity in a normal manner.
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 26, 1995.
Bruce R. Weber,
Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 95-27283 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27260 Radio Broadcasting Services; Kewanee, IL
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55820-55821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27260]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-160; RM-8710]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Kewanee, IL
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Virden
Broadcasting Corporation proposing the substitution of Channel 230A for
Channel 221A at Kewanee, Illinois, and the modification of Station
WJRE(FM)'s license accordingly. Channel 230A can be allotted to Kewanee
in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation
requirements with a site restriction of 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) west
at petitioner's requested site. The coordinates for Channel 230A at
Kewanee are North Latitude 41-14-15 and West Longitude 89-56-15.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 21, 1995 and reply
comments on or before January 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioners, or their counsel or consultants, as follows:
John F. Garziglia, Esq., Pepper & Corazzini, L.L.P., 1776 K Street,
NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20554 (Counsel for Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-160, adopted October
16, 1995, and released October 30, 1995. The full text
[[Page 55821]]
of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239),
1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision
may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M
Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-27260 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27259 Radio Broadcasting Services; Wellsville, NY
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55821-55822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27259]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-162, RM-8714]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Wellsville, NY
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Erin
Communications, Inc., seeking the substitution of Channel 278A for
Channel 228A at Wellsville, NY, and the modification of Station
WJQZ(FM)'s license accordingly. The substitution of channels could
enable Station WJQZ(FM) to operate with full Class A facilities of 6 kW
instead of its present 3 kW. Channel 278A can be allotted to Wellsville
in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation
requirements with a site restriction of 8.7 kilometers (5.4 miles)
southwest, at coordinates 42-13-24 NL; 78-00-34 WL. Canadian
concurrence in the allotment is required since Wellsville is located
within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border. The
Commission will not accept competing expressions of interest in use of
Channel 278A at Wellsville since the procedures set forth in 1.420(g)
of the Commission's Rules do not apply in this case as the Commission
generally considers channels of the same class to be equivalent.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 21, 1995, and reply
comments on or before January 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: James
A. Koerner, Esq., Baraff, Koerner, Olender & Hochberg, P.C., Three
Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 640, Bethesda, MD 20814-5330 (Counsel to
petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-162, adopted September
18, 1995, and released October 30, 1995. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
[[Page 55822]]
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-27259 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27258 Radio Broadcasting Services; Laramie, WY
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27258]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-159; RM-8711]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Laramie, WY
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Rule
Communications proposing the allotment of Channel 244A at Laramie,
Wyoming, as the community's fifth local commercial FM transmission
service. Channel 244A can be allotted to Laramie in compliance with the
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at city reference
coordinates. The coordinates for Channel 244A at Laramie are North
Latitude 41-18-42 and West Longitude 105-35-06.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 21, 1995 and reply
comments on or before January 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.
In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioners, or their counsel or consultants, as follows:
John F. Garziglia, Esq., Pepper & Corazzini, L.L.P., 1776 K Street,
NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20554 (Counsel for Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-159, adopted October
16, 1995, and released October 30, 1995. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-27258 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27257 Radio Broadcasting Services; Las Vegas, NM
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27257]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-161, RM-8709]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Las Vegas, NM
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by
William R. Sims seeking the allotment of Channel 244A to Las Vegas, NM,
as the community's third local commercial FM service. Channel 244A can
be allotted to Las Vegas in compliance with the Commission's minimum
distance separation requirements without the imposition of a site
restriction, at coordinates 35-36-00 North Latitude and 105-13-00 West
Longitude.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 21, 1995, and reply
comments on or before January 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Barry
D. Wood, Esq., Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, P.C., 2300 M Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20037 (Counsel to petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-161, adopted October
13, 1995, and released October 30, 1995. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-27257 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27248 Revision of Department of Transportation Acquisition Regulation
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55827-55830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27248]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
48 CFR Parts 1213, 1237 and 1252
[Docket OST-95-775; Notice 95-13]
RIN 2105-AC-30
Revision of Department of Transportation Acquisition Regulation
AGENCY: Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed rule implements a Department of Transportation
Office of the Inspector General recommendation resulting from a review
on the acquisition of commercial training services. The Department is
proposing to amend the Transportation Acquisition Regulation (TAR) to:
Require all offerors to certify that the data provided concerning
company qualifications, background, etc. is current, accurate and
complete; and prohibit contractors from soliciting or advertising
private, non-Government training while under contract to the
Department.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 4, 1995, to be
considered in the formulation of a final rule.
[[Page 55828]]
ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments,
preferably in triplicate, to Docket Clerk, Docket No. OST-95-775,
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 4107,
Washington, D.C. 20590. Please cite TAR revision in all correspondence
concerning this proposal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Perreault Weakley, Office of
Acquisition and Grant Management, M-61, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590: (202) 366-4967.
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 desire. Communications shall 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 proposed approach
(obtaining certification of data submitted with offers, bids or
proposals), including suggested alternative approaches to obtaining the
required information from industry. In particular, the Department is
exploring ways to reduce paperwork burden on small businesses. 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. Background
It is the policy of the Department of Transportation to require
prospective training service contractors (educational institutions,
large and small businesses) to certify the data provided concerning
qualifications, background statements, etc., are current, accurate, and
complete at the time of submitting a quotation or an offer. In
addition, DOT considers inappropriate the soliciting, advertising or
marketing of related or unrelated training during the conduct of
training (i.e., courses, seminars, classes) while under contract to
DOT. Solicitation provisions and a contract clause will be incorporated
into the TAR requiring offeror certification and prohibiting the
marketing of an institution's or vendor's training resources while
conducting training under contract to DOT.
The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any
other Federal rules.
B. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
The Department has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or under the Department
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Department does not believe
that there would be sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism assessment. This rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the basic policies remain unchanged. Therefore, this rule does
not require a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements associated with this rule
are being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval in accordance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 under OMB No. 2105-AC-
30; Administration: Office of the Secretary of Transportation; Title:
Amendment to Transportation Acquisition Regulation; Need for
Information: To require certification of capability statements and
background data submitted per the requirements of the solicitation or
request for quotation; Proposed Use of Information: To verify accuracy
and completeness of offerors' capability statements and data submitted
per the requirements of the solicitation or request for quotation;
Frequency: On occasion; Burden Estimate: 792 hours; Forms: None;
Average Burden Hours Per Respondent: 1 hour, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
certification requirements. Comments on the proposed information
collection requirement should be sent to the DOT rulemaking docket for
this proposed action and comments may also be submitted to: Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of
Transportation.
This proposal revises record keeping and information collection
requirements and require approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1213, 1237 and 1252
Government procurement.
This NPRM is issued under the delegated authority of 49 CFR Part
1.59(q). This authority has been redelegated to the Senior Procurement
Executive. Issued this 26th day of October 1995, at Washington, D.C.
David J. Litman,
Senior Procurement Executive.
Adoption of Amendments
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 48 CFR Chapter 12 is
proposed to be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR chapter 12, Parts 1213, 1237,
and 1252 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 41 U.S.C. 418(b); 48 CFR 3.1.
PART 1213--SMALL PURCHASES AND OTHER SIMPLIFIED PURCHASE PROCEDURES
2. Part 1213 is amended by adding subpart 1213.71, Department of
Transportation Procedures for Acquiring Training Services as follows:
Subpart 1213.71--Department of Transportation Procedures for
Acquiring Training Services
1213.7100 Applicability.
(a) DOT policy at (TAR) 48 CFR 1237.7000 also applies to the
Standard Form (SF) 182, Request, Authorization, Agreement and
Certification of Training, which may be used to acquire training
services; however, the policy does not apply to training services
acquired by the Government purchase/credit card. The Government
purchase/credit card can only be used to acquire training services
valued at $2,500 or less.
(b) As reflected in (TAR) 48 CFR 1237.7002, this policy does not
apply to training attended by DOT employees which is scheduled and
conducted by Government sources of supply, educational institutions, or
private entities where DOT does not control or sponsor the training.
Examples of when the policy does and does not apply include:
(1) When SF 182s are issued for three DOT employees to attend a one
week course at a university or other private entity, the policy does
not apply. DOT does not control this course because the university or
private entity has a contract in place with the training provider and
DOT is placing an order under an existing contract; and
(2) When DOT awards a contract to a university or other private
entity to provide training for DOT and/or other Government personnel,
the policy applies. DOT controls this course;
[[Page 55829]]
therefore, no soliciting or advertising of private, non-Government
training while conducting the contracted-for training is permitted.
1213.7101 Solicitation provision and contract clause.
(a) Contracting officers shall insert the provision at (TAR) 48 CFR
1252.237-71, Certification of Data, in all solicitations and requests
for quotations, and the clause at (TAR) 48 CFR 1252.237-72, Prohibition
on Advertising, in solicitations, requests for quotations, and all
contracts (e.g., purchase orders, SF 182s) for training services when
the content and/or presentation of the training is controlled by DOT.
(b) Contracting officers shall incorporate the successful offeror's
certified data into any resultant contract(s). Certified data may be
incorporated by reference, if the contracting officer determines it
contains sufficient descriptive information (i.e., dated material such
as resumes, company and/or personnel qualifications) to reliably
describe the certified data submitted.
PART 1237--SERVICE CONTRACTING
3. Subpart 1237.70, Department of Transportation Procedures for
Acquiring Training Services, is added as follows:
SUBPART 1237.70--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROCEDURES FOR
ACQUIRING TRAINING SERVICES
1237.7000 Policy.
When training services are provided under contract to DOT, it is
the policy of DOT that all prospective contractors:
(a) Certify that the data provided concerning company
qualifications, background statements, etc., is current, accurate, and
complete; and
(b) Agree to not solicit or advertise private, non-Government
training while conducting a training course.
1237.7001 Certification of data.
Towards fulfilling DOT's policy at (TAR) 48 CFR 1237.7000(a),
contracting officers shall request information from prospective
contractors for certification purposes. The type of information
requested is dependent upon the criticality of the service and/or any
unique or essential qualification requirements.
1237.7002 Applicability.
The policy at (TAR) 48 CFR 1237.7000 applies to all DOT contracts
as defined in FAR 2.101 for training services when DOT controls the
content and/or the presentation of the course. This policy does not
apply to courses attended by DOT employees which are offered and
sponsored by Government sources of supply, educational institutions, or
private entities where DOT does not control the course content or
presentation. (See (TAR) 48 CFR 1213.7100 for examples.)
1237.7003 Solicitation provision and contract clause.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at (TAR) 48
CFR 1252.237-71, Certification of Data, in solicitations and the clause
at (TAR) 48 CFR 1252.237-72, Prohibition on Advertising, in
solicitations and contracts for training services when the content and/
or presentation of the course is controlled by DOT.
(b) Contracting officers shall incorporate the successful offeror's
certified data into any resultant contract(s). Certified data may be
incorporated by reference, if the contracting officer determines it
contains sufficient descriptive information (i.e., dated material such
as resumes, company and/or personnel qualifications) to reliably
describe the certified data submitted.
PART 1252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
4. Part 1252 is amended to add sections 1252.237-71 and 1252.237-72
to read as follows:
1252.237-71 Certification of data.
As prescribed in (TAR) 48 CFR 1213.7101 and 1237.7003, insert the
following provision:
CERTIFICATION OF DATA (OCT 1995)
(a) The offeror represents and certifies that to the best of its
knowledge and belief, the information and/or data (e.g., company
profile, qualifications, background statements, brochures) submitted
with its offer is current, accurate, and complete as of the date of
its offer.
(b) The offeror understands that any inaccurate data provided to
the Department of Transportation may subject the offeror, its
subcontractors, its employees, or its representatives to: (1)
prosecution for false statements pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or;
(2) enforcement action for false claims or statements pursuant to
the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812
and 49 CFR Part 31 and/or; (3) termination for default under any
contract resulting from its offer and/or; (4) debarment or
suspension.
(c) The offeror agrees to obtain a similar certification from
its subcontractors.
Signature:-------------------------------------------------------------
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
Typed Name and Title---------------------------------------------------
Company Name-----------------------------------------------------------
This certification concerns a matter within the jurisdiction of
an agency of the United States and the making of a false,
fictitious, or fraudulent certification may render the maker subject
to prosecution under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.
(End of provision)
1252.237-72 Prohibition on advertising.
As prescribed in (TAR) 48 CFR 1213.7001 and 1237.7003, insert the
following clause:
PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISING (OCT 1995)
The contractor or its representatives (including training
instructors) shall not advertise or solicit business for private,
non-Government training while conducting training services under
this contract. This prohibition extends to oral comments,
distribution or sales of written materials, and/or sales of
promotional videos or audio tapes regarding non-Government training
opportunities.
The contractor agrees to insert this clause in its sub-
contracts.
(End of clause)
5. In the appendix to subpart 1253.3, the TAR Matrix is amended by
adding 1252.237-71, Certification of Data, and 1252.237-72, Prohibition
on Advertising, immediately following 1252.237-70, Qualifications of
Employees, as follows:
[[Page 55830]]
Appendix To Subpart 1253.3
* * * * *
Tar Matrix
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principle type and/or purpose of contract
Prescribed -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision or clause In P or C IBR UCF FP CR FP CR FP CR FP CR T&M COM IND UTL
SUP SUP R&D R&D SVC SVC CON CON LH LMV SVC DDR A&E FAC DEL TRN SP SVC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1252.237-71 Certification of 1237.7003 P No K ..... ..... ..... ..... A A ..... ..... ..... ..... A ..... ..... ..... A ..... A
Data.
1252.237-72 Prohibition on 1237.7003 C No I ..... ..... ..... ..... A A ..... ..... ..... ..... A ..... ..... ..... A ..... A
Advertising.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-27248 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27185 Operational Measures To Reduce Oil Spills From Existing Tank Vessels Without Double Hulls
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55904-55931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27185]
[[Page 55903]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
33 CFR Part 157
46 CFR Parts 31 and 35
Operational Measures To Reduce Oil Spills From Existing Tank Vessels
Without Double Hulls; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 213 / Friday, November 3, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55904]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 157
46 CFR Parts 31 and 35
[CGD 91-045]
RIN 2115-AE01
Operational Measures To Reduce Oil Spills From Existing Tank
Vessels Without Double Hulls
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes regulations that would require the
owners, masters, or operators of tank vessels of 5,000 gross tons (GT)
or more that do not have double hulls and that carry oil in bulk as
cargo to comply with certain operational measures. The proposed
regulations contain requirements for bridge resource management
training, rest hour minimums, enhanced surveys, maneuvering performance
capability requirements, and other measures aimed at reducing the
likelihood of an oil discharge from these vessels. Additionally, the
Coast Guard proposes to amend requirements for the carriage of onboard
emergency lightering equipment. These proposed regulations represent
the second step in the Coast Guard's three-step effort to establish
structural and operational measures for tank vessels without double
hulls as required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 91-045), 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 and references for this preamble are available for
inspection at room 1312, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters and have also
been included in the public docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LCDR Suzanne Englebert, Project Manager, Standards Evaluation and
Development Division, at (202) 267-6490. This number is equipped to
record messages on a 24-hour basis.
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 91-045) 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.
On January 20, 1994, the Coast Guard held a public meeting on
structural and operational measures for tank vessels. The Coast Guard
plans no additional public meetings. Persons may request a public
meeting by writing to the Marine Safety Council at the address under
ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why a meeting would
be beneficial. If it determines that an additional opportunity for oral
presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a
public meeting at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.
Drafting Information. The principal persons involved in drafting
this document are LCDR Suzanne Englebert, Project Manager, and
Jacqueline Sullivan, Project Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Regulatory History
Section 4115(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (which
appears as a statutory note following 46 U.S.C. 3703a) directs the
Coast Guard to develop structural or operational requirements for tank
vessels of 5,000 gross tons or more without double hulls to serve as
regulations until 2015, when all tank vessels operating in U.S. waters
are required to have double hulls under section 4115(a) of OPA 90 (46
U.S.C. 3703a). Regulations issued under the authority of section
4115(b) must provide as substantial protection to the environment as is
economically and technologically feasible.
On November 1, 1991, the Coast Guard published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (56 FR 56284) which discussed structural
and operational measures intended to meet the requirements of section
4115(b) of OPA 90. The ANPRM included a request for data on the
technical and economic feasibility of those measures for use on vessels
covered by section 4115(b). Eighty-eight comments were received by the
close of the extended comment period, which ended on January 30, 1992
(57 FR 1243).
After reviewing the comments, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Structural and Operational
Measures to Reduce Oil Spills from Existing Tank Vessels Without Double
Hulls'' (Existing Vessels) on October 22, 1993 (58 FR 54870). The Coast
Guard issued two subsequent correction notices on November 19, 1993 (58
FR 61143), and December 14, 1993 (58 FR 65298), which made technical
corrections to the NPRM. In response to several comments received on
the NPRM, the Coast Guard published on December 16, 1993, a notice of
public meeting and extension of comment period (58 FR 65683).
The Coast Guard held a public meeting on January 20, 1994, to
obtain information from the public on the proposed regulations. Topics
addressed by speakers included applicability, differences between tank
barges and tankships, exemptions, and economic and technical
feasibility of the proposed regulations. Some of the basic assumptions
of the proposed regulations related to certain structural measures were
also discussed, particularly their reliance on Regulation 13G of Annex
I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78).
Information on the public meeting is available for public review at the
address under ADDRESSES.
In light of the comments received at the public meeting and in
response to the written comments received on the NPRM, the Coast Guard
is reviewing the proposed requirements for structural measures. To
expedite the implementation of section 4115(b) of OPA 90, the Coast
Guard developed a three-pronged approach which
[[Page 55905]]
encompassed three separate rulemaking projects. First, the Coast Guard
issued a final rule on August 5, 1994, requiring the carriage of
emergency lightering equipment and the inclusion of the vessel's
International Maritime Organization (IMO) number in the advance notice
of arrival report (59 FR 40186); second, it is issuing this
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) regarding additional
operational measures; and third, it is reviewing comments on the NPRM
for major structural measures and revising the Regulatory Assessment
(RA) before issuing an SNPRM regarding structural requirements for tank
vessels. Structural measures that will be addressed in this third step
include hydrostatic loading requirements, structural refit of existing
hull areas, emergency cargo off-loading capabilities and other
structural adaptations or major cargo carrying adjustments.
Background and Purpose
Section 4115 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L.
101-380) mandates regulations to provide improved protection from oil
spills from tank vessels in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States due to collisions and groundings. This section applies to
tank vessels that are constructed or adapted to carry, or that carry
oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue.
The Coast Guard has determined that the applicability of these
proposed regulations would reflect section 4115(a) of OPA 90 which
requires certain existing tank vessels without double hulls to be
phased out of operation by 2015. The Coast Guard rulemaking
implementing section 4115(a) entitled ``Double Hull Standards for
Vessels Carrying Oil in Bulk'' (CGD 90-051) (57 FR 36222) added 33 CFR
157.10(d), which establishes the applicability of the regulations. The
regulations also apply to certain tank vessels carrying oil in bulk as
cargo operating in U.S. waters, including vessels unloading oil as
cargo at deepwater ports, lightering in established lightering zones,
or lightering more than 60 miles from the territorial sea baseline;
they also apply to non-dedicated oil spill response vessels (OSRVs).
The Navigation and Inspection Circular (NVIC) 10-94, ``Guidance for
Determination and Documentation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA
90) Phaseout Schedule for Existing Single Hull Vessel Carrying Oil in
Bulk,'' provides a detailed explanation of the applicability of section
4115(a).
In the preamble to the Existing Tank Vessels NPRM, the Coast Guard
proposed to limit the applicability of the rule to ``oil tankers'' as
defined in 33 CFR 157.03(oo) rather than tank vessels as defined in 33
CFR 157.03(v). The NPRM specifically excluded vessels carrying only
animal fats and vegetable oils because the proposed structural
requirements were believed to be too costly for vessels carrying only
non-petroleum oils. Additionally, the exemption was proposed in an
effort to be consistent with the international standards of MARPOL 73/
78, which also establishes structural measures for certain existing
vessels. The Coast Guard has determined that the operational
requirements proposed in this SNPRM would be applied to all existing
tank vessels, including vessels which carry only non-petroleum oils.
The Coast Guard has long contended that a discharge of non-petroleum
oils can be as damaging to the environment as a discharge of petroleum
oil, especially if spilled in bulk. In 1992, an IMO study entitled
``Harmful Effects on Birds of Floating Lipophilic Substances Discharge
from Ships On the Plumage of Birds'' was published by the Netherlands
Institute for Sea Research. This study gives numerous examples of
lethal contamination of seabirds by certain non-petroleum oils spilled
from ships. This study is available for public inspection at the
address under ADDRESSES. The Coast Guard also researched the number of
tank vessels potentially affected by this proposal and found no tank
vessels which are certificated to carry only non-petroleum oils. The
Coast Guard requests comments on the impact of this proposed rulemaking
on vessels that carry only non-petroleum oils. Comments on the impact
of the proposed rulemaking on areas that could be adversely affected by
a non-petroleum spill are also requested.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise the applicability of
Sec. 157.400 of the Existing Tank Vessels final rule issued on August
5, 1994 (59 FR 40186), which requires oil tankers to carry emergency
lightering equipment and report the vessel's IMO number in the advance
notice of arrival report. The SNPRM proposes to apply the lightering
equipment requirement to all tank vessels. A separate rulemaking
proposes to change the reporting requirements of a vessel's IMO number
to include vessels 300 gross tons (GT) or more.
To clarify how each of these regulations, both existing and
proposed, apply to foreign flag vessels, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend the applicability section of 33 CFR part 157. The proposed change
would ensure that, to be consistent with international law, the
regulations do not apply to foreign flag vessels in innocent passage in
U.S. navigable waters, including the territorial sea of the United
States, or while operating in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) unless
they are engaging in lightering operations or off-loading oil in bulk
at a deepwater port.
This proposal would also require a barge owner to assume additional
responsibility for the actions of the towing vessel. Barge operations
for loading cargo are generally handled by company representatives or
facility personnel. However, navigational control of the tank barge has
historically been the responsibility of the towing vessel. Although
section 4115(b) of OPA 90 did not specifically recognize the towing
vessel's shared role in tank barge operations, the towing vessel's role
in the navigation and control of the tank barge must be addressed to
reduce accident risk from tank barges. The proposed regulations require
the tank barge owner or operator to ensure the towing vessel meets
certain standards comparable to those proposed for tankships.
This additional level of control should have a minimal effect on
tank barge companies because most tank barge owners or operators also
own the towing vessels and employ their crews. For those tank barge
companies that rely on leased towing vessels to move their tank barges,
these proposed requirements could result in some additional contractual
arrangements, additional oversight of the towing vessel companies, or
hiring criteria that incorporate these requirements. These measures
would ensure that tank barge owners exercise direct control over the
manner in which their cargo is transported. This direct oversight is
prudent for tank barge owners because in most cases, under section 1002
of OPA 90, tank barge owners are held financially responsible for any
removal costs and damages for discharged oil. The Coast Guard is
soliciting comments on the extension of certain towing vessel
requirements to the tank barge industry.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
Background information on proposals for structural measures for
existing vessels without double hulls is provided in the preambles to
the ANPRM and the NPRM. Operational measures were discussed in both the
ANPRM and the NPRM; however, the NPRM focused on measures to reduce oil
outflow after collisions and groundings, not on the mishap risk
reduction for these vessels.
[[Page 55906]]
The Coast Guard has issued many requirements that could be
considered operational in nature. Other regulations mandated by OPA 90
affect the marine industry, especially the tank vessel fleet. To
address the most common hazardous operational deficiencies on tank
vessels today, the Coast Guard has conducted a qualitative evaluation
of the tank vessel operating system. Previous studies of this type
include (1) ``Research Needs to Reduce Maritime Collisions, Rammings,
and Groundings'' by the Maritime Transportation Research Board (1981);
(2) ``Development and Assessment of Measures to Reduce Accidental Oil
Outflow from Tank Ships'' by the Coast Guard (May 1989); and (3)
``Human Error in Merchant Marine Safety'' by the Maritime
Transportation Research Board (1976). These studies along with other
risk analysis literature formed the baseline for the ``fault trees''
depicted in the following figures:
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
[[Page 55907]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP03NO95.021
[[Page 55908]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP03NO95.022
[[Page 55909]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP03NO95.023
[[Page 55910]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP03NO95.024
[[Page 55911]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP03NO95.025
BILLING CODE 4910-14-C
[[Page 55912]]
Figure 1 shows how a qualitative evaluation of a marine system can
identify effective improvements for existing or proposed regulations.
Figure 2 identifies the general pollution hazard created by tank
vessels. The scope of this analysis was further narrowed to those areas
where a tank vessel without a double hull may pose a higher risk than
other vessels or to areas where inconsistencies exist between
requirements for U.S. domestic vessels and foreign certificated
vessels. The Coast Guard developed detailed qualitative models for
structural and fire or explosion accidents because the majority of the
existing tank vessel fleet is older and not required to conform to many
of the recent safety regulations. Collisions, allisions, and groundings
were considered because of the oil spill potential of these incidents.
The operational spill segment of the fault tree in Figure 2 and the
terminal operations portion are only included in this analysis in areas
where present regulations do not hold U.S. and foreign vessels to
comparable standards. Figures 3 through 6 display the detailed
qualitative models and associated high risk components within each
identified hazard.
This type of analysis contains a subjective element. The Coast
Guard has drawn from the knowledge of its experienced inspectors and
licensed mariners to develop the fault trees identified in Figures 3-6.
These fault trees are not meant to be comprehensive, instead they are
used to clarify further discussion within this proposed regulation by
identifying major operational causes of oil discharges and the measures
that could potentially mitigate these causes from a tank vessel without
a double hull.
As an example of this process, 33 CFR 164.35(g) requires all ships
of 1,600 GT or more to post a list in the wheelhouse which identifies
the vessel's general maneuvering characteristics. This requirement
mitigates problems arising from ``lack of knowledge'' which may cause a
collision, allision, or grounding as identified in Figure 5. In
analyzing this requirement's effectiveness to mitigate this ``lack of
knowledge'' component, it becomes clear that the requirement may not be
as effective as it could be. A discussion of this issue can be found in
a recent ``Marine Technology'' paper entitled ``Maneuvering Information
for the Pilot/Navigator: Its Source Value and Limitations,'' written by
Mr. Thomas G. Knierim (Vol 31, No. 2, April 1994, pp. 123-144).
The Coast Guard received a total of 132 comments on the Existing
Vessel NPRM. Thirty of these comments discussed over 70 issues relating
to operational measures. The following discussion is divided into seven
categories: (1) General comments which address broad issues and the
general content of the NPRM; (2) comments on proposed revisions to
emergency lightering equipment requirements in 33 CFR 157.410; (3)
comments on personnel training and information (see the fault-tree
components of Figures 5 and 6 which address failure to perform a task,
failure to correctly perform a task, and lack of knowledge or
training); (4) comments on vessel maintenance surveys (see the
components of Figures 3 through 6 for equipment failure, hull
structural failure, or failure due to explosion); (5) comments on
navigation and maneuverability (see the components of Figures 5 and 6
involving a lack of knowledge, training, or the use of incorrect
information); (6) comments on requirements for the control and movement
of tank barges (see the components of Figure 6 related to towing vessel
operations and equipment); (7) comments on operational measures that
are not addressed elsewhere in this SNPRM.
1. General
Several comments expressed concern that the proposed regulations do
not reflect congressional intent. The comments stated that the NPRM
improperly emphasized structural measures without adequate regard for
operational measures which could have an equal or greater benefit for
the environment at less cost. They also stated that the failure to
assess significant regulatory alternatives violates the statutory
mandate of OPA 90 and the requirements of Executive Order 12866. This
SNPRM proposes operational measures that meet both the statutory
mandate of OPA 90 and the mandate of the Executive Order.
Some of the comments stated that the requirements proposed in the
NPRM would not satisfy the statutory mandate to provide ``as
substantial protection to the environment as is economically and
technologically feasible'' as required by section 4115(b) of OPA 90.
One comment stated that operational measures would do more to protect
the environment because 80 percent of all oil pollution is caused by
human error, not by structural malfunctions. Several comments indicated
that the operational measures could be implemented more quickly than
structural measures. Many comments stressed the need for operational
measures to prevent collisions or groundings, rather than structural
requirements to reduce oil outflow after a vessel collision or
grounding.
This SNPRM proposes operational measures for both foreign and U.S.
vessels that should improve the overall quality of tank vessel
operations. Rulemakings complementing this effort propose navigation
equipment for towing vessels and towing vessel operating license
changes.
One comment suggested that vessel owners should be able to choose
from a list of measures that, when used together, would equal a
specified level of protection. This would require that each operational
measure be assigned a credit based upon additional prevention or
decreased oil outflow.
The Coast Guard considered various ways of allotting credits and
developing a minimum level of protection. This concept did not address
the different objectives of each proposed requirement. For example, how
could a requirement for the pilot to plan a passage, intended to reduce
the risk of a collision, allision, or grounding (Figure 5), be
quantified in relation to a maintenance program intended to reduce the
risk of a structural failure (Figure 3)? Blurring the lines between
failure modes and risk components would not achieve equitable risk
reduction among affected tank vessels. An ``a la carte'' idea was also
researched to compare each failure mode with a list of possible risk
reduction measures. Equivalencies between each measure could not be
determined because, even among the components, an accurate quantitative
assessment method was not available.
Instead, the Coast Guard evaluated these operational measures in
terms of the failure mode which they address, whether vessel personnel,
navigation, or maintenance practices. The Coast Guard is proposing
minimum training requirements to address vessel personnel, information
requirements and minimum equipment and tests to address navigation and
maneuvering problems, and survey and physical prevention measures to
address the integrity of the vessel's structure. Where the same risk
component is addressed, within each measure, some equivalency
determinations are provided to allow individual companies or vessels to
tailor requirements to their operational needs. The proposed measures
consider both the technical and economical feasibility mandates of the
statute.
Other comments recommended that the Coast Guard strictly enforce
its current pollution prevention regulations. The Coast Guard enforces
the requirements of both international and domestic law. Additional
[[Page 55913]]
enforcement measures have been established and implemented that include
the increased scrutiny of certain vessels that consistently violate
laws or have a history of casualties. Until the effectiveness of these
recent enforcement measures has been assessed, the Coast Guard does not
intend to propose additional measures.
One comment requested that Canadian or other foreign flag vessels
passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway in route to a Canadian port be
exempt from these proposals. The comment estimated that the true cost
of the proposals would be four to five times those quoted by the Coast
Guard. Another comment requested that tankers calling at deepwater
ports, where there are already various operational measures in effect,
be exempted. One comment requested exemption for vessels which lighter
60 miles offshore and for those that call at the Louisiana. Offshore
Oil Port (LOOP) because section 3703a of title 46 of the United States
Code does not apply to them. As previously discussed, these vessels do
have phaseout requirements and are subject to the provisions in section
4115(b). The Coast Guard has determined that the proposed operational
measures are appropriate and do not conflict with St. Lawrence Seaway
or LOOP operations.
One company requested that asphalt carriers be exempted from the
proposed rule; the Coast Guard does not agree. Asphalt is a petroleum-
based cargo and the requirements contained in this portion of the
rulemaking present no unique difficulties for an asphalt carrier.
Two comments requested that vessels transporting oil to American
Samoa be exempted because of the remoteness of the islands and the
fragility of the economy. Both comments stated that vessels calling
there satisfy international requirements and will have no incentive to
incur the additional cost these rules would impose. One of these
comments contended that if this regulation were applied to these
vessels, the supply of crude oil and petroleum products to American
Samoa would be in jeopardy and the cost of fuel would rise. The other
comment specifically requested that vessels transporting oil to the
Pacific Islands be exempt from the requirements of the proposed rule
that exceed the requirements of Regulation 13G of MARPOL 73/78. This
would include the Hawaiian Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the
commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and other U.S.
possessions in the Western Pacific. The comment stated that the small
number of foreign tanker operators willing to comply with the
regulation, coupled with the limited U.S. flag product tanker fleet,
will severely limit the supply of essential petroleum products to the
Pacific Islands.
The Coast Guard believes that the operational requirements
contained in this rulemaking are economically feasible for vessels
transporting oil to all of these areas. Equivalency provisions offer
flexibility in compliance with certain requirements. Incorporated
international standards accommodate both the foreign and domestic
industry. The Coast Guard requests comments on the impact of this
proposed rulemaking on vessels transporting oil to specific remote
geographic areas like American Samoa and other Pacific Islands.
Comments on the impact of the proposed rulemaking on areas that are
economically dependent on tourism or fishing are also requested.
2. Emergency Lightering Requirements
The Coast Guard is proposing revisions to requirements for
emergency lightering equipment published in a final rule on August 5,
1994, (59 FR 40186) entitled ``Emergency Ligthering Equipment and
Advanced Notice of Arrival Requirements for Existing Tank Vessels
Without Double Hulls.'' Section 157.410(c) of the final rule referenced
the requirements of 46 CFR part 56.25 for cast iron and malleable iron
fittings and flanges. Cast iron and malleable iron have very high
failure rates in cargo piping systems due to their low cycle fatigue
susceptibility and tendency to weaken when subjected to high
temperatures. To ensure that these fittings are not installed in piping
lines carrying flammable or combustible fluids near open flame, or any
parts reaching temperatures above 260 deg.C (500 deg.F), this SNPRM
proposes to amend Sec. 157.410(c) to specifically prohibit the use of
such valves or fittings.
3. Personnel Training and Information
Data attributes 80 percent of marine accidents to some form of
human error. Human factors are broadly defined as a scientific and
engineering discipline concerned with analysis, research, design
development, and evaluation of human/human, human/machine, human/
information and human/environment interfaces. Human factors issues
include any condition or circumstance which affects the quality of
human performance required to accomplish a complex task or series of
tasks safely and effectively. As related to vessel navigation, this
applies to four general subjects: error trapping or human intervention,
task or mission coordination, team communication, and vessel
integration. Error trapping or human intervention is responsible for
``near misses'' as discussed in the report entitled ``The Role of Human
Error in Design, Construction, and Reliability of Marine Structures''
published by the Ship Structure Committee (SSC-378, November 1994).
Error trapping occurs when humans intervene to interrupt potentially
catastrophic combinations of actions and events to bring systems back
to within safe operating conditions. This SNPRM emphasizes human
factors issues which would reduce the risk of accidents caused by ship
personnel: failing to perform tasks, incorrectly performing tasks,
lacking knowledge or training to perform assigned tasks, using
incomplete or incorrect information, and failing to identify or correct
social or managerial problems.
Because the prevention of accidents through improving the people
involved in the system is an effective way to reduce risk within the
marine industry, the Coast Guard established a task group on January
13, 1995 (60 FR 3289), formed by the Chief, Office of Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection to develop a long-term strategy
to focus prevention efforts on casualties caused by human error. The
Coast Guard's Prevention Through People (PTP) initiative has
established a framework by which the Coast Guard, other government
agencies, and the maritime industry, nationally and internationally,
can work together outside of the regulatory process to manage maritime
risks systematically. The task force report entitled ``Prevention
Through People'' stresses the use of risk management tools to identify
root causes and cost effective preventive measures; the employment of
proactive action to detect, assess, and prevent human errors that
affect safety; and improvement of investigative methods, data
collection, analyses, and feedback. This report is available for public
inspection at the address under ADDRESSES.
Training. The Coast Guard received several comments on improving
personnel training. Six comments stated that additional personnel
training was needed to ensure the competency of the crew. One of these
comments urged the Coast Guard to require specific in-house training.
Another of these comments suggested that drug and alcohol testing and
awareness training be required.
Proposed Secs. 157.415 and 157.420 include training requirements
and performance standards to ensure the development and retention of
certain skills. Drug and alcohol testing program requirements already
exist and are applicable to the crews of tank vessels. For this SNPRM,
existing drug and
[[Page 55914]]
alcohol requirements were considered. The Coast Guard has determined
that additional requirements are not needed for drug and alcohol
testing or awareness training at this time. The Coast Guard, however,
commends companies with programs that exceed Federal requirements.
Three comments stated that bridge management training, including
simulator training, would improve the competency of the crew. They
recommended that vessels carry a bridge management manual which
codifies the company's standards, practices, policies, and procedures.
Two different risk reduction solutions were proposed by the
comments. The first solution addressed additional training requirements
for improving crew navigational skills or development of management
skills for the bridge crew. The second solution pertained to developing
extensive operational procedures for various shipboard operations and
navigational situations. Both risk reduction solutions address the lack
of knowledge and the management components noted in Figure 5.
Company management generally develops various operational
procedures in the form of bridge reference material. The crew is then
expected to review the material and refer to it, if time permits, prior
to acting in an emergency or a unique situation. Several sections of
OPA 90 contain extensive planning requirements for emergency situations
(i.e., the Vessel Response Plan requirement in 33 CFR part 155.) In
contrast to these written procedures, recently developed team training
techniques focus on the operation of the bridge team during both normal
and emergency situations. This type of training is an example of
reducing the risk of a marine casualty through improving the response
of the people directly involved with the system.
The Coast Guard has proposed general bridge management training
requirements to the Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW)
Subcommittee of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) since
1991. However, the STW Subcommittee has not yet developed a training
standard. The Coast Guard consider such training desirable for the
crews of all vessels. This rulemaking may serve as the precedent for
future regulations addressing the reduction of accident risk due to
human error through team management training programs.
The bridge resource management (BRM) training proposed in
Sec. 157.415 of this SNPRM is similar to the techniques and practices
that have been used in the aviation field. BRM is not intended to teach
the more ``traditional'' aspects of bridge watchstanding (i.e.,
navigation, shiphandling, and collision avoidance); rather, it focuses
on integrating ``traditional'' technical skills with human factors
skills to reduce the risk of human error-related accidents. These
concepts reflect an emphasis on effective communication among
watchstanders; the proper delegation of tasks and responsibilities; the
importance of using all available resources (equipment, information,
and personnel); and the need for watchstanders to understand the way
stress and fatigue affect their performance.
The Coast Guard seeks uniform curriculum requirements for both U.S.
and foreign licensed officers, and is presently working within IMO to
develop these requirements. If IMO develops and adopts a resolution or
other instrument that includes BRM skills and course curriculum, the
Coast Guard intends to substitute, incorporate by reference or propose
rules which reflect these international standards. In the interim, a
general course curriculum was developed based on review of various
existing courses used to train pilots, masters, mates, and military
personnel. The Coast Guard proposes this general curriculum to ensure
that the training courses emphasize open team communications, task
coordination, and the integration of operations. Specific course length
and a requirement for simulator training have not been included. The
following references were used to develop the general course curriculum
proposed in this rulemaking:
(1) IMO Guidelines ``Human Relationships, 1.21'' and ``Ship
Simulator and Bridge Teamwork, 1.22'';
(2) American Petroleum Institute's ``Guidelines for Developing
Bridge Management Teams'';
(3) U.S. proposal papers for both the Standards, Training and
Watchkeeping Subcommittee (STW 25/3/14, STW 26/4/13) and the Safety of
Navigation Subcommittee (NAV 38/13);
(4) Presentation on ``Bridge Resource Management'' by Mr. Richard
T. Johnson, et al. (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
Panel 0-44), to the International Conference on Marine Simulation and
Ship Manoeuvrability (MARSIM 93), Saint John, Newfoundland, Canada,
September 1993;
(5) SAS Flight Academy's course curriculum for its ``Bridge
Resource Management'' course;
(6) ARCO Marine's Bridge Team Management Training course curriculum
utilizing SimShip and the Star 360 deg. simulator; and
(7) The Coast Guard's student handbook for its course on ``Team
Coordination Training.''
The training proposed in Sec. 157.415 would be required for
designated officers in charge of a navigational watch serving on either
tankships and towing vessels. The Towing Safety Advisory Committee
(TSAC) recommended that this type of training be required for towing
vessel personnel as well as tankship personnel because it is an
effective means of preventing accidents. Thus, an example of the
personnel affected by Sec. 157.415 would be the master, chief mate, one
second mate, and the two third mates (a typical tankship officer
complement) or the master and two mates (a towing vessel's officer
complement). These individuals would be required to attend the initial
BRM training and refresher training no less than once every 5 years.
Initial course completion including a series of performance standards
and course completion documentation is proposed in Sec. 157.415 to
verify that a vessel's officers have been adequately trained. The 5-
year refresher training would coincide with present license renewal
requirements. For U.S. licensed individuals, a rulemaking to propose
requirements for this training and provisions for an endorsement
directly onto the license is under development.
The Coast Guard recognizes that vessel owners, masters, or
operators would be required to research course availability and to
establish training programs to comply with the proposed bridge resource
management training requirements. Therefore, in Sec. 157.415(a) the
Coast Guard is proposing that compliance with these requirements would
not be required until 1 year after the effective date of the final
rule. In addition, the Coast Guard recognizes that a substantial pool
of merchant mariners already have received comparable BRM training and
is proposing that these individuals be credited for the completion of
this training if it has occurred within 3 years of the effective date
of the final rule.
A more aggressive measure to address the entire crew and their
interaction with the vessel operations is ``Vessel Resource
Management'' training. This training course would apply to engine room
personnel as well as other personnel assigned to the vessel. The
integration of support services, bridge functions, engine room
functions, maintenance, and communications with facilities or company
management would be covered by this training. The Coast Guard
recognizes the value of this
[[Page 55915]]
training and solicits comments on whether this type of comprehensive
training should be required or recommended.
Training of unlicensed watchstanding personnel is also imperative.
The Coast Guard is proposing vessel specific watch training for those
watchstanding personnel who assist the officer in charge of a
navigational watch. TSAC also recommended that this training
requirement be applied to towing vessel personnel. This training would
ensure that unlicensed watchstanders receive training tailored to
management expectations and the equipment on board either the tankship
or the primary towing vessel, prior to taking on watchstanding duties.
General subjects for training are listed in Sec. 157.420(a) to ensure
watchstanders receive instruction on essential items that would enable
them to provide accurate and useful information to the officer in
charge of a navigational watch or other senior personnel. To ensure
this training remains current and to account for personnel changes or
equipment upgrades, an annual refresher of this watchstanding training
is proposed.
The Coast Guard has included a proposed definition for the term
``officer in charge of a navigational watch'' to clarify which
personnel would be required to complete the bridge resource management
training. This term would also provide consistency with the terminology
of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW). The proposed definitions
for ``primary towing vessel'' and for ``fleeting or assist towing
vessel'' would clarify that personnel on the towing vessel responsible
for the navigation and control of the tank barge during most of the
voyage would be required to have bridge resource management training,
vessel specific watch training, and certain other requirements proposed
in this rulemaking. This distinction is made because (1) during assist
towing operations, the towing vessel personnel that made the transit
with the barge (the primary towing vessel) generally stay on site and
direct the mooring or anchoring operation; (2) in most cases, the tank
barge company has management control over the primary towing vessel and
its personnel because they directly own the vessel and employ its crew;
and (3) this would ensure integrated tug barge operations are included
in the rulemaking.
Pilot Licensing Programs. Three comments suggested improvements to
the pilot licensing process. One comment recommended more aggressive
pilot licensing and revocation procedures and the adoption of more
rigorous penalty standards. Another comment recommended a comprehensive
review of mariner licensing standards and more rigorous enforcement of
current regulations such as background checks; one recommended checking
the National Drivers Register (NDR) before issuing a license.
A separate NPRM published on March 13, 1995 (60 FR 13570), proposed
the incorporation of an NDR check prior to issuing a license. A
licensing study is underway and revisions to current requirements are
anticipated. In conjunction with the licensing study, a 1994 National
Research Council Committee on Advances in Navigation and Piloting
report entitled ``Minding the Helm'' (ISBN 0-309-04829-X) discusses and
recommends several actions that could be taken by the Coast Guard to
improve marine navigation and piloting. The Coast Guard is presently
reviewing this report and anticipates future rulemakings to implement
some of the recommendations.
Minimum Rest Hour Requirement. Another component of the accident
hazards, shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6, deals with fatigue. Current work
hour restrictions and rest hour requirements attempt to mitigate the
risk of accidents. The Coast Guard evaluated existing requirements and
proposes to expand the rest hour requirement for both foreign and U.S.
crew members with duties directly related to vessel safety and oil
transfer operations.
Proposed Sec. 157.425 would require the owner, master, or operator
of each tank vessel to ensure crew members involved in navigation,
engineering, or oil transfer operations are provided a minimum of 6
continuous hours of rest within 12 hours prior to departing port or
prior to cargo transfer operations. Because the operation and safe
navigation of the tank barge hinges on the actions of the towing vessel
personnel, tank barge owners would have to ensure that the towing
vessel master or operator, any crew member assigned to helm or lookout
tasks, as well as any personnel assigned tankerman duties for the barge
cargo complied with these requirements. For tank barge companies that
do not directly own the towing vessel or employ its crew, this
requirement could be met by management oversight of the towing vessel
company, a contractual agreement, or by towing vessel hiring practices.
A definition for ``rest hour'' is proposed to be added to
Sec. 157.03. This term is borrowed from STCW. Watchstanding, assigned
clerical duties, assigned painting, maintenance, or housekeeping duties
all fall within a crewman's typical daily work load. A rest hour is
that period during which a crew member has no assigned tasks. A rest
hour, however, does include the time spent on drills or during an
emergency situation. The Coast Guard also recognizes travel to a work
site is not addressed in this proposal. The intention of this proposal
is to ensure that well rested individuals are assigned to tasks that
are important to vessel operations. Travel can have a negative effect
on an individual's alertness; however, some commute time to the job
site is standard for every profession. The Coast Guard is soliciting
comments on when and how travel time should be factored into a rest
hour requirement.
The Coast Guard recognizes the benefit of adequate rest for all
mariners and is working within the IMO framework to establish an
international standard. If IMO develops and adopts a resolution or
other instrument that includes provisions for rest, the Coast Guard
intends to substitute, incorporate by reference, or propose rules which
reflect these international standards. The Coast Guard is also
considering the incorporation of the more stringent work hour and rest
hour requirements found in section 4114 of OPA 90 to include foreign
tankships and other tank vessels. These work hour requirements have
been included in the Designation of Lightering Zones Final Rule
published on August 29, 1995 (60 FR 45006). The Coast Guard is
soliciting comments on the feasibility of expanding application of the
work hour and rest hour restrictions of section 4114 or the adoption of
similar IMO provisions, under the authority of section 4115(b) of OPA
90.
4. Vessel Maintenance Surveys
Figure 3 depicts the qualitative evaluation of a structural failure
hazard to a tank vessel. These types of hazards have been reduced in
the past through drydock examinations, classification society
requirements, and construction requirements such as the welding
qualifications of 46 CFR part 57. The Coast Guard analyzed past
requirements addressing structural failures and equipment failures as
indicated in Figures 5 and 6. More significantly, because these vessels
have been scheduled for a mandatory phase-out, it is suspected that the
human factors issues related to management's reluctance to sufficiently
supply or upkeep the vessel, and the vessel operator's failure to
inspect or test the
[[Page 55916]]
tank vessel equipment may become more frequent. Vessel owners or
operators may begin to weigh the maintenance investment against the
short-lived return and could down-scale vessel upkeep accordingly. The
Coast Guard recognizes this possibility and has evaluated existing
requirements that would ensure vessel structure and equipment remain in
safe operating condition. This analysis indicated that some additional
measures could reduce the risk of a structural or equipment failure,
and the risk of a collision, allision, or grounding due to equipment or
upkeep problems.
The Coast Guard received several comments on improved maintenance
aboard vessels. Three comments suggested that the Coast Guard require
internal audits of vessel operations, equipment, and personnel for
compliance with all applicable regulations and company standards. One
comment recommended preventive maintenance programs on ships; another
suggested formal in-house ship inspection programs.
In Secs. 157.430 and 157.435, the Coast Guard is proposing a two-
step approach to ensuring existing tank vessels are maintained at a
level that will reduce the risk of a structural or equipment failure.
Under this proposal, tankships, integrated tug barges, and tank barges
would be required to (1) have an enhanced survey or an enhanced survey
equivalent, and (2) conduct frequent vital system surveys.
Enhanced Surveys. Proposed Sec. 157.430(a) would require an
enhanced survey for all tank vessels of 5,000 GT or more as detailed in
IMO Resolution A.744(18), entitled ``Guidelines on the Enhanced
Programme of Inspections During Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil
Tankers.'' To prevent the need for additional drydockings, the
requirement would reflect either the frequency of the U.S. scheduled
drydock exam requirements in 46 CFR part 31 or that of a foreign
vessel's flag administration. This requirement already exists under the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
1973 and the related amendment to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78; however, the
U.S. has expanded the scope of this requirement to include tank vessels
of 5,000 GT or more that do not have double hulls. This survey requires
detailed visual inspection as well as specific gauging. This survey
should reduce the risk of both a global and local structural failure by
closely recording and inspecting the hull prior to the vessel's
phaseout date. It would also ensure that a detailed survey of the cargo
piping and hull are available for Coast Guard examination. This would
enable the Coast Guard to affirm that vessel upkeep is adequate for
safe operation.
Alternate Enhanced Surveys. To allow companies flexibility and
credit for existing in-house survey programs, tankships not required to
meet Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 and all tank barges would have the option
of meeting an equivalent standard. This provision is proposed in
Sec. 157.430(b) and would allow companies with established in-house
survey programs to simply upgrade them slightly and include oversight
provisions.
The Coast Guard anticipates that many tank barge owners and small
tankship owners already have preventive maintenance programs that
include routine hull gaugings, pipe gaugings, and inspections beyond
current Coast Guard requirements. These programs provide company
management personnel with material condition documentation necessary
for long-range company planning of vessel replacement or overhaul
scheduling. Proposed Sec. 157.430(b) would permit the company to follow
its own program rather than start an entirely new process if the
company can document that the present survey process is comparable in
scope and recordkeeping to the IMO requirements. In addition, this
section would require oversight of these programs to ensure that the
vessel is adequately surveyed until it is phased out of service. Review
of the gauging and inspection analysis would provide clear assessment
of the vessel's structural soundness. The enhanced survey or preventive
maintenance program reports would be required to be retained on board
or made available within 24 hours to enable Coast Guard personnel to
readily assess the vessel's suitability for service and also to assist
in any emergency cargo transfer operations or emergency repairs.
Vital Systems Surveys. While an enhanced survey reduces the risk of
both catastrophic and local hull failure, it does not directly address
risk of equipment failure or the risk of a fire or an explosion.
Figures 3 through 6 indicate certain mechanical or equipment failures
which may contribute to or cause these types of accidents. The Coast
Guard researched the present inspection and regulatory requirements in
effect for each system. Many of these systems are inspected annually by
either flag or port administrations. However, while 33 CFR 164.25
requires some tests and inspections, it does not detail some of the
systems unique to tank vessels. While most companies already have
routine equipment maintenance and inspection programs, several systems
are overlooked or not included in these programs.
In Sec. 157.435, the Coast Guard is proposing more frequent surveys
of systems deemed vital to the safe transfer of cargo, fire and
explosion risk reduction, and maintaining navigational control. To
ensure these systems get the maintenance they need to remain safe,
these inspections would be conducted by vessel personnel, company
personnel, or company designated representatives that are knowledgeable
of the equipment's safe operating parameters and that have the
authority, capability, and responsibility to initiate corrective action
when equipment is not functioning properly. Because tank barge systems
require similar vigilance to ensure they remain safe, tank barge
owners, masters, or operators would be included in this requirement and
would have a responsibility to ensure the barge systems outlined in
proposed Sec. 157.435 are surveyed by the appropriate personnel.
Those systems related to vessel control, such as steering and
navigational equipment, are presently required to be tested and
inspected as specified in 33 CFR part 164 if the vessel is 1,600 GT or
more. For towing vessels, the Coast Guard recently proposed similar
control and navigational equipment checks. However, the inspection of
the emergency towing equipment required in the IFR published December
22, 1993 (58 FR 67988), is not covered in 33 CFR part 164. This
emergency towing equipment is generally located on the vessel's deck
and is required to be rigged for ready use. This towing equipment along
with mooring lines and similar equipment are included as a vital system
survey because of their exposure to prolonged adverse environmental
conditions and their infrequent use. The Coast Guard solicits comments
on these vital systems survey requirements. The Coast Guard
specifically requests comment on whether additional systems should be
surveyed to prevent equipment failure, which could lead to an oil
spill, fire, or an explosion during cargo transfer operations, and
whether specific emergency systems should be inspected more frequently
than proposed or required.
This proposal also would require the inspection findings to be
logged in the Oil Record Book required by 33 CFR 151, in the vessel's
log, or other similar onboard documentation to ensure that the master
or operator is aware of the condition of these vital systems.
[[Page 55917]]
No reporting requirements are proposed in Sec. 157.435; however,
there are existing port specific reporting requirements or port entry
restrictions that would remain in effect if this proposal became a
final rule. The Coast Guard solicits comments on reporting requirements
for the failure of specific components within the proposed vital
systems.
5. Navigation and Maneuverability
Improved navigation equipment and maneuvering systems would
mitigate the risk of a collision, allision, or grounding attributable
to lack of knowledge or reliance on incomplete or incorrect data. These
two components within Figure 5 and 6 can be effectively addressed in
various ways. Present regulations reflect highly technical navigation
equipment requirements for tank vessels in 33 CFR part 164. This
navigation equipment is being improved almost daily as computing
systems and programming capabilities increase. Human error in reading
the equipment or interpreting the data is also addressed within present
requirements through radar operator endorsement requirements and other
licensing requirements. The risk of an accident due to navigation
equipment failure is also mitigated by the reporting requirements of 33
CFR parts 160 (Ports and Waterways Safety) and 164 (Navigation).
Maneuvering systems are addressed in present requirements for
information about the vessel's maneuvering characteristics and
reliability of the vessel's control systems.
Autopilot Alarm. One comment stated that vessels should be equipped
with an alarm that sounds when the helm is turned more than 5 deg. from
amidships while the autopilot is engaged.
The Coast Guard agrees with this practical and simple alarm
requirement and in Sec. 157.440(a) is proposing a requirement for an
additional alarm on all tankships with installed autopilot equipment.
As recommended by TSAC, a tank barge owner or operator would be
required to ensure that the towing vessel has a means to indicate to
the towing vessel operator that the autopilot is engaged and manual
rudder commands would not be effective unless the autopilot is shut
off. Because a towing vessel wheelhouse is generally arranged for a
single operator and the autopilot system is simplistic, a physical
indicator to remind the master or operator that the autopilot is
engaged would serve as adequate warning. On tankships, there are
multiple watchstanders, frequent duty rotations, and complex autopilot
systems that make it easier to lose track of the autopilot status. An
alarm requirement on a tankship would ensure both the officer in charge
of a navigational watch and the helmsman are aware of the autopilot
status.
Accident data indicates that there have been incidents when bridge
crew personnel were unaware of the autopilot status and attempted to
manually steer the vessel while the autopilot was engaged. In some
instances their actions did not result in the desired change to the
ship's heading or rudder angle due to the autopilot settings. The
requirements proposed under Sec. 157.440 would be in addition to
requirements in 33 CFR 164.13 which restrict the use of an autopilot on
tank vessels of 1,600 GT or more in certain areas and under certain
conditions. These two requirements would not conflict because 33 CFR
part 164 restricts the use of the autopilot, while this proposal would
alert the tankship officer in charge of a navigational watch and the
helmsman if the helm is turned manually while the autopilot is engaged.
The Coast Guard is soliciting comments on the inclusion of a
requirement for primary towing vessels to have a restriction on the use
of the autopilot similar to 33 CFR 164.13(d).
Maneuvering Performance Capability. Proposed Sec. 157.445 addresses
both the lack of knowledge component and the use of incorrect or
incomplete information component in Figure 5. Maneuvering performance
capability is directly related to the vessel's design and can easily be
established. The standards for ship maneuverability outlined in IMO
Resolution A.751(18) use conventional trial maneuvers to evaluate vital
maneuverability characteristics. IMO has deliberated ship maneuvering
issues since 1968. Resolution A.601(15), entitled ``Provision and
Display of Maneuvering Information On Board Ships,'' was adopted in
1987. Resolution A.751(18) was adopted in November 1993, and is based
on the premise that vessel maneuvering characteristics can be assessed
from the results of typical sea trials. It differs from the present
posting requirements of 33 CFR part 164 in two fundamental ways: (1) It
scales maneuvering test results against minimum criteria; and (2) it
requires zigzag maneuvers to establish first and second overshoot
angles.
This performance standard serves to highlight those vessels with
poor control capabilities due to design, or vessels that experience
dynamic instability during some maneuvers. Under proposed
Sec. 157.445(b), the owner, master, or operator must inform the COTP if
the vessel fails to meet the IMO minimum criteria in any of the seven
test areas. This provides the port state a guideline for recognizing
the capabilities of approaching vessels and for taking appropriate
action to reduce the risk of a grounding, allision, or collision.
Providing advance notice to the Captain of the Port (COTP) that a
vessel does not meet this performance standard mitigates the external
factor component of Figure 5.
The Coast Guard also recognizes the twofold potential for these
test results to assist a pilot: (1) They provide overshoot angle
information; and (2) they provide the maneuvering information in
relationship to the ship's length. This type of information is not
contained within IMO's Resolution A.601(15) maneuvering wheelhouse
poster nor in the existing 33 CFR part 164 wheelhouse maneuvering
characteristic requirement. Posting of the test results of this
performance standard would provide pilots with nondimensional
maneuvering information. In addition, a thorough knowledge of this
performance standard and its development would enable the pilot to
compare the test results among vessels. It provides a benchmark for
quantifying how well the vessel can be expected to respond under
general conditions.
The Coast Guard has considered the applicability of these
performance standards. The IMO resolution applies only to vessels of
100 meters or more in length constructed on or after July 1, 1994. The
Coast Guard proposes to apply these requirements to all tankships of
5,000 GT or more that do not have double hulls. The IMO performance
criteria was based on a study of 600 existing vessel designs and
reflects simple, practical changes to current ship maneuverability
trials. For those vessels which do not meet this standard, the proposed
regulation does not bar them from port entry. Proposed Sec. 157.445(b)
would allow vessels which do not meet the standard to continue port
entry; however, a vessel would be required to comply with a mandatory
reporting requirement to ensure that the COTP is alerted to the
inferior maneuvering performance of the vessel.
The Coast Guard recognizes that vessel owners and operators would
require adequate time to perform the maneuverability tests required by
this proposed requirement; therefore, under proposed Sec. 157.445(a),
the Coast Guard intends to delay the implementation of this proposed
measure until 1 year after the final rule is published in the Federal
Register.
[[Page 55918]]
Maneuvering and Vessel Status Information. Section 157.450 proposes
to incorporate by reference an IMO resolution with three specific
requirements: (1) standardizing the presentation of the maneuvering
information required by 33 CFR part 164; (2) requiring the use of a
pilot card; and (3) requiring a maneuvering booklet to be available to
the master on board the vessel. The maneuvering poster required by this
resolution incorporates all of the information that is required to be
displayed by a vessel of 1,600 GT or more under 33 CFR part 164. This
proposed requirement would ensure that every tankship presents this
maneuvering data in the same format so the pilot can quickly assess the
maneuvering characteristics of the vessel. The pilot card provides a
``snapshot'' of the vessel's current equipment status and maneuvering
information unique to the transit. The maneuvering booklet gives
detailed information on the specific maneuvering capabilities at
various drafts and in various hydrodynamic situations. These details,
along with squat characteristics, are essential for difficult transits
through constricted channels and for damage control situations in the
event of a marine casualty.
All three of these requirements have been recommended by the Coast
Guard since 1989 through NVIC 7-89, ``Maneuvering Information.'' Use of
standardized forms to help prevent omission of important information is
a common theme within bridge resource management philosophy. The Coast
Guard also solicits comments on whether the pilot card should have
additional information.
Minimum Under-keel Clearance. Three comments favored the
implementation of minimum under-keel clearance requirements to prevent
groundings. The Coast Guard agrees and in Sec. 157.455 is proposing
regulations which would establish a minimum under-keel clearance
requirement for all tank vessels departing or entering a port. This
proposed regulation is intended for both tankships and tank barges. The
tank barge company would be required to ensure the tank barge meets
this minimum under-keel clearance requirement either through
establishing and enforcing company policy, through a contractual
agreement with the towing vessel company, through hiring practices, or
through direct company oversight of the tank barge's under-keel
clearance calculations prior to port entry or departing port.
This requirement has been suggested in several forms over the past
10 years. The Coast Guard, with the aid of the Navigation Safety
Advisory Council (NAVSAC), considered a draft for similar requirements
in 1991. After much debate, it decided not to pursue a federally-
mandated clearance requirement. The difference between the current
proposal and past proposals is fundamental. Past proposals considered
``real-time'' or actual under-keel depth and minimum under-keel depth
throughout a transit. Problems with this type of requirement were
substantial. The accuracy of the onboard depth sounder, the number of
depth sounders and their hull placement, and the inconsistencies
between published data and actual water depth, all complicated the task
of regulating actual under-keel depth.
The proposed requirements in Sec. 157.455 are based on anticipated
under-keel depth and represent a fundamental passage planning
requirement. IMO has provided guidance on general under-keel clearance
considerations since 1978 in its ``Guide to the Planning and Conduct of
Passages'' (SN/Circ. 92, 23 October 1978). As a passage planning
requirement, this proposal would reduce human error by ensuring the
hazard components (shown in Figures 5 and 6) related to failure to do a
task, failure to correctly perform a task, incomplete or incorrect
information, and lack of knowledge or training are addressed on those
tank vessels presenting a higher oil spill risk, due to design, if a
grounding occurs. Conscientious operators already carefully calculate
the deepest draft of the vessel and then review the intended route to
ensure there is adequate depth underneath the keel. Several companies
already have policies dictating this planning requirement and several
U.S. ports, such as the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, already
have established guidance for minimum under-keel clearances. NAVSAC
recommended that an adequate depth for transit determination be made by
a joint agreement between the local Captain of the Port (COTP) and the
port and harbor safety authority or association or other similar group.
This recommendation would be appropriate if the safe navigation of a
particular port indicates that it is necessary to establish permanent
under-keel clearance requirements. The Coast Guard recognizes that some
local COTP and port and harbor safety authorities presently have or may
wish to establish clearance requirements. This proposal would not
preempt present or future local standards. The proposal establishes an
anticipated minimum under-keel clearance of at least .5 meters (2 feet)
for all ports. If a local standard is less than the proposed .5 meter
clearance, the proposed notification requirement enables the COTP to
positively control the local policy. It is anticipated that a local
under-keel clearance requirement that is more stringent than the .5
meter clearance would be enforced through a joint COTP and harbor
safety authority agreement. This proposed clearance reflects general
industry standards and provides an added cushion of safety for vessels
while operating in areas where charted depths may not have been updated
by surveying agencies for sometime. Tank vessels fitted with double
bottoms would be exempt from this under-keep clearance requirement
because within the risk framework developed for this rulemaking, the
double bottoms provide protection from oil spills that may be caused by
this type of accidental or non-emergency intentional grounding.
A vessel's log or similar onboard documentation should indicate
that the master or operator has considered the factors that may affect
a vessel's draft and has reviewed the appropriate scaled charts, tide
tables, and other applicable publications to calculate the anticipated
controlling depth. Charts and publications may contain conflicting
water depth information. Some of these variances are due to different
survey periods, survey techniques, or recording purposes. The most
conservative depth should be used to calculate the anticipated depth.
This preventive measure would require all affected vessels to
carefully plan port transits. Grounding would not indicate a violation
of the requirements in proposed Sec. 157.455 if the owner, master, or
operator has properly logged or documented the proposed planning
requirements and can recreate the calculations done prior to port entry
or departure. Satisfying the planning requirements, however, does not
relieve the owner, master, or operator of ensuring that other
navigational requirements and practices are followed.
Intentional grounding during a transit, unless done to reduce the
risk of a collision or allision, or during a similar type of emergency,
would violate the regulation if done with without the express approval
of the COTP. This proposed restriction on intentional grounding is not
intended to unconditionally prohibit this practice rather, it focuses
on ensuring that the local COTP understands the vessel's operation and
agrees to the practice. In areas where port bottom conditions are
[[Page 55919]]
known and do not pose a threat to the integrity of the hull, approval
for certain vessels to load cargo by intentionally grounding would be
acceptable. An anticipated caveat to a vessel being allowed to
routinely ground for loading operations is a specific shell plate and
weld condition survey or some other type of structural review provision
to ensure the vessel remains structurally fit for the additional
loading stresses.
Pilotage Passage Plans. One comment recommended that the Coast
Guard require pilot passage plans. This would require the pilot to
prepare a written passage plan prior to boarding a vessel, provide
copies of the plan to the bridge team, and discuss the plan with the
bridge team prior to beginning the passage. Guidance on this issue has
been developed by IMO and is entitled, ``Guide to the Planning and
Conduct of Passages'' (SN/Circ. 92, 23 October 1978).
Although many pilots already prepare plans for passage through a
port, the vessel's crew also needs to actively communicate with the
pilot prior to a port transit. This proposed rulemaking addresses only
the vessel's responsibility to accurately inform the pilot of the
vessel's status and to monitor the pilot during a transit by
incorporation of pilot cards and bridge resource management training.
The Coast Guard and IMO are undertaking a separate initiative to
address the pilot's responsibilities to the vessel.
Navigation Equipment. Several comments stressed the need for
improved navigation equipment and suggested requiring state-of-the-art
navigation equipment such as a Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver
and collision avoidance radar. Other suggestions included electronic
charts, advanced sonar systems and a speed log.
Within both the international community and among U.S. vessel
operators, a significant amount of discussion has centered on the value
of navigational information versus the training of navigators. While
equipment with additional capabilities is extremely useful,
navigational safety also depends on the officer using this information.
The Coast Guard has determined that the present automatic radar
plotting aid (ARPA) requirements and the electronic positioning device
required in 33 CFR part 164 set an adequate minimum standard. The
proposed bridge resource management training would give the officers
responsible for vessel navigation the tools they need to interpret and
use all the information gathering systems at their disposal. The Coast
Guard is considering future proposals for Electronic Chart Display and
Information System (ECDIS) or differential GPS (DGPS) capabilities on
vessels. While ECDIS may indicate the ship's actual position on an
electronically generated chart, any requirement for electronic
positioning devices is premature until standards for equipment have
been developed and DGPS signals can provide an accurate, high integrity
signal throughout the United States. However, owners purchasing new
units should consider a GPS unit capable of receiving a DGPS signal or
interfacing with a differential receiver.
VEssel Traffic Service Systems. Several comments stated that the
Coast Guard needs to develop stronger rules for Vessel Traffic Service
Systems (VTS). Three comments stated that the Coast Guard should
require a vessel's mandatory participation in a harbor's active VTS.
Other comments stated that more ports were in need of VTS. One comment
stated that the VTS existing in Valdez, AK, San Francisco, CA, New
Orleans, LA, and New York, NY, have deficiencies including inadequate
funding, lack of maintenance and poor training. Most comments stated
that VTS are an obvious measure to reduce oil pollution which should be
improved and extended to more ports.
Section 4107(b)(1)(B) of OPA requires the Secretary to study the
need for new, expanded or improved VTS. The 1991 Port Needs Study
(Vessel Traffic Service Benefits) documents the benefits and costs of
Coast Guard VTS in 23 selected ports on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific
coasts. The study employs a comprehensive cost-benefit model that
considers the far-reaching consequences of marine accidents based on
navigational risk. The results are being used by the Coast Guard to
make capital investment decisions for the entire VTS program. One
change is the establishment of requirements and procedures which
simplify previous VTS regulations and mandate participation in all VTS
(59 FR 36316; July 15, 1994). Other VTS developments are being proposed
in separate documents and are not within the ambit of this rulemaking.
Voyage Data Recorder (Black Box). Another comment suggested
installation of a comprehensive event recorder (black box) to allow
investigators to reconstruct the events leading to a near-miss or
marine casualty.
As indicated in Figures 3 through 6, a black box would not directly
reduce the risk of an accident. Present regulations require recording
capabilities on depth sounding devices and logging requirements for
various other navigation indicators. This information has been used in
the past to reconstruct accident events. A comprehensive recording
system such as a black box could
FR Doc. 95-27185 Operational Measures To Reduce Oil Spills From Existing Tank Vessels Without Double Hulls
improve investigation quality and
reduce the time needed to reconstruct accident events. Additionally, it
might be a factor in reducing the risk of future casualties if used as
a management oversight tool to heighten management's awareness of
vessel operations. In addition, use of the black box could provide
information on near-misses which could be used to assess regulatory
effectiveness and pinpoint potential areas of traffic or operational
concern.
Other types of recorders that include active warning systems
(linked into existing VTS or capable of alarming a vessel automatically
in a potential collision situation) are in use on some offshore oil
platforms. These early warning systems work in conjunction with DGPS
and ECDIS. Because of their dependence on DGPS and ECDIS, the Coast
Guard believes that it is premature to require active warning systems.
While voyage data recorders and early warning systems are both
technologically feasible, they are costly. A general requirement for an
automatic, tamper proof voyage recording system that would record
voice, radar, position information, engine, and course data would
impose significant costs. This SNPRM solicits comments on a voyage data
recorder requirement, inclusion of an early warning capability in a
recording device, and recommended provisions for near miss data
collection.
Escort Vessels
Several comments pointed out the value of escort vessels. One
comment also recommended requiring bow thrusters for tankers without
tug escorts. The escort vessel issue is being addressed in a separate
regulatory project. This proposed rule considers escorts as a possible
alternative when the vessel does not meet certain maneuverability
performance standards. The Coast Guard has determined that the proposed
requirements for emergency steering capabilities combined with
maneuvering performance standards would reduce the risk of a collision,
allision, or grounding due to poor maneuverability and mitigates some
of the equipment failure components in Figure 5. Comments on possible
requirements for bow thrusters are solicited in this proposed
rulemaking.
Routing Restrictions.
Several comments suggested various route restrictions to increase
safety.
[[Page 55920]]
Four comments recommended more stringent pilotage requirements. Five
comments recommended limitation of vessel movement. Two other comments
recommended voluntary routing. One comment recommended mandatory speed
limits. One comment suggested that the Coast Guard identify those ports
with rocky bottoms and prohibit entry by tankers without double
bottoms. Such provisions directly correlate with the risks of
structural failure (Figure 3) from impact.
Although the Coast Guard recognizes that groundings and collisions
could be reduced through routing restrictions, it does not have the
authority at this time to enforce mandatory routing restrictions or
exclusionary transit zones on foreign vessels outside of U.S. navigable
waters. At the sixty-fifth session of the Marine Safety Committee
(MSC), in May of 1995, the Committee adopted amendments to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and its
Protocol of 1978, which would permit the establishment of mandatory
routing measures through IMO. This MSC resolution, MSC 46(65), becomes
effective January 1, 1997.
Present routing practices off the coast of California are voluntary
and were developed after extensive research. Diverse weather patterns,
vessel traffic, marine life considerations, and other factors pose
safety problems in some geographic areas. Because of the unique nature
of each port and offshore area, the Coast Guard has traditionally left
speed limit, safety zone and other restrictions to the local COTP. As
required by section 4111(b) of OPA 90, the Coast Guard is currently
studying tanker routing and solicits comments on establishing routing
restriction requirements.
6. Additional Operational Requirements for Tank Barges
Several comments suggested improvements to towing vessels. One
comment stated that the Coast Guard should require navigation equipment
on towing vessels. Another comment stated that independent emergency
steering capability should be required on towing vessels. One comment
recommended restrictions on tandem towing when loaded, requiring twin
screw tugs, and requiring towing vessel horsepower to barge deadweight
ratios. One comment recommended that the Navigational Safety
requirements of 33 CFR part 164 be extended to towing vessels. One
comment suggested two independent propulsion systems.
The Coast Guard has issued several rulemakings affecting the entire
commercial towing industry. The recent proposed rulemaking entitled
``Navigation Safety Equipment for Towing Vessels'' (60 FR XXXX)
contains several of the requirements mentioned above. It proposes
requirements for vessels engaged in towing that are 8 meters or more in
length. These requirements include certain navigational equipment, such
as radar; searchlights; and electronic position fixing devices,
depending on the vessel's area of operation; general navigation safety
requirements; and towline inspections for vessels engaged in towing
astern. Further requirements on licensing for towing vessel operators
also may be proposed.
Emergency Steering Capability. In Sec. 157.460(a), the Coast Guard
is proposing that the owner or operator of a tank barge would be
responsible for ensuring the primary towing vessel has either twin
screws with independent power or a backup steering system. Twin
propulsion designs with separate engine controls, dual shafts, and
propellers certainly would meet the intent of this requirement and are
allowed under this proposal. To reduce the impact of this regulation
and to allow vessel owners time to schedule shipyard facilities, the
Coast Guard proposes a 1-year delayed implementation of this
requirement.
This requirement was proposed after review of the risks of
equipment failure and loss of steering as shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Loss of steering for tankships is addressed by 33 CFR 164.39, 46 CFR
58.25, and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea,
1974, and its Protocol of 1978, with amendments, Chapter II-1, Part C,
regulation 29. Therefore, this SNPRM does not propose additional
steering requirements for tankships.
Fendering Systems. The qualitative evaluation of the structural
failure hazard (Figure 3) revealed that structural fractures due to the
stress on local hull areas of a tank barge, where a towing vessel or a
pier routinely comes in contact with the barge, have not been addressed
and could contribute to the cause of some oil spills. While this type
of fracturing may be identified by the enhanced survey requirements
proposed in Sec. 157.430 of this SNPRM, a more fundamental and cost
effective solution is adequate fendering. Because fendering on a barge
would be very costly, would decrease structure accessibility under the
fendering system, and may increase the rate of local structural
deterioration surrounding the fendering system, the Coast Guard is
proposing that the owner or operator of a tank barge would be
responsible for ensuring the primary towing vessel and any other assist
or fleeting towing vessels have adequate fendering systems. This
proposal would require vessel owners and operators to ensure towing
vessel fendering systems are assessed through management policy, on-
site inspection or oversight, contractual arrangements, or hiring
practices as an important protective measure for their barge's
structural integrity. Fleeting and assist towing vessels are included
in this proposal because during docking operations, the forces they
exert on the barge hull also contribute to the fracture problem.
Although there are no international or domestic guidelines for
appropriate fender technical specifications, Sec. 157.460(b) proposes a
performance guidelines for preventing metal to metal contact of the
towing vessel and the tank barge.
7. Other Operational Measures
Many of the comments proposed improvements through other
operational measures, including planning improvements. Two comments
recommended cargo loading and casualty planning. The comments stated
that the risk of pollution could be reduced significantly through a
strategic cargo loading plan which included criteria for loading a
partial cargo or discharging at several ports. For example, if cargo is
retained after discharging at the first port of call, cargo can be
retained in center tanks instead of wing tanks. One comment stated that
effective casualty planning would reduce the likelihood of a pollution
incident; these plans are not currently required.
Hydrostatic balanced loading minimizes the accidental oil outflow
by strategically loading cargo tanks to take advantage of the
hydrostatic balance between the cargo and sea water. This concept is
presently being studied and will be considered in the Existing Vessel
Structural Measures rulemaking. Casualty planning requirements are
addressed in ``Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans'' (59 FR 51332;
October 7, 1994).
Three comments were received regarding emergency transfer systems
(ETS). Two of these comments supported the implementation of ETS while
one comment stated that ETS was unproven and not likely to prevent
pollution. These systems generally require additional cargo piping and
pump refit or installation. It should also be noted that the Coast
Guard has completed a report to Congress entitled, ``The Feasibility of
Using Segregated Ballast Tanks (SBT) for Emergency
[[Page 55921]]
Transfer of Cargo and Storage of Recovered Oil,'' 1995. In this study,
it was found that in the event of a vessel casualty, such as a
collision or grounding, there are often fundamental changes in the
vessel's stability condition which make it potentially unsafe and
inadvisable to use SBT for emergency transfer of cargo. The regulatory
assessment study for the third portion of this project will address
these systems and any special considerations in their use.
Three comments recommended that wing tanks be kept empty. One
stated that empty wing tanks would reduce the likelihood of oil outflow
in collisions by 100 percent and in groundings by at least 50 percent,
compared to estimates of 30 percent and 15 percent provided in the
Existing Tank Vessels NPRM. This comment specifically suggested that
the wing tanks remain empty rather than ballasted with water or other
non-petroleum cargo. Significant structural refit to reinforce
bulkheads between empty wing tanks and cargo tanks, possible piping
refit, and substantial stability reassessment may be required. The
Coast Guard is soliciting comments on the economic and technical
feasibility of this proposal.
One comment recommended emergency retrieval equipment or emergency
towing pendants similar to those provided for in Washington State
regulations. Four comments stated that tow wire maintenance and
inspection should be required. An interim final rule (IFR) requiring
emergency towing equipment was published in the Federal Register on
December 22, 1993, entitled, ``Discharge Removal Equipment for Vessels
Carrying Oil'' (58 FR 67988). This required the majority of existing
tank vessels to have an emergency towing wire meeting an IMO standard.
This IMO standard has been revised to incorporate a requirement that
the equipment can be deployed automatically and by a limited number of
crew. The Coast Guard supported these changes at IMO and intends to
implement these new requirements in a future rulemaking. In addition,
an NPRM entitled, ``Navigation Safety Equipment for Towing Vessels''
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register proposes
minimum tow wire standards and inspection requirements.
Amendments to 46 CFR Part 31
To ensure cross reference to the proposed enhanced survey
requirements, tables (a) and (b) in 46 CFR 31.10-21 would be revised to
direct individuals using 46 CFR part 31 to Sec. 157.430(a); however, it
does not change existing drydock requirements.
Amendment to 46 CFR Part 35
To ensure cross reference to part 157, Sec. 35.01-40(c) of title 46
of the CFR is revised to refer individuals using 46 CFR part 35 to the
applicable pollution prevention requirements.
Incorporation by Reference
The following material, in part, would be incorporated by reference
in Sec. 157.02: IMO Assembly Resolution A.601(15) with Appendices 1-3,
``Provision and Display of Manoeuvring Information on Board Ships'';
IMO Assembly Resolution A.744(18) Annex B, ``Guidelines on the Enhanced
Programme of Inspections During Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil
Tankers''; IMO Assembly Resolution A.751(18) with Explanatory Notices
in MSC/Circ.644, ``Interim Standards for Ship Manoeuvrability''; and
Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) ``International Safety
Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals'' (Second Edition). Copies of the
materials are available for inspection where indicated under ADDRESSES.
Copies of the material are available for the sources listed in
Sec. 157.02.
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.
Assessment
This proposal is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under that order. It requires an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It is
significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
A draft Assessment has been prepared and is available in the docket
for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. The
Assessment is summarized as follows.
This rulemaking would apply to all existing vessels of 5,000 GT or
more that do not have double hulls and that carry oil, including non-
petroleum oil, in bulk as cargo. An estimated 1359 existing tank
vessels (190 U.S. tankships, 1080 foreign tankships, 86 U.S. tank
barges and 3 foreign tank barges) currently operating on the U.S.
navigable waters would be affected by this proposed rulemaking.
Industry Cost
Some of the proposed operational measures require actions prior to
each port transit or cargo transfer. As a result, vessels on coastwise
or frequent transit schedules would incur higher expenses than vessels
with a lower frequency of port calls. In contrast, the decrease in
fleet size as vessels arrive at their phaseout date results in a
downward trend in estimated annual costs from 1996 through 2014.
First year compliance cost of this SNPRM would total about $183.8
million. Annual costs of the proposal would trend downward, leveling
out at $5.8 million during 2012-2014, the final years that the proposal
would be in effect. The present value of this proposal is discounted at
7 percent throughout this assessment in accordance with current Office
of Management and Budget guidance to reflect the costs or benefits as
they would have been in the year OPA 90 was enacted. The present value
of this proposal, discounted at 7 percent, would total $443.6 million.
U.S. tankships and tank barges would together account for an estimated
one-third of total costs, and foreign tank vessels and barges would
account for the remainder. A discussion of costs for each proposed
requirement follows.
The costs associated with the operational measures proposed in this
SNPRM were developed based on vessel type, vessel use, and average
vessel size. The cost analysis was applied to tankships and tank
barges. Cost analysis calculations were based upon the following
assumptions:
(1) The proposed rulemaking would come into effect in 1996;
(2) The recurring cost of this rulemaking would reflect the future
vessel population decrease as required by the phaseout schedule in
section 4115(a) of OPA 90 and shown in NVIC 10-94;
(3) Both costs and benefits developed for this rulemaking are
discounted at 7 percent back to 1990; and
(4) All recurring costs are calculated for the year 2001.
Emergency Lightering Equipment. Lightering equipment costs were
based on the costs used in the Emergency Lightering Equipment and
Advanced Notice of Arrival Requirements for Existing Tank Vessels
Without Double Hulls Final Rule (59 FR 40186). This SNPRM proposes to
expand the applicability of these emergency lightering requirements
from oil tankers to all tank vessels. No U.S. tank vessels with
exclusive non-petroleum oil cargo carriage authority are in operation.
[[Page 55922]]
There would be no costs to U.S. tankships or tank barges. An estimated
114 foreign tankships and 2 foreign tank barges carry non-petroleum
cargo and may be affected by this change. The onetime costs for this
proposed requirement for foreign tankships is estimated to be $456,000-
$1.1 million and for foreign tank barges would be $8,000-$19,000. Based
on the average onetime cost for foreign tankships and tank barges, the
present value of point-estimate costs for emergency lightering
discounted at 7 percent to 1990 would be $530,000.
Bridge Resource Management Training. The cost of proposed
Sec. 157.415 would vary based on crew complement, crew salary, and
estimated existing training programs. Based on typical crew compliments
and accounting for personnel turnovers, seven tankship officers were
assumed to require this training per tankship while six officers were
used to estimate the cost to each tank barge. Crew daily wages were
estimated based on American Institute of Merchant Shipping (AIMS) data,
Tanker Advisory Report statistics, and American Waterways Operators
(AWO) information. Although simulator training is not proposed as a
required element of the BRM training course, past completion of an
existing Coast Guard approved bridge resource management course would
meet the proposed requirements. An estimated 60 percent of U.S.
tankships and tank barge companies have already met this training
requirement for their deck officers through commercial bridge
management courses. An estimated 30 percent of the foreign vessels
operating on routes within U.S. waters have trained their officers in
management-type curriculum. The commercial bridge management course
fees, approximately $5,000 per person (for a 5-day course), were used
to estimate the cost of this proposal. The refresher training course
offered by commercial vendors was estimated to be $500 per person.
Total cost of the proposed BRM training requirement to industry for
U.S. tankships would be $3.7 million. Foreign tankship total initial
estimated cost would be $33.0 million. The U.S. tank barge total
initial estimated cost would be $2.0 million. The total cost to the
foreign tank barge industry would be $79,000. The present value of the
costs of BRM training discounted at 7 percent to 1990 would total $35.1
million.
Vessel Specific Watch Training. The Coast Guard estimates the
additional cost incurred by proposed Sec. 157.420 would be negligible.
The cost attributed to time loss due to this training is negligible
because this type of training falls within the scope of a master's
present responsibility to ensure the crew is ``fit for duty.''
Recordkeeping requirements are addressed in the ``Collection of
Information'' section.
Minimum Rest Hour Requirement. To meet proposed Sec. 157.425,
shoreside augmentation of the vessel crew to allow the vessel officers
and crew members time to rest, is estimated to include one officer
(assume average second mate salary) and two tankerman (assume average
third mate salary) for each port visit on a tankship and one tankerman
(assume average mate salary) for a tank barge. On U.S. vessels, one
officer was not included because under 46 U.S.C. 8104(a), the master is
presently required to meet this rest hour minimum. Shoreside
augmentation requirements would vary based on the number of port visits
per vessel correlated with an estimate on average visit length. Careful
crew scheduling and time management could reduce the amount of
augmentation required prior to departing port. It is estimated that
U.S. tankships would require shoreside augmentation prior to 60 percent
of their port departures, foreign tankships would require augmentation
prior to 40 percent of their port departures, and tank barges (both
foreign and U.S.) would require 80 percent augmentation to meet this
proposal. If shoreside augmentation would be required prior to a port
departure, a full day's wage for the estimated number of personnel
required for augmentation was used. The cost for posting a notice to
crew members on the rest hour minimums was not calculated because it is
minimal.
The 1-year cost for augmented shoreside manning on U.S. tankships
would be $2.2 million and for foreign tankships would be $1.5 million.
The 1-year cost for augmented shoreside manning on U.S. tank barges
would be $991,000. The 1-year cost for augmented manning for foreign
tank barges would be $6,500. By 2001, the total cost of this proposed
requirement to the U.S. tankship industry would be $1.55 million, and
to foreign tankships, $1.03 million. For the tank barge industry, this
recurring augmentation cost would be $714,000 for the U.S. industry and
slightly less than $4,000 for the foreign industry. The present value
of the costs of rest hour minimums discounted at 7 percent to 1990
would total $19.7 million.
Enhanced Survey and Alternate for Enhanced Survey. Those tankships
regulated by flag administrations signatory to MARPOL 73/78 and having
adopted Regulation 13G of Annex I are presently required to complete
the proposed enhanced survey of Sec. 157.430(a) starting in 1995. For
this proposed rulemaking, no cost is associated to this group of
vessels for the enhanced survey requirement. U.S. tankships presently
are not required to meet Regulation 13G of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78.
Under this proposal, they would be required to conduct enhanced surveys
and incur the cost associated with these surveys.
The cost of an enhanced survey for a vessel classed by a recognized
classification society is estimated to be 25 percent higher than the
cost of the special survey currently performed by the class societies.
This cost includes the fee for the surveyor's time and required
documentation. For a 21,000 GT tankship, the increased cost for a
surveyor and a final report is estimated to be $11,000. Additional
costs to the industry for this proposed requirement would include
making approximately two tank interiors accessible to the surveyor
through the use of scaffolding, ladders, lines, or other arrangements
and additional gauging requirements (approximately 30 percent more than
present classification society requirements). Some additional repair
costs could also be incurred after a review of the survey is completed.
Cost estimates do not include the cost to drydock the vessel, gas free
it for inspection, or keep it in the drydock. These costs are already
incurred with present drydocking requirements.
It is estimated that 64 tankships are either not classed or are
classed by classification societies not recognized by the Coast Guard.
These vessels would incur additional costs associated with a design
review and a condition survey for reclassification by a recognized
society. Classification costs or enhanced survey costs for vessels
already required to drydock, but never classed or not classed by a
recognized classification society, would be $514,000.
Tank barges are not required to meet Regulation 13G of Annex I of
MARPOL 73/78. Proposed Sec. 157.430(b) allows tank barges and vessels
smaller than the MARPOL cutoff to substitute comparable company
programs for the enhanced survey requirements. Because the company
program clause assumes the owner has an established survey program and
would not need to conduct extensive additional repairs, the cost of
these company programs would be less than the cost of a classification
survey.
The cost estimates associated with proposed Sec. 157.430 (a) and
(b) were amortized to reflect a 12-month period. First year cost
averages would be $14.9
[[Page 55923]]
million for U.S. tankships; $23.0 million for foreign tankships; $2.3
million for U.S. tank barges; and $80,000 for foreign tank barges.
Because the cost estimates have been averaged and it has been assumed
that the vessels affected by this rulemaking would be in service for at
least two drydock enhanced surveys prior to their phaseout, recurring
cost would be the same as the first year costs listed above. The Coast
Guard recognizes this recurring cost estimate is conservative; however,
as the fleet population diminishes the average cost of an enhanced
survey may increase due to the age and possible repair requirements of
the remaining tank vessels subjected to the survey. The present value
of the costs of the enhanced survey discounted at 7 percent to 1990
would total $67.38 million.
Vital Systems Surveys. The cost of proposed Sec. 157.435 would vary
based on port departure frequency, crew salary, and the estimated time
required for each survey. A survey would be required before a tank
vessel begins cargo transfer operations or prior to a vessel departing
port. An estimate of port departures was calculated based on 1993 Coast
Guard data and reflects an average departure frequency of 28 for U.S.
tankships, 32 for U.S. tank barges, 6 for foreign tankships, and 7 for
foreign tank barges. Three surveys were estimated for each port
departure.
Crew members affected by this proposed requirement would be senior
personnel. For tank barge surveys, an average towing vessel master's
wage was used for cost evaluation. For tankship surveys, an average
chief mate's wage and a chief engineer's wage were used for cost
evaluation. Survey time was estimated at 1 hour on a tankship (\1/2\
hour each for both the chief mate and the chief engineer) and
approximately 48 minutes for the master of a primary towing vessel or a
senior tank barge representative.
The vital systems survey cost for U.S. tankships would be $660,000
with a recurring cost (for year 2001) of $472,000. The cost to foreign
tankships would be $465,000 with a recurring cost (for year 2001) of
$322,000. The survey cost to U.S. tank barges would be $289,000 with a
recurring cost (for year 2001) of $208,000. The survey cost to foreign
tank barges would be $2,500 with a recurring cost (for year 2001) of
$1,500. The present value of the costs of vital systems discounted at 7
percent to 1990 would total $6.0 million.
Autopilot Alarm or Indicator. The cost for the alarm or indicator
proposed in Sec. 157.440 was calculated based on the assumption that 10
percent of the U.S. tankships presently meet this requirement, none of
the foreign tankships presently have this capability, and 3 towing
vessels would require an indicator for every 2 tank barges affected by
this rulemaking. It was also assumed that the tank barge company owned
the towing vessel and would incur the cost of this requirement. The
estimated installation cost of a visual and audible autopilot alarm is
$5,000 on electronic tankship steering systems and the estimated
autopilot indicator cost is $100. The cost attributed to the testing of
this alarm would be negligible based on the short amount of time
required to test the device and the preexisting requirement to do so
under 33 CFR 164.25. This proposal would have a onetime estimated cost
to U.S. tankships of $855,000; to foreign tankships, $5,400,000; to
U.S. tank barges, $12,900; and to foreign tank barges, $500. The
present value of autopilot alarm costs discounted at 7 percent to 1990
would total $4.2 million.
Maneuvering Performance Capability. To meet proposed Sec. 157.445,
tankships would require additional maneuvering tests and also
recalculation or confirmation of previous maneuvering characteristics
presently required by 33 CFR 164.35(g). Additional tests are proposed
primarily to evaluate overshoot angles and time to check yaw. Computer
simulations of these performance tests would not be accepted. A cost of
$18,500 was based on an independent subcontractor coming on board a
tankship to conduct the tests and provide the documentation required.
This estimate reflects industry cost for test preparation, equipment,
personnel, transportation, vessel operational delay, data processing,
and final report collation. It was assumed that the tests required to
meet this performance standard proposal have not been completed by any
of the tankships affected by this SNPRM. The total onetime cost to the
U.S. tankship industry would be $3.5 million and the cost to the
foreign tankship industry would be $20.0 million. The present value of
maneuvering performance capability costs discounted at 7 percent to
1990 would total $15.7 million.
Maneuvering and Vessel Status Information. No additional
maneuvering tests would be required for proposed Sec. 157.450, however,
some recalculation of data from the original tests used to develop the
wheelhouse poster of 33 CFR 164.35(g) may be required. To compile a
maneuvering booklet, additional calculations and documentation also may
be required. A cost estimate of $1,080 was developed for this proposal
and reflects an average U.S. licensed naval architect fee for 4 hours
spent to recalculate wheelhouse poster data and 16 hours spent to
assemble the maneuvering booklet. Vessel population estimates indicated
that 75 percent of both foreign and U.S. tankships presently meet the
wheelhouse poster requirement and 20 percent presently meet the
maneuvering booklet requirement. The cost attributed to the pilot card
requirement would be negligible because the cost of the pilot cards
themselves would be minimal while the time spent to complete them would
be incorporated into the scope of an officer in charge of a
navigational watch's normal duties.
Proposed Sec. 157.450 has a onetime cost attributed to the
wheelhouse poster and the maneuvering booklet. The estimated onetime
cost of this proposal would be $142,000 for the 190 U.S. tankships and
$805,000 for the 1,080 foreign tankships. The present value of
maneuvering and vessel status information costs discounted at 7 percent
to 1990 would total $631,000.
Minimum Under-keel Clearance. The cost estimate for proposed
Sec. 157.455 assumed that tankships presently entering or departing
U.S. navigable waters operate with an under-keel clearance range of
0.15 meters to 2.00 meters and an average anticipated under-keel
clearance of 0.6 meters (2 feet). Present tank barge under-keel
clearances were estimated to be much less than tankship averages. An
estimate of the number of port entries and departures was made for each
vessel type. Tank barges were estimated to be affected by this proposal
during each port entry and each port departure. U.S. tankships were
estimated to be affected by this proposal during each port entry and
during 35 percent of the port departures. Foreign tankships were
estimated to be affected by this proposal during each port entry and
during 20 percent of the port departures.
The cost of the proposal was estimated to be a 3 percent loss of
cargo carrying capacity for each .3 meters needed to decrease the tank
vessel's draft. An estimate of required draft decrease or cargo loss
due to this proposal was made for each vessel type. It was estimated
that 30 percent of the affected tank barge (10,000 GT average size)
population would not lose cargo carrying capacity due to this proposal,
50 percent of the population would lose 3 percent of their cargo
carrying capacity, and 20 percent would lose 6 percent of their cargo
carrying capacity. It was estimated that 75 percent of the affected
U.S. tankship (33,300 GT average size) and foreign tankship (50,000 GT
average size) population
[[Page 55924]]
would not lose cargo carrying capacity due to this proposal, 20 percent
of the tankship population would lose 3 percent of their cargo carrying
capacity, and 5 percent of the tankship population would lose 6 percent
of their cargo carrying capacity. The cost attributed to the proposed
recording requirement would be negligible because the time spent
completing the vessel log entry or other similar documentation would be
incorporated into the scope of the officer of a navigational watch's
normal duties.
As a result of the reduced cargo capacity, the first year cost of
proposed Sec. 157.455 for a U.S. tankship would be $18 million. Foreign
tankship costs would be $35.1 million. U.S. tank barge costs would be
$12.4 million and foreign tank barge costs would be $142,000. By 2001,
the total cost of proposed Sec. 157.455 to the U.S. tankship industry
would decrease to $13 million, and the cost to foreign tankships would
decrease to $27.3 million. For the tank barge industry, the recurring
cost of under-keel clearance would be $13.3 million for the U.S.
industry and $142,000 for the foreign industry. The present value of
the costs of under-keel clearance discounted at 7 percent to 1990 would
total $292.6 million.
Emergency Steering Capability. Proposed Sec. 157.460(a) applies to
the primary towing vessels engaged in towing tank barges of 5,000 GT or
more without a double hull. An estimated total of 134 towing vessels
would be affected by this proposal. Of these vessels, research
indicates 80 percent presently meet this proposed requirement. It was
assumed that the towing vessels that do not meet this proposed
requirement are owned by the tank barge company. The cost to
reconfigure the towing vessel's steering gear would be $25,000 based on
an independent subcontractor installing additional piping and tankage
on an existing hydraulic steering system.
The onetime emergency steering requirement cost would be $645,000
for U.S. tank barge companies; and $25,000 for foreign tank barge
owners or operators. The present value of emergency steering capability
costs discounted at 7 percent to 1990 would total $446,000.
Fendering System. Proposed Sec. 157.460(b) applies to the primary
towing vessels and the fleeting or assist towing vessels engaged in
maneuvering tank barges of 5,000 GT or more without double hulls. A
total of 312 towing vessels would be affected by this proposal. Of
these vessels, research indicates 80 percent presently have adequate
fendering systems. It was assumed that those towing vessels that do not
meet this proposed requirement are owned by the tank barge company or
the tank barge company would realize a cost increase in the leasing of
an adequately fendered towing vessel. The cost to add or reconfigure
the towing vessel's fendering system would be $1,320 based on a towing
vessel's personnel installing an additional 8 linear feet of commercial
fenders during a routine maintenance period.
Proposed Sec. 157.460(b) would have an estimated initial cost to
U.S. tank barges of $79,500; and to foreign tank barges of $3,000.
Recurring costs, reflecting the diminishment of the tank barge fleet by
2001, would be $57,000 for U.S. tank barges and $2,000 for foreign tank
barges. The present value of the cost of fendering systems discounted
at 7 percent of 1990 would total $329,000.
Government Cost
Federal Government cost would include Coast Guard personnel time
and resources to review survey records and documentation required by
this proposed SNPRM during annual tank vessel examinations (foreign
vessels) or annual inspections (U.S. vessels). The length of time added
to a typical examination or inspection would vary based on the type of
service in which the vessel engages. The Coast Guard is estimating that
these requirements would increase the time of examination or inspection
by an average of 0.5 hours for any given requirement. The various
requirements range from 0.25 hours to inspect log entries or records to
8 hours to review documentation of an enhanced survey on a U.S.
tankship or tank barge.
Government costs attributable to implementation of this rule are
based on twelve proposed requirements. The Coast Guard examination or
inspection would evaluate relevant documentation on BRM training,
vessel specific training, minimum rest hours, enhanced surveys, vital
systems surveys, maneuvering performance capability information,
maneuvering information, and minimum under-keel clearance. During an
annual examination or inspection the Coast Guard inspector would also
ensure the emergency lightening equipment, the autopilot alarm or
indicator, the emergency steering gear and the fendering systems on the
towing vessels meet the proposed requirements.
The proposed maneuvering performance test requirement, specified in
Sec. 157.445(b), instructs tankships that do not meet the IMO criteria
to report their maneuvering capability to the COTP 24 hours prior to
port entry. Requests of this nature are not anticipated to be frequent.
For this cost estimate, 10 percent of the existing tankship population
was assumed to require some deviation from the IMO criteria. To review
a vessel request for port entry and determine appropriate operational
restrictions would take Coast Guard personnel an average of 4 hours.
Therefore, the government cost analysis assumes the increased
annual inspection time would average 6.95 hours for U.S. tank vessels
and 4.75 hours for foreign tank vessels. In addition, deviation
requests from U.S. tankships for the proposed maneuvering performance
standard would be 76 hours while requests from foreign tankships would
average 432 hours. Based on a $35.00 per hour wage estimate for a Coast
Guard inspector, the Coast Guard expects the 1,188 additional man-hours
of inspection and deviation request evaluation time would cost $39,801
annually.
Cost-Benefit Evaluation
Costs. Cost estimates were based on the forecast 19-year life for
this proposed rulemaking. For all proposed requirements, the
undiscounted costs of compliance are projected to be $897.6 million.
The present value of the costs of this proposed regulation discounted
at 7 percent to 1990 would total $443.6 million.
Benefits. Pollution mitigation benefits from the proposed
operational measures would accrue mainly in areas around loading
terminals, narrow channels, and in open waters during lightering
operations.
A review of casualty and spill data was conducted in an attempt to
pinpoint past accident frequency as related to each proposed
operational measures. However, the complex cumulative effect of human
error and equipment failure made it difficult to quantify the benefits
of each measure. For example, the grounding of the foreign tankship
WORLD PRODIGY off Brenton Reef in Rhode Island Sound was caused by a
combination of fatigue, poor bridge resource management, and
insufficient passage planning (especially under-keel clearance) which
lead to this 1989 oil spill. The major explosion aboard the U.S.
tankship MT SURF CITY was caused by poor tank entry precautions and
undetected bulkhead deterioration between a cargo tank and a ballast
tank. Because of the interrelationship between the proposed
requirements that focus on a reduction in human error along with the
proposed requirements for improved equipment inspections and
capabilities, the Coast
[[Page 55925]]
Guard chose to quantify the benefits using a gross estimate of benefits
for this SNPRM regulatory assessment.
A preliminary estimate of the anticipated benefits and resultant
cost-benefit for each measure was conducted and is described in detail
within the regulatory assessment. This preliminary estimate included a
review of certain tank vessel casualties from 1989 through 1994, the
resultant oil spill or potential for an oil spill, vessel damage, and
loss of life. Benefits were estimated for each proposed measure by
reviewing the casualty report, analyzing each casualty's root causes,
and estimating a percentage of the recorded or estimated spillage
associated with each root cause. The actual and potential amounts of
oil spilled were then broken down from these estimated root cause
percentages and accredited to each of the proposed measures, if
applicable.
Using Figures 3 through 6 of this SNPRM, a risk effectiveness
factor was developed that estimated the percentage of causal factors
leading to an accident that would be eliminated if each proposed
measure was established. A range of total anticipated benefits over the
19-year span of this rulemaking was estimated for each proposed measure
by annualizing the per-vessel benefits resulting from the actual and
potential spill data, extrapolating this into a cumulative present
value of oil spills avoided based on the number of vessels remaining in
service each year, and multiplying this cumulation by the measure's
effectiveness factor. The Coast Guard intends to include an estimate or
qualitative discussion of the benefits of each proposed measure in the
final rule. Relevant comments are requested on the methodology used for
the preliminary benefit analysis as well as each measure's anticipated
benefits and its economic feasibility.
The gross estimate of benefits for this rulemaking was conducted
and involved an assessment of casualty data over the past 20 years. The
Coast Guard estimates that the proposed measures would avert at least
one major spill of about 300,000 barrels over the next 19 years. This
is equivalent to a spill resulting from a collision between two 70,000
GT tankships, with cargo loss from at least two tanks on each tank
vessel. Alternatively, this would be equivalent to a grounding that
results in a complete loss of cargo from a small (21,000 GT) tankship.
The monetary benefits of the proposed regulation would include the
avoided costs of spill cleanup, third-party compensation (lost earnings
to fishermen, etc.), and natural resource damages. Historically,
casualty reports have either not addressed these avoided costs, or
their results have been widely disputed. There are many reasons for
this. For example, there are numerous factors affecting the possible
impact associated with an oil spill, such as type of product,
environment, time of year, location, and weather conditions. Therefore,
the assessment of damage and associated costs were subjective and in
some cases, even in large spills, they were never confirmed.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard uses the unspilled oil quantity in barrels
as the benefit value, discounted at 7 percent back to 1990. If the
averted 300,000-barrel spill were to occur in 1996, when the final rule
is scheduled to take effect, the discounted benefit would be the value
of avoiding a 213,896 barrel spill in 1990. If the averted 300,000-
barrel spill were to occur in 2014, the discounted benefit would be the
value of avoiding a 77,526 barrel spill in 1990.
Cost-Benefit. The benefit of this proposed rule would range from
the value of avoiding a 77,526 barrel spill in 1990 to the value of
avoiding a 213,896 barrel spill in 1990, depending on when the averted
spill is assumed to occur. The net present value of the cost of this
proposed rulemaking would range from $2,075 to $5,700 per barrel of
unspilled oil, when a mean present value of $3,900 per barrel of
unspilled oil. This compares with, for example, $13,000 per barrel of
unspilled oil for the ``Discharge Removal Equipment for Vessels
Carrying Oil'' IFR (58 FR 67988); $12,500 per barrel of unspilled oil
for the ``Vessel Response Plans'' IFR (58 FR 7376); $7,000 per barrel
of unspilled oil for the ``Overfill Devices'' IFR (59 FR 53286); and
$1,300 per barrel of unspilled oil for the ``Response Plans for Marine
Transportation-Related Facilities'' IFR (58 FR 7330).
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities,'' may include (1) small businesses and not-
for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
This rulemaking considered small business impact for vessels
privately held by independent companies with an estimated capital
investment value of less than $500 million or companies that have less
than 500 employees. State and local governments, which altogether own
less than a dozen tank vessels, will not be significantly affected.
Not-for-profit organizations do not engage in the transportation of oil
in bulk by water.
There are a number of companies meeting the definition of small
business operating in each segment of industry (tankship, tank barge,
and towing vessel). Of the 190 U.S. tankships affected by this proposed
rulemaking, 16 are owned by 6 small businesses. Many of these company's
tankships are over 30 years old, have less cargo carrying capacity than
their competition, and are laid up due to market or company financial
conditions. Six small businesses own or operate 32 of the affected U.S.
tank barge population. No foreign small businesses own or operate
foreign tank vessels that would be affected by this proposed
rulemaking. Tank barge companies are required under this proposal to
enlist towing vessels with certain capabilities and trained personnel.
Indirectly, some towing vessel companies may also be affected by these
proposed requirements; however, the Coast Guard has determined that
most tank barge owners also own their towing vessels or regularly
contract with a limited number of towing companies.
An economic impact is unavoidable, as the statute clearly targets
existing vessels of 5,000 GT or more than carry oil in bulk as cargo
and that do not have double hulls. The present value of the total cost
to the industry of this proposal discounted at 7 percent to 1990 would
total $443.6 million. However, the Coast Guard has proposed several
measures within this rulemaking to accommodate small business needs and
provide flexibility to small entities affected by this rulemaking.
The proposed training requirements include allowances for
comparable company training courses and a 1-year compliance delay. In-
house training by smaller businesses would be accepted as long as the
curriculum and demonstration of skill provisions could be met. Company
programs are anticipated to cost a fraction of commercial training and
should provide smaller businesses with a means to train personnel at a
lower cost than the present commercial courses.
Additionally, the proposed rulemaking acknowledges past course
completion; thus, personnel would be given a longer time to meet this
requirement if they have completed similar courses, either company-
sponsored or commercial, within 3 years of the effective date of the
rule. Maritime schools and many commercial courses have been offering
this type of curriculum since 1991. Allowing for the
[[Page 55926]]
delayed compliance date and past course completion, the training course
phase-in period would be 4 years. This longer phase-in period should
assist smaller companies in setting up a suitable in-house or
commercial course program. It also recognizes that a substantial number
of merchant mariners in the industry are already trained. The 4-year
phase-in is also intended to ease the competitive burden of obtaining
commercial course slots, should entities choose to use commercial
training facilities.
Small business needs are accommodated in the proposed enhanced
survey requirement by allowing companies owning tank barges or tank
vessels less than 30,000 dwts to conduct their own surveys and to
choose among various organizations for program oversight.
To accommodate small businesses in the tank barge industry, the
cost of reconfiguring a towing vessel owned by the tank barge company
was minimized by requiring the proposed autopilot alarm to be an
indicator; a simple sign placed on the wheel would suffice. This gives
a comparable warning in the small confines of the one-man towing vessel
wheelhouse as would an alarm for the larger, multiple-person, complex
bridge of a tankship. The proposed emergency steering capability
requirement accommodates a range of designs by allowing for either a
secondary steering system or twin propulsion capability. This allows
the majority of tank barge companies to continue using their vessels or
the vessels they typically lease; however, it also ensures that the
master or operator would have some maneuvering capability in an
electrical, hydraulic or engine failure, which would be a benefit to
all operators.
Smaller tankship companies should have the capability to conduct
the maneuvering performance standard tests of IMO Resolution A.751(18).
While the assessment cost of this item is for a commercial company to
conduct the maneuvering tests, this proposed rulemaking in no way
prohibits a company from conducting the tests in-house. The guidelines
and technical details of the tests are well documented and are within
the capabilities of a licensed master or pilot. The equipment needed
for these types of maneuvering tests, such as a DGPS, is available on
the commercial market at low cost.
The proposed operational measures would affect several small
businesses within the maritime industry until 2015, a period of about
19 years. Through the design of this proposal's measures as described
in the preceding paragraphs, the Coast Guard believes that the
flexibility in this proposed rulemaking balances the requirements on
tank barges and tankships and provides equitable treatment of U.S. and
foreign flag vessels.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposal, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. If, however, you think that
your business or organization qualifies as a small entity and that this
proposal will have a significant economic impact on your business or
organization, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why
you think it qualifies and in what way and to what degree this proposal
will economically affect it.
Unfunded Mandate
Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4), the Coast
Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, will result in
an annual expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, or $100 million (adjusted annually
for inflation). That Act also requires (in Section 205) that the Coast
Guard identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and from those alternatives select the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objective of the rule.
The cost analysis completed for this SNPRM estimates first year
compliance costs to be 183.8 million. Annual costs of the proposal
would trend downward, leveling out at $5.8 million during 2012-2014,
the final years that the proposal would be in effect. The only time
this proposal would result in estimated costs of $100 million or more
to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector would be in its first year of implementation. State,
local, and tribal governments, which altogether own less than a dozen
tank vessels, would account for less than 2 percent of the estimated
first-year costs. Therefore, the private sector would be most impacted
by first-year costs. The preliminary cost-benefit analysis done for
this SNPRM addresses expected cost-effectiveness for each proposed
measure. For those measures that were estimated to be the most costly,
alternative requirements, extended implementation periods, or
provisions for a COTP to determine appropriate implementation on a
case-by-case basis were proposed in this SNPRM.
If you think that your business or organization falls under the
provisions of the Act and this proposal will have an annual impact on
your business or organization that meets the parameters, please submit
a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and in
what way and to what degree this proposal will economically affect it.
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: Secs. 157.415, 157.420, 157.425, 157.430,
157.435, 157.445, 157.450, and 157.455. The following particulars
apply:
Dot No: 2115.
Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.
Title: Operational Measures to Reduce Oil Spills From Existing Tank
Vessels Without Double Hulls.
Need for Information: Without adequate operational measures on tank
vessels, the potential for spills as a result of human error is greatly
increased. This proposal requires the mariner to record, post, keep
documentation or provide notification that is necessary for the safe
operation of the vessel including: (1) Documentation for company
management and the Coast Guard to ensure personnel are trained and
systems are being surveyed both frequently and thoroughly; (2)
information to ensure the crew is informed of rest hour requirements;
(3) certain vessel specific maneuvering characteristics so that
personnel navigating the vessel have a quick reference to critical
information; (4) documentation of a vessel's command and control status
to ensure a pilot receives accurate information prior to maneuvering
evolutions. These requirements are consistent with good commercial
practice and the dictates of good seamanship for safe navigation and
maintenance of vital equipment. Additionally, a vessel owners, master,
or operator would be required to notify the COTP if the vessel did not
have certain maneuvering capabilities so that safe port entry
provisions can be made.
Proposed Use of Information: The primary use of this information
would be for Coast Guard inspectors to determine if a vessel is in
compliance or, in the case of a casualty, whether
[[Page 55927]]
failure to meet these proposed regulations contributed to the casualty.
The Coast Guard has no specific plan to collect this data for
statistical analysis.
Frequency of Response: Owners, masters, or operators of tank
vessels subject to this proposed regulation would be required to
record, post, keep documentation, or provide notification of the
following: (1) Under Sec. 157.415(d), annual completion of bridge
resource management training for each officer of the navigational
watch; (2) under Sec. 157.420(d), completion of annual training by
letter or vessel log entry, by each crew member assigned to a
navigational or engineering watch; (3) under Sec. 157.425(b), permanent
posting of the minimum rest hour requirement in crew lounge areas and
work spaces; (4) under Sec. 157.430 (a) and (b), completion of an
enhanced survey during each drydock examination (this information must
also be provided to the Coast Guard upon its request); (5) under
Sec. 157.435, by vessel log entry or similar means on board the vessel,
completion of each required vital systems survey; (6) under
Sec. 157.445(b), notification of a maneuvering capability that is less
than the IMO criteria; (7) under Sec. 157.445(c), permanent posting of
test results for maneuvering performance capability; (8) under
Sec. 157.450, permanent posting of standardized IMO maneuvering
information in the wheelhouse, completion of a pilot card before
entering the port or place of destination and prior to departing port,
and maintenance of an onboard maneuvering booklet; (9) under
Sec. 157.455(a)(3), by vessel log entry or similar means on board the
vessel, calculations of under-keel clearance before entering the port
or place of destination and prior to departing port.
Burden Estimate: 76,913 hours.
Respondents: 1404.
Average Burden Hours per Respondent: 55.
The Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to OMB for review
under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Persons
submitting comments on the requirements should submit their comments
both the OMB and to the Coast Guard as 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.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this
proposal and concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement is not necessary. An Environmental Assessment and a draft
Finding of No Significant Impact are available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. The additional
training, survey, and operational considerations required by this rule
would enhance navigation safety and thereby reduce the likelihood of an
oil spill or other environmental damage.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 157
Cargo vessels, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
46 CFR Part 31
Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
46 CFR Part 35
Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Occupational
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seaman.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 157, 46 CFR part 31, and 46 CFR part 35 as
follows:
PART 157--RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
RELATING TO TANK VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK
1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703, 3703a (note); 49 CFR
1.46. Subpart G also is issued under section 4115(b), Pub. L. 101-
380, 104 Stat. 520.
2. In Sec. 157.01, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 157.01 Applicability.
(a) * * *
(2) Any other vessel that enters or operates in the navigable
waters of the United States, or that operates, conducts lightering
under 46 U.S.C. 3715, or receives cargo from or transfers cargo to a
deepwater port under 33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., in the United States
Exclusive Economic Zone, as defined in 33 U.S.C. 2701(8).
* * * * *
3. Section 157.02 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 157.02 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,
Merchant Vessel Inspection and Documentation Division (G-MVI), 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.
IMO Assembly Resolution A.601(15), Provision and Display of
Manoeuvring Information on Board Ships, Annex sections 1, 2.3,
and 3 with appendices...........................................157.440
IMO Assembly Resolution A.744(18), Guidelines on the Enhanced
Programme of Inspections During Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil
Tankers, Annex B sections 1.1.3-1.1.4, 1.2-1.3, 2.1, 2.3-2.6, 3-
8, and Annexes 1-10 with appendices.............................157.430
IMO Assembly Resolution A.751(18), Interim Standards for Ship
Manoeuvrability, Annex sections 1.2.2, 2.2-2.4, 3-5 with
Explanatory Notes in MSC/Circ.644...............................157.440
Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF)
6th Floor, Portland House, Stag Place, London SWIE 5BH, England.
International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals, Second
Edition, Chapters 6, 7, and 9...................................157.430
4. In Sec. 157.03, paragraphs (pp) through (tt) are added to read
as follows:
Sec. 157.03 Definitions.
* * * * *
(pp) Departing port means departing from an anchorage or facility
for a transit beyond the navigable waters of the United States as
established in 33 CFR 2.05-25(b) or, for a vessel on the Great Lakes, a
transit beyond the breakwater of harbor entrance.
(qq) Fleeting or assist towing vessel means any commercial vessel
engaged in towing astern, alongside, or pushing ahead, used solely
within a limited
[[Page 55928]]
geographic area, such as a particular barge fleeting area or commercial
facility, and used solely for restricted service, such as making up or
breaking up larger tows.
(rr) Officer in charge of a navigational watch means any officer
employed or engaged to be responsible for navigating or maneuvering the
vessel and for maintaining a continuous vigilant watch during his or
her periods of duty and following guidance set out by the master,
international or national regulations, and company policies.
(ss) Primary towing vessel means any vessel engaged in towing
astern, alongside, or pushing ahead and includes the tug in an
integrated tug barge. It does not include fleeting or assist towing
vessels.
(tt) Rest hour means an off-duty period of 1 hour during which no
tasks are assigned to the crew member and the crew member is not
scheduled to perform any duty. A rest hour may include response to
drills or emergencies.
SUBPART G--STRUCTURAL AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES FOR CERTAIN TANK
VESSELS WITHOUT DOUBLE HULLS
5. Section 157.400 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 157.400 Applicability.
This subpart applies to each tank vessel of 5,000 gross tons or
more that--
(a) Carries oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue;
(b) Enters or operates in the navigable waters of the United States
or that operates, conducts lightering under 46 U.S.C. 3715, or receives
cargo from or transfers cargo to a deepwater port under 33 U.S.C. 1501
et seq., in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as defined
in 33 U.S.C. 2701(8); and
(c) Is not currently equipped with a double hull meeting
Sec. 157.10d of this part, or an equivalent to the requirements of
Sec. 157.10d, but required to be equipped with a double hull at a date
set forth in 46 U.S.C. 3703a(b)(3) and (c)(3).
6. In Sec. 157.410, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 157.410 Emergency lightering requirements for tank vessels.
* * * * *
(c) Reducers, bolts, and gaskets must meet the requirements of 46
CFR subpart 56.25. Cast iron and malleable iron shall not be used for
valves or fittings in lines carrying flammable or combustible fluids
which are directly connected to, or in the proximity of, equipment or
other lines having open flames, or any parts operating at temperatures
above 260 deg.C (500 deg.F).
7. Section 157.415 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 157.415 Bridge resource management training.
(a) After [12 months after the effective date of the final rule.],
a tank vessel owner, master, or operator shall not assign a person to
duties as an officer in charge of a navigational watch unless that
person has satisfactorily completed a course that includes the
following:
(1) Instruction in the following areas:
(i) Communications: effective management of the flow of
information, including but not limited to, the exchange of information
between the master and the pilot, the master and the crew members, and
the officer in charge of a navigational watch and crew members.
(ii) Voyage planning: the planning of both ocean and pilotage water
transits to account for navigational hazards, weather, vessel traffic,
operational restrictions, facility and port requirements, and
compliance with local and international regulations.
(iii) Error trapping: identifying and verifying elements in a
sequence of events that could lead to an accident.
(iv) Situational awareness: accurate perception of any factors and
conditions that affect a vessel over time.
(v) Pilot and bridge team integration: the effective flow of
knowledge between the vessel's crew and the pilot to incorporate
knowledge of the local port area and ensure cooperation in the
development of the vessel's navigation plan.
(vi) Watch team training: method for training watchstanding
personnel to efficiently and effectively stand a watch.
(vii) Emergency situation procedures: development and use of
procedures, including communications between crew and shoreside
personnel and use of onboard safety equipment, for successful emergency
response.
(2) Practical demonstration of the following skills:
(i) Ability to recognize potential hazards to navigation,
incorporate these considerations into a voyage plan, and communicate
these hazards to subordinates, senior watchstanding personnel, and a
pilot during a voyage.
(ii) Ability to recognize subordinate limitations and take
appropriate action to ensure the subordinates are attentive and provide
accurate feedback on their assigned tasks during a voyage.
(iii) Ability to recognize and initiate communications with other
vessels, subordinates, and senior watchstanding personnel to prevent
miscommunication or an inappropriate action.
(iv) Ability to work with and, at the same time, monitor a pilot to
ensure consistency with vessel operating characteristics and the voyage
passage plan.
(v) Ability to use all available bridge equipment to perform their
assigned duties, and to display knowledge of the appropriate action(s)
to take in the event of an equipment malfunction.
(b) Tank vessel owner, master, or operator shall not assign a
person to duties as an officer in charge of a navigational watch unless
that person has demonstrated knowledge of company and vessel standard
operating procedures including allowed variations, watch augmentation
provisions, relationship of the officer in charge of a navigational
watch to the master or pilot when both are on the bridge, and emergency
navigation procedures.
(c) The training identified in paragraph (a) of this section must
be completed at least once every 5 years.
(d) Satisfactory completion of a commercial or company course
approved by the Coast Guard or, for an individual holding a foreign
license, the appropriate flag administration, that contains elements
comparable to those required in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
section meets the initial training requirement if completed after [36
months prior to the effective date of the final rule.].
(e) Course completion must be documented by a certificate, license
endorsement, or a letter confirming that each officer in charge of a
navigational watch has satisfactorily completed the training
requirements. Copies of each officer's certificate, endorsement, or
letter confirming their completion must be retained on board the vessel
or otherwise be made readily available to the Coast Guard for
examination upon request.
(f) A tank barge owner or operator shall ensure that those
individuals assigned to duties on the primary towing vessel that are
similar to the duties of the officer in charge of a navigational watch
also complete bridge resource management training as specified in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
8. Section 157.420 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 157.420 Vessel specific watch training.
(a) The owner, master, or operator of a tank vessel shall not
assign duties to an individual assigned lookout, helmsman, or
engineering watch duties unless that person has successfully
[[Page 55929]]
completed a course that includes academic instruction in the following
areas, as applicable to the individual's job responsibilities:
(1) Communications: effective flow of information between
personnel, including the importance of feedback and timeliness.
(2) Error trapping: identifying and verifying elements in a
sequence of events that could lead to an accident.
(3) Equipment: employing correct use and monitoring requirements of
the equipment necessary to perform assigned duties, including the
appropriate action(s) to take in the event of an equipment malfunction.
(4) Watch team integration: the effective flow of information among
the vessel's crew to ensure the person in charge of vessel navigation
is kept aware of events pertaining to equipment operation and personnel
effectiveness.
(b) Each individual must complete initial training that meets the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section prior to assignment of
watchkeeping duties.
(c) Each individual must complete annual training that meets the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Completion of training must be documented by a certificate,
vessel log entry, or a letter confirming that each individual has
satisfactorily completed the training requirements. Copies of the
certificate or letter confirming completion must be retained on board
the vessel or otherwise made readily available to the Coast Guard for
examination upon request.
(e) A tank barge owner or operator shall ensure that those
individuals assigned to duties on the primary towing vessel that are
similar to lookout, helmsman, or engineering watch duties also complete
vessel specific watch training as specified in paragraphs (a) through
(d) of this section.
9. Section 157.425 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 157.425 Minimum rest hour requirement.
(a) A tankship owner, master, or operator shall ensure each person
is provided a minimum of 6 continuous rest hours within the 12 hours
prior to departing port or prior to cargo transfer operations before
assuming the following duties:
(1) Officer in charge of a navigational watch, lookout, helmsman,
engineer officer in charge of a manned engine room on a tankship,
member of an engineering watch on a tankship, and the operator or
master of the vessel, if scheduled as a member of the duty rotation for
officer in charge of a navigational watch.
(2) Person in charge of cargo transfer operations.
(b) A tank barge owner or operator shall ensure that the
individuals on the primary towing vessel having duties similar to those
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section are provided a
minimum of 6 continuous rest hours within the 12 hours before assuming
his or her duties prior to departing port or prior to cargo transfer
operations.
(c) If a crew member's rest hours have been interrupted by drills
or emergencies, the operator or master shall assess the crew member's
fitness for duty before assigning him or her to any of the duties
described in this section.
(d) Minimum rest hour requirements must be posted on tank vessels
in crew lounge areas and work spaces.
10. Section 157.430 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 157.430 Enhanced survey requirements.
(a) Enhanced survey. The tank vessel owner, master, or operator
shall ensure an enhanced survey is conducted during each regularly
scheduled drydock examination required under 46 CFR part 31 or at a
frequency specified by the vessel's flag administration. Survey scope
and recordkeeping requirements must comply with the standards of IMO
Resolution A.744(18), Annex B sections 1.1.3-1.1.4, 1.2-1.3, 2.1, 2.3-
2.6, 3-8, and Annexes 1-10 with appendices.
(b) Alternate enhanced survey. For a tankship of less than 20,000
deadweight tons (dwt) carrying crude oil, a tankship of less than
30,000 dwt carrying product, or a tank barge, one of the following may
be substituted for the enhanced survey requirements in paragraph (a) of
this section:
(1) An enhanced survey performed by a recognized classification
society.
(2) An enhanced survey performed by the company with oversight by
the Coast Guard or the vessel's flag administration, a recognized
classification society, or an independent auditing authority approved
by the Coast Guard if--
(i) The frequency of survey is no less than that required by 46 CFR
part 31 or as specified by the vessel's flag administration;
(ii) Program plans establishing comparable standards with the
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section are approved by the
Commandant (G-MVI) and contain the following information:
(A) The scope of the inspection program.
(B) Permanent recordkeeping requirements.
(C) An implementation plan outlining a continuous survey program
and identifying by job title those individuals whom the company will
assign to conduct the surveys.
(D) Confirmation from the administration, a recognized
classification society, or an independent auditing authority approved
by the Coast Guard that the oversight implementation plan is feasible.
(c) A copy of the most recent survey must be retained onboard the
vessel or, upon request by the Coast Guard, made available within 24
hours for examination.
11. Section 157.435 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 157.435 Vital systems surveys.
(a) A tank vessel owner, master, or operator shall survey the
following systems:
(1) Cargo systems. The survey must include the examination and
testing of the items listed in Chapters 6, 7, and 9 of the
International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals, if
applicable, prior to cargo transfer operations.
(2) Mooring
FR Doc. 95-27185 Operational Measures To Reduce Oil Spills From Existing Tank Vessels Without Double Hulls
systems. The survey must include a visual examination
of the emergency towline, the anchor releasing mechanism, and mooring
lines prior to departing port.
(b) Surveys must be conducted by company management personnel,
company designated individuals, or vessel senior officers knowledgeable
about the equipment operating parameters and having the authority,
capability, and responsibility to initiate corrective action when the
equipment is not functioning properly.
(c) The material condition of each system identified in paragraph
(a) of this section must be recorded in the vessel's Oil Record Book,
Part I or Part II, as applicable, the vessel's log, or other onboard
documentation.
12. Section 157.440 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 157.440 Autopilot alarm or indicator.
(a) A tankship owner, master, or operator shall ensure that each
installed autopilot unit without automatic manual override has an
audible and visual alarm, which is distinct from other required bridge
alarms, that will activate if the helm is manually moved while the
autopilot is engaged.
(b) A tank barge owner or operator shall ensure that each autopilot
unit without automatic manual override installed on the primary towing
vessel has a means to clearly indicate the autopilot status and warns
personnel of
[[Page 55930]]
the requirement to disengage the autopilot if positive rudder control
is needed.
13. Section 157.445 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 157.445 Maneuvering performance capability.
(a) A tankship owner, master, or operator shall ensure that
maneuvering tests in accordance with IMO Resolution A.751(18), sections
1.2.2, 2.3-2.4, and 3-5 (with Explanatory Notes in MSC/Circ.644) have
been conducted by [12 months after the effective date of the final
rule]. Satisfactory completion of maneuvering performance tests must be
shown by--
(1) For a foreign flag tankship, a letter from the flag
administration or a recognized classification society stating the
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section have been met; or
(2) For a U.S. flag tankship, test results from the vessel owner
confirming the completion of sea trial maneuvers or a letter from a
recognized classification society stating the requirements in paragraph
(a) of this section have been met.
(b) If a vessel undergoes a major conversion or alteration
affecting the control systems, control surfaces, propulsion system, or
other areas which may be expected to alter maneuvering performance, the
tankship owner, master, or operator shall ensure that maneuvering tests
are conducted as required by paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) If a vessel does not meet the performance standards of IMO
Resolution A.751(18), the owner, master, or operator must inform the
Captain of the Port (COTP) by message, letter, or radio contact, at
least 24 hours before entering the port of place of destination. Upon
notification, the COTP will determine if additional operational
restrictions for port entry should be imposed on the vessel. These may
include, but are not limited to--
(1) Requiring a tug escort or augmentation of existing escorts;
(2) Restricting transit times;
(3) Restricting vessel speed;
(4) Requiring the vessel to follow a specified route and make
specified reports;
(5) Barring entry into port; or
(6) Imposing other measure(s) appropriate for local conditions.
(d) Performance test results, recorded in the format of Appendix 6
of the Explanatory Notes in MSC/Circ.644, must be prominently displayed
in the wheelhouse.
14. Section 157.450 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 157.450 Maneuvering and vessel status information.
A tankship owner, master or operator shall comply with IMO
Resolution A.601(15), Annex sections 1, 2.3, and 3 with appendices.
15. Section 157.455 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 157.455 Minimum under-keel clearance.
(a) For a tank vessel that is not fitted with a double bottom that
covers the entire cargo tank length, a vessel owner, master, or
operator shall meet the following requirements prior to entering the
port or place of destination and prior to departing port:
(1) The tank vessel's deepest navigational draft must be calculated
including the following factors--
(i) The mean draft;
(ii) The trim and list characteristics; and
(iii) The intended transit speed and the corresponding squat
characteristics, if known.
(2) The anticipated controlling depth must be calculated including
the following factors--
(i) Tide and current conditions;
(ii) Present sea state conditions;
(iii) Past weather impact on water depth;
(iv) The depth at the facility or anchorage; and
(v) The depth of the transit area found in the publication and
chart materials required to be on board the vessel by 33 CFR part 164.
(3) The anticipated under-keel clearance must be calculated by
subtracting the tank vessel's deepest navigational draft from the
anticipated controlling depth. The vessel's calculated deepest
navigational draft, anticipated controlling depth, and the calculated
anticipated under-keel clearance must be recorded in the vessel's log
or in other onboard documentation.
(4) The vessel shall not proceed without the approval of the local
COTP if the anticipated under-keel clearance is less than .5 meter (2
feet).
(b) For a tank barge that is not fitted with a double bottom that
covers the entire cargo tank length, the tank barge owner or operator
shall ensure that the primary towing vessel owner, master, or operator
meets the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (4) of
this section.
16. Section 157.460 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 157.460 Additional operational requirements for tank barges.
(a) Emergency steering capability. The owner or operator of each
tank barge shall ensure that by [12 months after effective date of the
final rule] the primary towing vessel has--
(1) A steering gear system with a main power unit, an alternative
power unit, and two remote steering gear control systems, except that
separate steering wheels or steering levers are not required. The
steering gear control systems shall be arranged so that if the system
in operation fails, the other system can be brought into immediate
operation from a position on the navigating bridge; or
(2) Twin screw propulsion with separate control systems for each
propeller.
(b) Fendering system. An owner or operator of a tank barge shall
ensure the primary towing vessel and any fleeting or assist towing
vessels have a fendering system that is of substantial size and
composition to prevent metal to metal contact between the towing vessel
and the barge during maneuvering operations.
PART 31--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
17. The authority citation for part 31 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; 49
U.S.C. App. 1804; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793; 49 CFR
1.46; Section 31.10-21a also issued under the authority of Sec.
4109, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 515.
18. In Sec. 31.10-21, Table (a) is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 55931]]
Table 31.10.--21 (a) Salt Water Service Vessels Examination Intervals in Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ship and Double
Double Double single hull
Ship and hull barge hull barge Single hull Wood hull hull barge barge Single hull Double
single with with barge with ship and grade D grade D asphalt hull
hull internal external independent barge and E and E barge\6\\9\ asphalt
barge\9\ framing\1\ framing\2\ tanks\3\\9\ cargoes cargoes barge\7\
only\4\\9\ only\5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drydock....................................... 2.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0
Internal structural........................... 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.0 5.0 2.5 10.0 2.5
Cargo tank internal........................... \8\2.5 \8\5.0 \8\10.0 \8\10.0 \8\2.5 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\Applicable to double hull tank barges (double sides, ends, and bottoms) when the structural framing is on the internal tank surface.
\2\Applicable to double hull tank barges (double sides, ends, and bottoms) when the structural framing is on the external tank surface accessible for
examination from voids, double bottoms, and other similar spaces.
\3\Applicable to single hull tank barges with independent cargo tanks where the cargo tanks are not a contiguous part of the hull structure and which
has adequate clearance between the tanks and between the tanks and the vessel's hull to provide access for examination of all tank surfaces and the
hull structure.
\4\Applicable to single hull tankships and tank barges certificated for the carriage of grade D and E cargoes only.
\5\Applicable to double hull tank barges (double sides, ends, and bottoms) certificated for the carriage of grade D and E cargoes only.
\6\Applicable to single hull tank barges certificated for the carriage of asphalt only.
\7\Applicable to double hull tank barges (double sides, ends, and bottoms) certificated for the carriage of asphalt only.
\8\Or as specified in part 38 or 151 as applicable.
\9\Enhanced survey requirements apply as specified in 33 CFR part 157.
19. In Sec. 31.10-21, Table (b) is revised to read as follows:
Table 31.10.--21(b) Fresh Water Service Vessels Examination Intervals in Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ship and
single Double
Ship and Double Double Single hull hull hull Single Double
single hull barge hull barge barge with Wood hull barge barge hull hull
hull with with independent ship and grade D grade D asphalt asphalt
barge\9\ internal external tanks3,9 barge and E an E barge6,9 barge\7\
framing\1\ framing\2\ cargoes cargoes
only4,9 only\5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drydock.......................................... 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 2.5 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
Internal structural.............................. 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0
Cargo tank internal.............................. \8\5.0 \8\5.0 \8\10.0 \8\10.0 \8\2.5 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\Applicable to double hull tank barges (double sides, ends, and bottoms) when the structural framing is on the internal tank surface.
\2\Applicable to double hull tank barges (double sides, ends, and bottoms) when the structural framing is on the external tank surface accessible for
examination from voids, double bottoms, and other similar spaces.
\3\Applicable to single hull tank barges with independent cargo tanks where the cargo tanks are not a contiguous part of the hull structure and which
has adequate clearance between the tanks and between the tanks and the vessel's hull to provide access for examination of all tank surfaces and the
hull structure.
\4\Applicable to single hull tank ships and tank barges certificated for the carriage of grade D and E cargoes only.
\5\Applicable to double hull tank barges (double sides, ends and bottoms) certificated for the carriage of grade D and E cargoes only.
\6\Applicable to single hull tank barges certificated for the carriage of asphalt only.
\7\Applicable to double hull tank barges (double sides, ends and bottoms) certificated for the carriage of asphalt only.
\8\Or as specified in part 38 or 151 as applicable.
\9\Enhanced survey requirements apply as specified in 33 CFR part 157.
PART 35--OPERATIONS
20. The Authority citation for part 35 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 6101; 49
U.S.C. App. 1804; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp.,
p. 793; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR
1.46.
21. In Sec. 35.01-40, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 35.01-40 Prevention of oil pollution-TB/ALL.
* * * * *
(c) 33 CFR parts 151, 155, 156, 157 and 164.
Dated: October 27, 1995.
A.E. Henn,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Acting Commandant.
[FR Doc. 95-27185 Filed 10-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27063 Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27063]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[MT32-1-7117b, ND6-2-7081b, UT21-1-6915b, WY7-1-7042b; FRL-5303-2]
Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation
Plans; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Designation of Areas
for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, and Wyoming
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the EPA is proposing approval of revisions
to the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) submitted by the States of
Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The submittals included
revisions to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
permitting rules of these States mainly to address the replacement of
the total suspended particulate (TSP) increments with increments for
PM-10 (particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter), but also
to address other changes in the Federal PSD permitting regulations and
to make other minor revisions. EPA is also proposing to delete the TSP
area designation tables and to revise and/or create PM-10 area
designation tables in 40 CFR part 81 for these States as well as for
the State of South Dakota (which has been delegated authority to
implement the Federal PSD regulations in 40 CFR 52.21). In the final
rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is acting on the
States' SIP submittals in a direct final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views these submittals as noncontroversial and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval
is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this proposed rule, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this rule. If the EPA receives adverse
comments, then the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period
on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this
documents should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
December 4, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Vicki Stamper, 8ART-
AP, at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th
Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Copies of the documents
relevant to this proposed rule are available for public inspection
during normal business hours at the following locations: Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street,
suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405; Montana Air Quality Division,
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 836 Front Street, P.O.
Box 200901, Helena, Montana 59620-0901; North Dakota Division of
Environmental Engineering, State Department of Health and Consolidated
Laboratories, 1200 Missouri Avenue, P.O. Box 5520, Bismarck, North
Dakota 58502-5520; Utah Division of Air Quality, Department of
Environmental Quality, 150 North 1950 West, P.O. Box 144820, Salt Lake
City, Utah, 84114-4820; and Wyoming Air Quality Bureau, Department of
Environmental Quality, Herschler Building, 122 West 25th Street,
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicki Stamper at (303) 293-1765.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct
final rule of the same title which is located in the Rules Section of
this Federal Register.
Dated: September 19, 1995.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-27063 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26900 Navigation Safety Equipment for Towing Vessels
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55890-55902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26900]
[[Page 55889]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
33 CFR Part 164
Navigation Safety Equipment for Towing Vessels; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 213 / Friday, November 3, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55890]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 164
[CGD 94-020]
RIN 2115-AE91
Navigation Safety Equipment for Towing Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to require that towing vessels carry
and properly use equipment such as radars, compasses, marine charts or
maps, and publications and that they choose, inspect, and maintain
towlines. This rule is necessary as part of a comprehensive initiative
to improve navigational safety for towing vessels. If it becomes final,
it will help prevent another catastrophic train-wreck such as that of
the Sunset Limited in Alabama during September, 1993, and another spill
such as that off Puerto Rico during January, 1994.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA, 3406) (CGD 94-020), 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 B-726, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward LaRue, Vessel Traffic
Services Division (G-NVT), Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway
Services, (202) 267-0416, or LCDR Suzanne Englebert, Project
Development Branch (G-MES-2), Office of Marine Safety, Security and
Environmental Protection, (202) 267-6490.
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 94-020] and the specific section of this
proposed rule to which each comment applies, and give the reason for
each comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of
receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or
envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposed rule in view of the
comments.
The Coast Guard plans no public meetings. Persons may request a
public meeting by writing to the Marine Safety Council at the first
address under ADDRESSES. The request should include reasons why a
hearing would be beneficial. If the Coast Guard determines that the
opportunity for additional oral presentations will aid this rulemaking,
the Coast Guard will hold a public meeting at a time and place
announced by a later document in the Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The principal persons involved in drafting this document are Edward
LaRue, Project Manager, Vessel Traffic Services Division (G-NVT), LCDR
Suzanne Englebert, Project Manager, Project Development Branch (G-MES-
2), Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, and
Pat Murray, Project Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Background and Purpose
This proposed rule, if it becomes final, will constitute part of a
comprehensive initiative by the Coast Guard to improve navigational
safety for towing vessels. While other regulatory efforts are
concentrating on reporting of casualties, on licensing, and on training
on radar, this rule would help ensure that the mariner piloting a
towing vessel has adequate equipment to safely navigate the waters
being transited. It would impose the following: (1) Requirements for
carriage of radars, searchlights, radios, compasses, swing-meters, echo
depth-sounding devices, electronic position-fixing devices, marine
charts or maps, and publications; (2) requirements for proper use of
this navigational equipment; (3) requirements for maintenance,
inspection, and serviceability of towlines, towing gear, and terminal
gear; and (4) general requirements for navigational safety.
Review of Marine-Safety Issues Related to Uninspected Towing
Vessels
Soon after the fatal accident on September 22, 1993, near Mobile,
Alabama, in which a barge collided with a railroad bridge and caused
the Sunset Limited to plunge into a bayou, the Secretary of
Transportation directed that the Coast Guard and the Federal Railroad
Administration review the circumstances of the accident and undertake
initiatives to minimize the risk of any similar tragedy in the future.
Later, on March 2, 1994, the Coast Guard published (59 FR 10031) a
notice of meeting and availability of study that announced both the
availability of a study prepared by the Coast Guard, ``Review of Marine
Safety Issues Related to Uninspected Towing Vessels,'' and a meeting to
review the study and to seek public comment on the recommendations made
in the study.
The study examined marine-casualty statistics over a 12-year period
(1980-1991). The Coast Guard made 19 recommendations: on the reporting
of marine casualties and hazardous conditions; on bridge-fendering
systems and navigational lighting; on the adequacy of the Aids to
Navigation System for marking the approaches to bridges over navigable
waterways; on the training and licensing of operators of uninspected
towing vessels (OUTVs); and on--the subject of this proposed rule--the
adequacy of navigational equipment for uninspected towing vessels
(UTVs).
The public meeting announced [59 FR 10031] on March 2, 1994, was
held on May 4, 1994, to discuss regulatory initiatives of the Coast
Guard stemming from the derailment of the Sunset Limited. This meeting
was well attended by the public, representing a wide range of towing
and other interests. Right afterward, the Towing Safety Advisory
Committee (TSAC) formed a working group of towing experts from the
industry (TSAC working group) to help the Coast Guard formulate
standards. A meeting of the TSAC working group was announced (59 FR
13353) on March 21, 1994, and held on April 5, 1994; and the group made
recommendations to the full TSAC at its public meeting on May 6, 1994.
[[Page 55891]]
In the notice of March 2, 1994, the Coast Guard had specifically
sought comments on a proposal to require radar and marine charts or
maps and publications aboard towing vessels and--the subject of a
separate rulemaking--to require that the operator of the radar system
be a qualified radar observer. The Coast Guard received a total of 23
comments in response to the notice. A summary of them appears in the
following section, Discussion of Proposed Rules.
During the public meeting, the Coast Guard also recognized the
significant impact of improper towlines and related towing gear on
navigational safety. The need to regulate these lines and gear, within
any comprehensive navigational-safety proposal, had been made manifest
by the tragic spill along the coast of Puerto Rico near San Juan, in
January 1994. The T/B MORRIS J. BERMAN lost about 750,000 gallons of #6
fuel oil when the towing vessel's towline parted and the vessel was
unable to recover the barge before it went aground. Groundings, delays
of shipping, collisions, and allisions with bridges are all by-products
of the improper use of towing gear. Ensuring that the towing vessel has
sufficient navigational equipment to fix its position will make little
sense unless the vessel is made fast to its tow.
Discussion of Proposed Rules
1. Scope of application and exemptions. This proposed rule would
apply to all towing vessels 8 meters (26.25 feet) or more in length
operating in the navigable waters of the United States, except for
certain yard craft used in restricted service and for assistance towing
vessels.
The applicability of these requirements was discussed at length in
both the public meeting and the meeting of the TSAC working group,
which recommended that towing vessels less than 8 meters (26.25 feet)
in length not pushing barges, and towing vessels under 15 meters
(around 50 feet) used only for towing disabled vessels, be exempt from
these requirements. One attendee at the public meeting questioned
whether these requirements would unduly burden small towing vessels
primarily engaged in rescuing recreational boats. Several attendees
urged the exemption of yard craft or fleeting boats operating only
within a limited geographic area from these requirements. Others
pointed out, however, that, on the lower Mississippi, fleeting boats
are generally equipped with radar, to operate in restricted visibility
and monitor their fleets for break-away barges.
The Coast Guard has proposed a general criterion of 8 meters (26.25
feet) in length because this excludes most of the small craft that
neither tow barges nor operate offshore in heavy weather. Also, this
length is consistent with the rules of the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge
Radiotelephone Act (codified as 33 U.S.C., Chapter 24) and with the
Vessel Traffic Service regulations.
Proposed Sec. 164.01(b)(1) would exempt most yard and fleeting
craft from the requirements in proposed Sec. 164.72. It would exempt
those yard and fleeting craft used solely for making up or breaking up
tows or other work in and around piers or fleeting areas. While the
navigational equipment in the latter section may be valuable for many
yard craft, it may not be for others. To prevent abuse of this
provision, this rule would give wide discretion to Captains of the Port
(COTPs) to determine whether particular vessels should be exempt and to
allow sufficient time for those that should not to be brought into
compliance. There may be areas where fleeting boats routinely cross
busy navigable channels or operate in crowded harbors. In such areas,
this exemption would be inappropriate. Owners, operators, or masters of
vessels could ask COTPs to declare in advance whether certain vessels
are exempt.
Further, proposed Sec. 164.01(b)(2) would exempt towing vessels
engaged solely in rescue and assistance from the requirements in
proposed Sec. 164.72. An entire industry catering to the towing of
disabled recreational boaters has developed in recent years. These
rescue-and-assistance towing vessels are usually small and are
generally recognized by their local Coast Guard search-and-rescue
stations as alternative-assistance vessels. The mariners operating
these vessels also satisfy licensing requirements more stringent than
their counterparts aboard typical small vessels. Because of their
limited operating nature, Sec. 164.01(b)(2) proposes an exemption from
Sec. 164.72; however, if any of them also engages in salvage work or
commercial towing of barges, vessels, or objects not in distress, many
of the proposed requirements would be appropriate. An exemption from
the proposed requirements of Sec. 164.72 should be based on the entire
scope of work an owner, master, or operator of a vessel declares. With
the help of TSAC, the Coast Guard is developing criteria to assess
whether a size or type of commercial towing operation should also be
exempt from the requirements in Sec. 164.72. The Coast Guard solicits
comments on this matter.
2. Definitions. Based on the recommendations of TSAC on current
operating practices within the towing industry, this proposed rule
would divide areas of operation into rivers, Western rivers, U.S.
navigable waters other than rivers and Western rivers, and waters
seaward of U.S. navigable waters or, for vessels operating on the Great
Lakes, waters over three nautical miles from shore. The definitions
proposed in Sec. 164.70 distinguish the areas of operation and are
consistent with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions
at Sea, 1972 (codified as 33 U.S.C., Chapter 30); the Inland
Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (codified as 33 U.S.C., Chapter 34); and
33 CFR part 2.
3a. Radar. A marine radar is an essential piece of navigational-
safety equipment. Radar not only provides a means of detecting and
avoiding other vessels at great distances and in restricted visibility,
but allows the operator or master of the vessel to navigate safely on
constricted waters in reduced visibility. During the public meeting and
in meetings with the TSAC working group, members of the industry
strongly endorsed a requirement for radar on board towing vessels and
indicated that most towing vessels already, voluntarily, carry radar.
The Coast Guard considered specifications for radar equipment for
navigational safety and, after considerable deliberation and
consultation with industry, would require in Sec. 164.72(a)(1) a radar
meeting minimum marine specifications. Basic features necessary for
safe navigation by radar come with almost every modern radar set:
bearing-lines, ship's-heading marker, range rings, variable range-
scales, and variable pulse-width. Other features, which are desirable,
come only with higher-quality commercial radars: higher power, which
permits detection at longer range and better detection of small targets
at closer range; interference rejection, which prevents interference
from other radars operating on similar frequencies; and track
histories, which allow display of relative motion of other vessels.
Into Sec. 164.03(b) performance standards for marine radar, developed
by the Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM), would
be incorporated by reference. This approach would ensure the
installation of an appropriate radar for the marine environment, yet
would allow for the rapid changes in electronic technology and the
inability of any regulatory regime to keep up with them. Furthermore,
because this rule would apply broadly, while covered vessels differ
widely, requiring features instead of standards might make equipping
[[Page 55892]]
smaller vessels with radar impracticable and cost-prohibitive.
The Coast Guard recognizes that owners or operators of vessels
would need to assess their radar needs and local radar availability.
Therefore, the Coast Guard is proposing in Sec. 164.72(a)(1) that the
radar requirement become effective 1 year after the effective date of
the final rule. It is imperative that radars be of marine quality and
meet minimum standards; therefore, instead of giving an indefinite
grandfather clause to those vessels with existing radars of unknown
quality, the Coast Guard has proposed in Sec. 164.72(a)(1)(iv) a longer
phase-in period for vessels with existing radars that do not meet
performance standards of RTCM for marine radar.
3b. Public comments on radar. The Coast Guard received 11 comments
on the recommendation by the study that towing vessels of 8 meters
(26.25 feet) or more in length carry radar. Of these, 5 generally
supported the recommendation. Of these, one urged that the requirements
regard size, service, trade, and location of vessels. Another urged
that they regard at least size and operating-area. A third suggested
rulemaking under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221, et
seq.), which would require UTVs to carry surface-navigation radar. A
fourth supported upgrading the radar already aboard towing vessels. A
fifth, while generally supporting the use of radar aboard those
vessels, argued that this use should not be mandatory and that, if it
became so, the rule should consider both spatial limits and operational
needs. Again, the approach of this proposed rule is to avoid features
and to favor standards, which address these matters.
Of the other six comments, one urged the Coast Guard to require
that all towing vessels, not just those of 8 meters (26.25 feet) or
more in length, carry radar. Contrary to this, another comment urged
the Coast Guard not to require that all such vessels of 8 meters (26.25
feet) or more in length carry radar and that lower tonnage or
horsepower or smaller tows should relieve such vessels of the burden. A
third urged the Coast Guard to require that every towing vessel carry
two surface-navigation radars. A fourth urged the Coast Guard to
require that every such vessel carry two commercial radars of which at
least one must be working. A fifth urged the Coast Guard to address not
the carriage of radar at large but the use of it in certain areas.
The Coast Guard has determined that 8 meters (26.25 feet) is an
appropriate minimal length. It also considered towing vessels'
operating areas by exempting fleeting tugs, by requiring minimal
performance standards for vessels operating within three nautical miles
of shore, and by ensuring that radar of vessels on voyages offshore
meet higher performance standards for the more severe weather and sea
conditions. The performance standards of the RTCM for marine radar
already take account of vessel sizes and routes of vessels by
addressing capability of radar units, yet they do not dictate sizes of
radar screens and scanners for vessels operating within three nautical
miles of shore. The Coast Guard also recognizes the advantages of
redundancy and of some preference to have both ``S'' band and ``X''
band radar capability. Two radars are not proposed in
Sec. 164.72(a)(1), because this rulemaking seeks only to require
minimal requirements; it does not preclude installing added equipment
if owners, operators, or masters of vessels determine that it is
needed, and it assumes that, once a radar is installed, it operates
correctly.
The sixth comment asked whether an inoperable radar would
constitute a ``hazardous condition'' as defined by 33 CFR 160.203. This
proposed rule would allow for continued operation of the towing vessel
with an inoperable radar, though it would also call in Sec. 164.82 for
the reporting of inoperable navigational equipment.
4. Searchlight. The Coast Guard is proposing in Sec. 164.72(a)(2)
that towing vessels be equipped with searchlights. A properly operating
searchlight is an essential tool for the towing vessel. It is useful
not only in navigating within restricted waterways but also in checking
conditions of tows and warning other vessels of the presence of
towlines. The TSAC working group specifically recommended that every
towing vessel carry a commercial searchlight that could be directed by
the vessel's operator or master. For a small vessel with an open
steering station, a hand-held spotlight would suffice. For a typical
towing vessel navigating with a one-person watch--in which the sole
qualified operator or master acts as lookout, helmsman, and navigator--
the controls of the searchlight must be accessible from the main
steering station. For a large vessel, remote controls may be necessary.
The Coast Guard has found that searchlights with remote control are
common in the towing industry and are available at relatively low cost.
A searchlight is not a navigation light, for which uniform
specifications are essential. The Coast Guard proposes in
Sec. 164.72(a)(2) to ensure that the searchlight is an adequate tool.
(The Coast Guard suggests, though it does not require, that the
searchlight be housed in a weatherproof fitting, be designed for marine
use, project a focused beam, and provide a minimum of 200,000 candle-
power.)
5. VHF-FM Radio. VHF-FM radios are required by the Vessel Bridge-
to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act (33 U.S.C. 1201-1208), the Communications
Act of 1934 as amended (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), and the Agreement
Between the United States of America and Canada for the Promotion of
Safety on the Great Lakes by Means of Radio, 1973. Section 164.72(a)(3)
reiterates these requirements.
The Coast Guard may require within this section a source of power
to the radio in an emergency. This second source would ensure that at
least one installed radiotelephone could function if the vessel lost
power. The Coast Guard is soliciting comments on whether to require
that the VHF-FM radio on a towing vessel have an emergency or back-up
source of power.
6. Compass. The compass is a piece of navigational equipment
essential in many places. This proposed rule would require in
Sec. 164.72(a)(4) an illuminated magnetic compass aboard every towing
vessel, except one operating solely on rivers and Western rivers as
defined by this rule.
To navigate safely, a vessel operating in open waters must know its
heading. A compass provides this--through dead reckoning (in restricted
visibility or out of sight of landmarks); through fixes (in good
visibility or within sight of landmarks); through checks on the effects
of current or wind on course made good; and through indications of rate
of turn for a tow.
The TSAC working group recommended a marine compass that should (1)
operate satisfactorily and remain usable under the operational and
environmental conditions likely to be experienced; (2) have a compass
card that is readable both during the day and at night; (3) be
installed on, or as close as possible to, the vessel's centerline; (4)
be installed so that, from its position, the view is as nearly
uninterrupted as possible for the taking of bearings; (5) be clearly
readable by the helmsman at the main steering station; (6) be installed
as far as possible from any magnetic material; (7) have the compass
card suspended in gimbals so that it cannot be dislodged and remains
readable in any sea or weather; and (8) not be a fluxgate compass
unless it can operate reliably on steel-hulled tugs without constant
adjustment, particularly when the tugs are picking up and dropping off
[[Page 55893]]
different configurations of steel-barge tows. The Coast Guard
recognizes the recommendations of the TSAC working group as fitting
guidelines for the magnetic compass. It does not propose the use of a
fluxgate magnetic compass in Sec. 164.72(a)(4), because of the reliance
of this type of compass on external power.
The Coast Guard also considered and rejected an absolute
requirement that every towing vessel carry a magnetic compass. It
decided to provide towing vessels operating solely on rivers with a
swing-meter exemption from this requirement, for the following reasons:
(1) On rivers traffic essentially flows up or down the rivers. (2) On
rivers masters or other operators are continually changing course so as
to account for currents, eddies, and bends, without reference to
magnetic headings. (3) While most nautical charts or maps display a
compass rose, most river maps display just a ``north marker.'' And (4),
although a magnetic compass would furnish some information on the swing
of a vessel, a purpose-built swing-meter furnishes more.
7. Swing-Meter. During both the public meeting and the meeting of
the TSAC working group, the Coast Guard heard repeated testimony that
on winding rivers a magnetic compass was less useful than a swing-meter
(rate-of-turn indicator). The TSAC working group ultimately advised
against a requirement of swing-meters, but even it acknowledged that
they are often of immense value to vessels pushing barges ahead on
rivers and inland waters.
To accommodate areas where a swing-meter may be of more
navigational use than a magnetic compass, Sec. 164.72(a)(4)(i) would
allow a towing vessel to have either a swing-meter or a magnetic
compass if operating solely on rivers and Western rivers. It would not
allow this for every towing vessel operating within these waters. A
vessel that also operates in or crosses large port areas where its
heading is needed to navigate and where charts or maps are available
with compass roses should carry a magnetic compass. The COTP can
clarify in advance whether a specific towing vessel may substitute a
swing-meter for a magnetic compass.
8. Echo depth-sounding device (depth-sounder). Proposed
Sec. 164.72(a)(5) would require a depth-sounder aboard every towing
vessel on any waters except rivers and Western rivers. The Coast Guard
considers a depth-sounder a valuable navigational tool on any waters,
including rivers. It can not only provide immediate information on
depth but also assist in fixing position.
On rivers where depth fluctuates with the gauge, a depth-sounder
furnishes useful information for the return trip and, when the mariner
annotates a chart or map as he or she goes, lets him or her correlate
gauges with depths. Nevertheless, on rivers the actual use--as distinct
from the abstract utility--of a depth-sounder can prove problematic. A
portable depth-sounder may make more sense aboard a lead barge than an
installed one makes aboard a towing vessel itself; yet aboard a lead
barge a depth-sounder runs the greatest risk of damage from ice or
flotsam. Therefore, on rivers, both whether and where to deploy a
depth-sounder would remain within the discretion of the owner,
operator, or master of the towing vessel.
Proposed Sec. 164.72(a)(5) would exempt a towing vessel operating
solely on rivers and Western rivers from the requirement for a depth-
sounder. This exemption is not meant to include every towing vessel
operating within these waters. A vessel that also operates in or
crosses large port areas where water depth helps to fix the vessel's
position should carry a depth-sounder. The COTP can clarify in advance
whether a specific towing vessel must carry a depth-sounder.
The Coast Guard recognizes that owners or operators of vessels
would need to research depth-sounders' availability. Installation is
also generally completed during a vessel's drydock period. Therefore,
proposed Sec. 164.72(a)(5) would require the depth-sounder 5 years
after the effective date of the final rule.
9. Electronic position-fixing device. This proposed rule would
require in Sec. 164.72(a)(6) an electronic position-fixing device
aboard each towing vessel operating seaward of the navigable waters of
the U.S. or over three nautical miles from shore on the Great Lakes.
Such devices--usually, receivers for either LORAN-C or a Global-
Positioning System (GPS)--have become essential pieces of navigational
equipment aboard vessels operating out of sight of land. Most if not
all offshore towing vessels already, voluntarily, carry these devices.
The TSAC working group recommended carriage of these devices. The cost
of receivers from LORAN-C and GPS continues to decline; reliability
continues to improve.
The Coast Guard considered requiring the carriage of electronic
position-fixing devices by all towing vessels, but decided against it.
First, fixes stated in latitude and longitude on inland waterways are
now of little use to the mariner, because few charts and maps of rivers
give latitude and longitude. Second, although Electronic Chart Display
and Information System (ECDIS) may someday display real-time fixes on
charts or maps generated electronically, requiring ECDIS would be
premature until standards for the devices are adopted by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the devices are shown to
be accurate and reliable. (Because differential GPS, or dGPS, already
affords great accuracy and reliability, the Coast Guard recommends that
anyone in the market for a new device consider a receiver that either
picks up a dGPS signal by itself or works with a differential
receiver.)
10a. Charts or maps and publications.
Charts or maps. Proposed Sec. 164.72(b)(1) would require that every
towing vessel carry charts or their equivalent for the areas it
transits. The TSAC working group, as well as individual participants in
the public meeting, thought carriage of such charts or maps a sound
idea.
The Coast Guard recognizes that, on many of the Western rivers and
other inland waters, the National Ocean Service does not provide charts
or maps. There, the rule specifically allows the use of maps from the
Army Corps of Engineer or other river authority. One chart or map would
suffice on towing vessels transiting rivers where only one is
available.
The charts or maps would have to employ a suitable scale and
contain suitable detail for safe navigation. (1) General charts or
maps, scaled from 1:600,000 down to 1:150,000, would be suitable only
for plotting a course well offshore; they contain too little detail for
a towing vessel approaching shore. (2) Coastal charts or maps, scaled
from 1:150,000 down to 1:50,000, are suitable for navigating inside
offshore reefs and shoals, entering bays and harbors of appreciable
size, and plying certain inland waterways. (3) Harbor charts or maps,
scaled from 1:50,000 down, furnish details of harbors, anchorages, and
small waterways. (4) Small-craft charts or maps furnish details of
particular use to smaller craft; they are usually produced in strip
format, which makes them useful on inland waterways.
This proposed rule would also require the chart or map to be
``currently corrected'' or be the ``current edition.'' These terms
refer both to the edition of the chart or map and to corrections to it.
Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 7-86
entitled ``Information on the Adequacy and Currency of Nautical
Charts'' addresses in detail the need for current nautical charts or
maps on ships, and much of its commentary applies to towing vessels as
well. Specifically, a
[[Page 55894]]
new edition of a chart or map often shows data such as new survey
information, new structures, or a change in the chart's or map's datum
that would not appear in a Notice to Mariners. Therefore, even a
corrected chart or map, if superseded, may pose a risk to mariners. The
Coast Guard recognizes that current editions of charts or maps are not
always reasonably available. Where they are not, the Coast Guard would
allow the use of a currently corrected edition.
Members of the public questioned the need for the most current
editions of charts or maps on rivers, noting that owners, operators, or
masters of towing vessels often extensively annotate their charts or
maps with information on shoaling, currents, and so forth. While this
annotation enhances the usefulness of superseded charts or maps, most
charts or maps published by the National Ocean Service are updated when
the number of corrections reach a predetermined threshold. River maps
published by the Army Corps of Engineers are updated every few years.
The Coast Guard has determined that the burden of transferring personal
annotations to a new edition of a chart or map on such an occasional
basis is far outweighed by the increase in accuracy and reliability of
a current chart or map. Therefore, for vessels that operate solely in
U.S. navigable waters and on routes that are frequent, short, and
generally limited to a few well-annotated charts or maps,
Sec. 164.72(b)(1)(ii)(A) would require the carriage of current editions
of charts or maps on board.
``Currently corrected'' refers to the incorporation of corrective
notices to a current edition of a chart or map that appear in Notices
to Mariners. These notices, published by the Coast Guard and the
Defense Mapping Agency (the Army Corps of Engineers also publishes
Notices to Navigation), provide essential navigational information
about specific waterways, weekly, including information on the location
of dredging, obstructions in waterways, and changes in location of aids
to navigation. Many towing companies indicated that they routinely use
facsimile machines to transmit these notices to their vessels. However,
during the public meeting there was some concern that the most recent
Notices to Mariners might not always arrive on time. The Coast Guard is
addressing this concern and is exploring the possibility of an
electronic-bulletin-board system. Therefore, for vessels that operate
seaward of U.S. navigable waters, and three nautical miles or more from
shore on the Great Lakes, and on routes offshore, and for vessels that
generally rely on several corrected charts or maps,
Sec. 164.72(b)(1)(ii)(B) would require the carriage of corrected charts
or maps on board. To limit the administrative burden on operators or
masters, this rule would require the entry only of those changes
applicable to the vessel's transit and reasonably available to the
operators or masters. For example, a towing vessel with a 3-meter draft
would not have to update depths in a shallow creek used by recreational
boaters.
Publications. Every towing vessel would have to carry appropriate
navigational-safety publications for the areas where it operated. These
publications provide crucial information beyond that found on charts or
maps: bridges' clearances and terms of openings; channels for use on
radio; local limits on speed or other activities; currents; and timely
advice on hazards to navigation. The publications required by proposed
Sec. 164.72(b)(2) for the most part follow those recommended by the
TSAC working group. For these publications as for charts or maps,
``currently corrected'' implies recency and relevance. The act of
shifting information from notices to publications would cost each
mariner around 20 minutes a week, and this slight expenditure of time
would bring two big benefits. It would force the mariner into the
notices, and it would leave him or her with accurate publications for
ready reference.
10b. Public comment on marine charts or maps and publications. Six
comments addressed the recommendation of the study by the Coast Guard,
that charts (including maps) and publications be carried aboard towing
vessels. Three of these six supported this recommendation for charts or
maps. Two more of these six also supported this recommendation for
current or corrected publications, and one of these two further
contended that a requirement of this nature would enhance the safety of
personnel and the environment. The other also suggested that the Coast
Guard consider size of vessel and area of operation while developing
these requirements.
Proposed Sec. 164.72(b) would require charts or maps and
publications that cover a vessel's operational area. It does not,
however, take account of a vessel's size, except as it distinguishes by
applicability between vessels of 8 or more meters in length and other
vessels.
One comment opposed using river charts or maps for navigation. It
contended that these charts or maps are unreliable because constant
changes in the river make them outdated and because few show sets,
depths, drafts, or accurate sailing lines. It added that the
information on the charts or maps is often overly condensed, readable
only by use of a magnifying glass.
The Coast Guard, recognizing the limits of some river charts or
maps, believes charts or maps a necessary navigational tool. Individual
annotation of river charts or maps adds to their utility.
One comment argued that charts or maps and publications aboard
towing vessels on rivers should comprise charts or maps from the Army
Corps of Engineers, Light Lists, Notices to Mariners with changes to
charts or maps, and notices of regattas. (a) One comment urged that the
Coast Guard accept charts or maps with changes added by hand, as well
as recent charts or maps, in fulfillment of any requirement for charts
or maps. (b) The same comment argued that updating publications daily
is unnecessary--and a requirement of it unjustified--and suggested that
the Coast Guard implement a system of looseleaf binders into which
recently corrected pages could be inserted. This comment also urged
that, because broadcasts to mariners by the Coast Guard are too
infrequent and often are hard to understand, the Coast Guard develop a
system of electronic Notices to Mariners under which current
information could reach mariners at once but which, once printed, could
be preserved for future reference.
The Coast Guard has allowed for the use of river charts or maps
from the Army Corps of Engineers in appropriate areas. It understands
the value of charts or maps with changes added by hand, but it does not
regard out-of-date charts or maps, even ones annotated with care, as
equivalent to current charts or maps. The Coast Guard is addressing the
system of Notice to Mariners in a separate initiative and has included
the issue of electronic updating within its scope rather than dealing
with it piecemeal here.
11. Towline and terminal gear. Proposed Secs. 164.74 and 164.76
would establish standards of minimal adequacy for towing hawsers, wire-
rope towing cable, and associated gear and for their inspection and
serviceability. Several participants in the public meeting noted that,
unlike a conventional vessel, a towing vessel cannot navigate at all
without taking account of another vessel or the equivalent: its tow. So
an essential part of the overall navigation of a towing vessel is the
gear making that vessel fast to its tow. Towlines and associated gear
must be appropriate and must remain
[[Page 55895]]
intact throughout a voyage to ensure the safety of all mariners and of
the environment.
Towing astern. To reflect current standards of industry, this
proposed rule would codify guidelines developed by TSAC as set out by
the Coast Guard in its NVIC 5-92, ``Guidelines for Wire Rope Towing
Hawsers.'' But, for a vessel towing astern, this rule would go beyond
NVIC 5-92 in two respects. It would require adherence to specific
standards for inspection and serviceability. And, to ensure that these
governed a towline wherever used, it would require that both an initial
purchaser and any subsequent purchaser become aware of a towline's
load-carrying capacity.
First, strength is of the essence. Towing vessels are the prime
movers and sole providers of navigation for the barges, vessels, and
objects they are towing. Towlines and associated gear enable them to
transmit the forces necessary to maneuver their tows, and they can
operate only within the limits of their gear. Undersize (understrength)
towlines may break or, at best, reduce their--and therefore their
tows'--ability to maneuver.
Proposed Sec. 164.74(a) would require the owner, operator, or
master of a vessel engaged in towing astern to ensure that towlines
used to tow a barge, vessel, or other object meet certain minimum
standards. The sizing ratio between a towing vessel's bollard-pull
capability and the towline is crucial. Manufacturers, classification
societies, and organizations such as the Cordage Institute provide
extensive sizing guidelines listed by a towing vessel's bollard-pull
capability, its horsepower rating, or a towline's working-load limit.
The Coast Guard would have the mariner evaluate the intended use of the
towline, the capabilities of the towing vessel, and other conditions as
detailed in Sec. 164.74(a)(1) to determine the appropriate towline size
rather than setting specific ratios. This approach should keep the
requirements flexible and accommodate technological advances in towline
materials.
Second, strength must be readily ascertainable by any user.
Towlines often pass among owners of towing vessels. Judging a used
towline by the manufacturer's data (or the original tensile test) may
lead to a false sense of its minimum breaking strength. A new owner,
operator, or master should know the strength of the used towline before
counting on the towline. This proposed rule would require a new owner
to ascertain that strength.
Third, marlinspike seamanship, winches, and chafing gear affect
towline strength. This proposed rule would require freedom from knots
and, except in specified circumstances, from terminations in wire
clips. It would also require winches that evenly spool and tightly wind
towlines. These would extend the life of the towlines by reducing the
dangers of crushing, kinking, and rusting.
Fourth, proper maintenance carried out according to regular
inspections preserves strength. Plain fatigue may weaken towlines.
Sections 164.74(a)(3)(iii) and (iv) propose visual inspections of
towlines and assessments of their suitability by people who know what
they are looking at; can do something to correct any problems found
with it; and would inspect it at a frequency appropriate for the
deterioration rate or at least appropriate for the important role the
towline plays in navigation safety. Recognizing towline deterioration
is not an easy task. Material, environment, and many other factors can
affect the deterioration rate of a towline. Manufacturers' guides,
training manuals, text books, and other guidelines are available for
most materials used to construct towlines. By keeping the requirements
general, the proposed rule would accommodate technological advances in
towline materials and lets the owner, master, or operator tailor a
towline-replacement schedule to specific towline use. The proposed
requirement to record the inspections would ensure that personnel are
aware of the towline's history.
Fifth, safety for the towing vessel and its tow is imperative.
Safety of both the vessel and in some instances the barge is addressed
by Sec. 164.74(b)(4), which would require an emergency means to
disconnect the towline from the vessel. Section 164.74(b)(7) would also
require a winch brake capable of controlling the towline as it pays
out, even if power to the winch is lost.
Pushing ahead or alongside. The Coast Guard and the TSAC working
group also discussed towing vessels pushing ahead or alongside. Their
gear is very different from conventional towlines, and general
guidelines have not been developed. This proposed rule would recognize
this, and in Sec. 164.76 would require that owners, masters, or
operators assess their gear for suitability. However, it does not
detail requirements for size, maintenance, or serviceability. Further
research and assessment of this type of gear is being done by a TSAC
working group to determine whether additional guidance is necessary.
The Coast Guard is soliciting comments on any guidance that would be
appropriate to improve the safety of pushing ahead or towing alongside.
12. Navigation underway: towing vessels. This proposed rule would
also require in Sec. 164.78 that towing vessels operate under a
regulatory regime similar to the navigational-safety regulations for
self-propelled vessels of 1,600 or more gross tons when underway on the
navigable waters of the United States [compare 33 CFR 164.11]. After
all, towing vessels resemble these vessels in many relevant respects.
They may handle barges, vessels, or other objects quite as large,
various, and hard to control as are these vessels and so may demand
equivalent expertise at maneuvering, especially in the various
conditions of weather and current that often prevail on the rivers.
This regime would apply regardless of the tows' configurations and of
those conditions. It would govern both navigational equipment and
operation. It would require that, before the towing of barges, vessels,
or objects, the owners, operators, or masters of the towing vessels
confirm the presence aboard in working order of the necessary gear and
check and consider the weather and aids to and other means of
navigation while they determine appropriate speed, lights, lookouts,
and maneuvering.
13. Tests and inspections. Proposed Sec. 164.80 would require that
towing vessels test their navigational and control navigational
equipment under a regulatory regime similar to the navigational-safety
regulations for self-propelled vessels of 1,600 GT or more, detailed in
33 CFR 164.25. Verification of the navigational equipment to be used
for maneuvering is essential and can prevent emergencies from arising
during crucial transits. In addition, a basic inspection of the
navigational equipment used to control the towing vessel, including the
towline and terminal gear, would ensure that these essential systems
are ready for use. The Coast Guard views the proposed tests and
inspections as the least necessary to ascertain whether the vessel is
prepared to safely navigate.
14. Maintenance, failure, and reporting. Proposed Sec. 164.82 would
require that owners, masters, and operators maintain navigational
equipment in effective working order. Degraded, poorly maintained
equipment can give them a false sense of security and prove more
dangerous than inoperative equipment. Modern commercial-grade
navigational equipment needs little maintenance and adjustment, but
even this equipment may suffer damage by power surges or
[[Page 55896]]
improper installation. Older equipment needs appreciably more
maintenance and adjustment; for example, slow degradation of radar
performance over time may go unnoticed unless dealer-prescribed
maintenance and checks take place.
Logs of inoperative equipment reflect the working order of a
vessel's equipment to the owner, master, or operator. This proposed
rule would require that owners, masters, or operators record
inoperative equipment when it fails. This requirement would be similar
to though less burdensome than the requirement for ships (compare 33
CFR 164.55). It is based on recommendations from the TSAC working
group. Several people attending the public meeting suggested that the
rule require only that the operator or master use due diligence to
repair inoperative equipment in a timely way. The prompt recording of
``down'' equipment would certify the time of failure and would
emphasize to the owners, masters, and operators the impact of
inoperative equipment on the seaworthiness of towing vessels. For
instance, where a vessel's only radar set fails during a voyage, the
operator must enter the failure in the log and reckon his or her
reduced capabilities (the vessel may continue the voyage if the
dictates of good seamanship applied to the weather and other
circumstances suggest the safety of continuing the voyage.). Even then,
however, the operator must use due diligence to arrange for repairs.
Reporting inoperative equipment serves to notify the Coast Guard of
the state of that equipment. The Coast Guard needs to know this when a
vessel enters a traffic-dense area, such as a Vessel Traffic Service
Area, or when the failure of a certain piece of equipment could
severely hamper safe navigation. Under Sec. 164.82(d), an owner,
master, or operator would have to ask permission to deviate from the
rules if he or she wanted to continue to operate his or her vessel with
an inoperative radar 96 hours after it had failed. The Coast Guard
expects that this permissive ``deviation'' from normal requirements
would be invoked seldom. For radar sets, technical representatives and
spare parts are available within 96 hours except in extraordinary
cases.
Incorporation by Reference
The following material would be incorporated by reference in
Sec. 164.03: API Specification 9A, Section 3, ``Properties and Tests
for Wire and Wire Rope''; ASTM D4268-93, ``Standard Methods of Testing
Fiber Ropes''; CIA-3, ``Standard Test Methods including Required
Terminations''; RTCM Paper 71-95/SC112-STD, ``RTCM Recommended
Standards for Marine Radar Equipment Installed on Ships of Less Than
300 Tons Gross Tonnage, Version 1.1''; and RTCM Paper 191-93/SC112-STD,
``RTCM Recommended Standards for Marine Radar Equipment Installed on
Ships of 300 Tons Gross Tonnage and Upwards, Version 1.3.'' Copies of
the material are available from the sources listed in Sec. 164.03.
Copies of the material are available, for inspection only, where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
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 draft Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory
policies and procedures of DOT has been prepared and is available in
the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A
summary follows.
This rule would apply to all towing vessels greater than 8 meters
(26.25 feet) in length operating in U.S. waters. These vessels would
have to retain manufacturing specifications on towlines and regularly
maintain and inspect them. They would have to carry updated charts or
maps and publications, marine radar, and searchlights. Some (depending
on service) would also have to carry magnetic compasses or swing-
meters, depth-sounders, and electronic position-fixing devices.
Summary of Benefits
The principal benefits of this proposed rule would be to enhance
safety of navigation and reduce the risk of collisions, allisions, and
groundings.
The allision in September, 1993, of a tow with a fixed railroad
bridge near Mobile, Alabama, established the necessity of navigational-
safety equipment for towing vessels. These requirements would reduce
damage to the environment by increasing the number of tools at the
disposal of a vessel operator, thereby decreasing the likelihood of an
accident.
The preliminary findings of studies prepared after the derailment
of the Sunset Limited indicate that many owners and operators of towing
vessels voluntarily equip their vessels with much of the proposed gear.
Review of the kind and amount of equipment voluntarily installed
suggests the desirability of the industry's taking these proposed
navigational-safety measures. In addition, reliability and performance
of modern navigational equipment has improved, which also suggests that
mariners are being provided with valued, accurate information. The
benefits of each piece of gear being proposed are as follows:
A marine surface-navigation radar is an essential piece of
navigational-safety equipment. Not only does it aid in detecting and
avoiding other vessels; it helps in constricted waterways and during
periods of decreased visibility.
A searchlight also helps in restricted waterways. And it is
essential in checking the condition of tows and warning other vessels
of the presence of towlines.
A magnetic compass indicates headings, which are critical to safe
navigation of vessels in open waters. It allows dead-reckoning in
restricted visibility, enables the vessel to fix its position, helps
the vessel to determine the effect of winds and currents, and tells the
rate of turn for the tow.
A swing-meter, or rate-of-turn indicator, tells the rate of turn
for the towing vessel itself, which is valuable for every vessel
pushing ahead and is critical for any large, multiple-barge tow pushing
ahead. TSAC has indicated the considerable value of this device to a
vessel pushing ahead.
A depth-sounder decreases the risk of grounding. It provides
immediate information on depth, and also helps fix the vessel's
position.
An electronic position-fixing device has become a basic
navigational tool on board both offshore and coastal vessels. It
supplants plotting by traditional means, for which few towing vessels
have either the time or the personnel.
Updated charts or maps and publications have always been a basic
navigational tool. They give detailed, recent information on
obstructions, routes, bridge clearances, communication channels, river
currents, and hazards to navigation.
Finally, owners' and operators' retention of manufacturers' data on
the breaking strength of towlines, together with minimal standards of
inspection and serviceability, would help to ensure that towlines
remain intact throughout transits and are of the appropriate sizes or
configurations. The desirability of
[[Page 55897]]
keeping tugs made up to their barges appears self-evident.
All of these requirements essentially serve the same purpose: to
increase navigational safety for towing vessels and barges on U.S.
waters. Although the Coast Guard recognizes that many prudent operators
already satisfy them, this rule would codify them, provide basic
performance standards for the gear, and compel compliance for vessels
not conforming to the sound practices of the majority of the industry.
The benefits from these proposed requirements are significant. But
the Coast Guard cannot quantify them from available data.
Summary of Costs
The present value of the costs to the towing industry of installing
the proposed navigational equipment is, on a very conservative
estimate, just under $31.5 million. This estimate is based on Coast
Guard research. It assumes that a high proportion of vessels do not
already carry the proposed equipment, and does not factor in the
difference in requirements for the difference in routes. Therefore,
although it does not include costs for maintenance and repair, the
Coast Guard expects that the actual value of the costs to the industry
will run significantly lower than $31.5 million.
The estimated cost for towing vessels 20 meters (65.62 feet) or
more in length totals $9.9 million; this comes to about $4,600 a
vessel. That for those between 8 and 20 meters totals $21.5 million;
this comes to about $7,000 a vessel. The average cost for smaller
vessels, paradoxically, is higher than that for larger ones because the
Coast Guard's estimating methodology assumes that a larger proportion
of smaller vessels do not already carry the proposed navigational-
safety equipment.
This proposed rule would impose recurring costs in following years.
There would be three annual components of recurring costs: updates,
deviations, and towline testing. (a) Estimated cost of updates would be
$520,000 a year for the purchase of new editions of charts or maps and
publications as necessary. (b) Estimated costs of deviations would be
about $50,000 a year, assuming 1,237 of them a year. This number is low
because the rule would allow 96 hours to make any necessary repairs.
This is to decrease the burden on industry, especially on small
entities. (c) Finally, estimated cost of towline testing would be about
$300 a test. At 1,041 tests a year (20 percent of vessels), this
component would be $312,000 a year. These three annual components of
recurring costs would total $882,000.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposed rule, if adopted, would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-
for-profit organizations that are not dominant in their field and (2)
governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
This proposed rule would require towing vessels to carry and
properly use certain navigational-safety equipment and to meet
requirements for serviceability and inspection of towlines. It would
apply to all towing vessels 8 meters (26.25 feet) or more in length
operating on the navigable waters of the United States, except for
certain yard and fleeting craft used in restricted service and for
towing vessels engaged solely in rescue and assistance.
Voluntary carriage of the navigational-safety equipment addressed
in this proposed rule is standard in the industry, and those vessels
without equipment, charts or maps, and publications are the exception.
The costs of this rule would consist of those incurred by enterprises,
marginal in a legal if not an economic sense, to achieve compliance.
For those owners, masters, or operators required to purchase equipment,
charts or maps, and publications, the costs would be low in comparison
with the value of their towing vessel, and in comparison with the
damage that could be caused by an accident or a spill.
This proposed rule would provide a 1-year phase-in period for new
radar, a 2-year phase-in period for extant radar, and a 5-year phase-in
period for depth-sounders. The phase-in periods would let affected
entities schedule conversions during normal downtime periods, and would
permit small entities sufficient time to explore the market, line up
capital, and arrange contracts in advance with retailers. Many
suppliers are carrying excess capacity, and bargaining power should
favor the small operators with the foresight to take advantage of the
grace conferred by phase-in periods.
Because this proposed rule would exempt towing vessels of less than
8 meters in length, certain yard and fleeting craft, and assistance-
towing vessels, because of the large number of vessels already in
compliance, and because of the phase-in periods for several provisions,
the Coast Guard certifies that this rule would not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If, however, you think that your business or organization qualifies
as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on your business or organization, please submit a
comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and in
what way and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
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 proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
in the following sections: 164.72(b), 164.74(a), 164.78(b), and
164.82(b) through 164.82(d). The following particulars apply:
DOT No.: 2115.
OMB Control No.: 2115-AE91
Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.
Title: Navigational-Safety Equipment for Towing Vessels
Need for Information: This proposed rule would require the mariner to
log or otherwise record information necessary for the safe operation of
the vessel. These recordkeeping requirements are largely consistent
with good commercial practices and the dictates of good seamanship for
safe navigation and maintenance of critical navigational-safety
equipment. The following is a section-by-section justification of the
collection requirements.
Proposed Sec. 164.72(b) would require towing vessels to have on
board and maintain navigational charts or maps, and publications.
Carriage and proper updating of these charts or maps is essential for
safe navigation and is consistent with the dictates of good seamanship.
Proposed Sec. 164.74(a) would require owners, masters, or operators
to obtain written verification of towline strength and to maintain this
verification either on board the vessel or in company records. It would
also require monthly records of towline inspection. Recording of this
information is necessary to ensure that the mariner knows the minimum
breaking strength of the towline, and is aware of any unusual stress on
or wear to the line.
[[Page 55898]]
Proposed Sec. 164.78(b) would require a log entry or other onboard
documentation of tests and inspections of equipment. Recording is
necessary to provide inspectors of the Coast Guard or the company a
written record ensuring performance of the required tests and
inspections.
Proposed Secs. 164.82(b)-(d) would require a record of inoperative
navigational-safety equipment and a request for a deviation from these
proposed rules if the radar is inoperative for 96 hours or more. This
information is necessary because it lets towing vessels continue to
operate when extraordinary circumstances make repair of inoperative
navigational-safety equipment impracticable and there is no degradation
of navigation safety in the vessels' continued operation.
Proposed Use of Information: The primary use of this information
would be to ensure that the mariner records information necessary for
the safe operation and maintenance of the vessel. The secondary use
would be to help Coast Guard inspectors to determine whether a vessel
is in compliance or, in the case of a casualty, whether failure to meet
this proposed rule contributed to the casualty. The Coast Guard has no
specific plan to collect these data for statistical analysis.
Frequency of Response: The various information called for by this
proposed rule would be recorded at different intervals. Updates of
charts or maps and publications under proposed Sec. 164.72(b) would be
recorded weekly. Towline verification would require, for each towline,
recording (though not submittal) of initial manufacturing data once and
retainment indefinitely. Entries in inspection logs or other
documentation for towlines under proposed Sec. 164.74(a) would require
recording at least monthly. The recording under proposed Sec. 164.78(b)
of tests and inspections of equipment would be frequent, and consistent
with the underway schedule of the vessel. Finally, the recording of
inoperative equipment and the submittal of requests for deviations
under proposed Secs. 164.82(b) through (d) would occur infrequently,
when certain navigational-safety equipment fails at all or certain
other equipment is inoperative for greater than 96 hours.
Burden Estimate: 336,102.08 hours.
Respondents: 5,203 owners, masters, or operators of towing vessels.
Average Burden Hours A Respondent: 64.6 annual hours a respondent.
The Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to OMB for review
under sub-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 proposed rule under the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has
determined that this rule does not have sufficient implications for
federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
rule and concluded that, under paragraphs 2.B.2e(34) (d) and (e) of
Commandant Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded
from further environmental documentation. This rule concerns only
equipment approval. Approved equipment should contribute to the
reduction of the occurrences of ship-generated oil spills in the marine
environment. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in
the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 164
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 164 as follows:
PART 164--NAVIGATION SAFETY REGULATIONS
1. The citation of authority for Part 164 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3703; 49 CFR
1.46. Sec. 164.13 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 8502. Sec. 164.61 also
issued under 46 U.S.C. 6101.
2. In Sec. 164.01, paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 164.01 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Sections 164.70 through 164.82 of this part apply to each
towing vessel of 8 meters (26.25 feet) or more in length operating in
the navigable waters of the United States other than the St. Lawrence
Seaway; except that a towing vessel is exempt from the requirements of
Sec. 164.72 if it is used solely--
(1) Within a limited geographic area, such as a particular
fleeting-area for barges or commercial facility, and used solely for
restricted service, such as making up or breaking up larger tows; or
(2) For assistance towing as defined by 46 CFR 10.103.
3. Section 164.03 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 164.03 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) The materials approved for incorporation by reference in this
part and the sections affected are as follows:
American Petroleum Institute (API);
1220 L Street, Northwest, Washington, DC 20005, API
Specification 9A, Section 3, Properties and Tests for
Wire and Wire rope, 1984.............................. 164.74
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. ASTM D4268-
93, Standard Methods of Testing Fiber Ropes, 1993..... 164.74
Cordage Institute:
350 Lincoln Street, Hingham, MA 02043, CIA-3, Standard
Test Methods including Required Terminations, 6/80.... 164.74
International Maritime Organization (IMO):
4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, U.K., IMO
Resolution A342(IX), Recommendation on Performance
Standards for Automatic Pilots, adopted November 12,
1975.................................................. 164.13
International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication
Bureau (ITU-R):
Place de Nations CH-1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland:
(1) ITU-R Recommendation M.821, Optional Expansion of
the Digital Selective-Calling System for use in the
Maritime Mobile Service, 1992......................... 164.43
(2) ITU-R Recommendation M.825, Characteristics of a
Transponder System using Digital Selective-Calling
Techniques for use with Vessel Traffic Services and
Ship-to-Ship Identification, 1992..................... 164.43
Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services:
655 Fifteenth St., N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005:
(1) [Paper 12-78/DO-100], Minimum Performance
Standards, Loran C Receiving Equipment, 12/20/77...... 164.41
(2) [Paper 194-93/SC104-STD], RTCM Recommended
Standards for Differential NAVSTAR GPS Service,
Version 2.1, 1994..................................... 164.43
[[Page 55899]]
(3) [Paper 71-95/SC112-STD], RTCM Recommended Standards
for Marine Radar Equipment Installed on Ships of Less
Than 300 Tons Gross Tonnage, Version 1.1, 1995........ 164.72
(4) [Paper 191-93/SC112-STD], RTCM Recommended
Standards for Marine Radar Equipment Installed on
Ships of 300 Tons Gross Tonnage and Upwards, Version
1.3, 1993............................................. 164.72
4. Sections 164.70, 164.72, 164.74, 164.76, 164.78, 164.80, and
164.82 are added to read as follows:
Sec. 164.70 Definitions.
For the purposes of Secs. 164.72 through 164.82, the term--
Current edition means the most recent published version of a
publication, chart, or map required by Sec. 164.72.
Currently corrected means a current or previous edition of a
publication required by Sec. 164.72, corrected with changes that come
from Notices to Mariners or Notices to Navigation reasonably available
and that apply to the vessel's transit.
Departing from port means departing from an anchorage or facility
for a transit beyond U.S. navigable waters as established in 33 CFR
2.05-25.
Great Lakes means the Great Lakes and their connecting and
tributary waters including the Calumet River as far as the Thomas J.
O'Brien Lock and Controlling Works (between miles 326 and 327), the
Chicago River as far as the east side of the Ashland Avenue Bridge
(between miles 321 and 322), and the Saint Lawrence River as far east
as the lower exit of Saint Lambert Lock.
River means any river, canal, or other, similar body of water
designated by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
Swing-meter means an electronic or electric device that indicates
the rate of turn of the vessel on board which it is installed.
Towing vessel means a commercial vessel engaged in or intending to
engage in the service of pulling, pushing, or hauling along side, or
any combination of pulling, pushing, or hauling along side.
Western rivers means the Mississippi River, its tributaries, South
Pass, and Southwest Pass, to the navigational-demarcation lines
dividing the high seas from harbors, rivers, and other inland waters of
the United States, and the Port Allen--Morgan City Alternative Route,
and that part of the Atchafalaya River above its junction with the Port
Allen--Morgan City Alternative Route including the Old River and the
Red River and those waters specified by 33 CFR 89.25.
Sec. 164.72 Navigational-safety equipment, charts or maps, and
publications required on towing vessels.
(a) Except as provided by Sec. 164.01(b) (1) and (2), each towing
vessel must be equipped with the following navigational-safety
equipment:
(1) Marine radar. By [date 1 year after the effective date of the
final rule.], a marine radar that meets the following applicable
requirements:
(i) For a vessel of less than 300 gross tons that engages in towing
on navigable waters of the U.S., including rivers and Western rivers,
the radar must meet--
(A) The requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
specified by 47 CFR Part 80; and
(B) RTCM Standard for Marine Radar Equipment Installed on Ships of
Less Than 300 Tons Gross Tonnage, RTCM Paper 71-95/SC112-STD, Version
1.1, display Category II and stabilization Category Bravo.
(ii) For a vessel of less than 300 gross tons that engages in
towing seaward of navigable waters of the U.S. or more than three
nautical miles from shore on the Great Lakes, the radar must meet--
(A) The requirements of the FCC specified by 47 CFR Part 80; and
(B) RTCM Standard for Marine Radar Equipment Installed on Ships of
Less Than 300 Tons Gross Tonnage, RTCM Paper 71-95/SC112-STD, Version
1.1, display Category I and stabilization Category Alpha.
(iii) For a vessel of 300 gross tons or more that engages in
towing, the radar must meet RTCM Recommended Standards for Marine Radar
Equipment Installed on Ships of 300 Tons Gross Tonnage and Upwards,
Version 1.3, RTCM Paper 191-93/SC112-STD.
(iv) A towing vessel with an existing radar must meet the
applicable requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) (i) through (iii) of this
section by [date 2 years after effective date of the final rule.];
except that a towing vessel with an existing radar must meet the
display and stabilization requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of
this section by [date 5 years after effective date of the final rule.].
(2) Searchlight. A searchlight, directable from the vessel's main
steering station and intense enough to help aid in navigation, docking,
and checking the condition of the tow.
(3) VHF-FM radio. An installation or multiple installations of VHF-
FM radios as prescribed by Part 26 of this chapter and 47 CFR Part 80,
to maintain a continuous listening watch on the designated calling
channel, VHF-FM Channel 13 (except on portions of the Lower Mississippi
River, where VHF-FM Channel 67 is the designated calling channel), and
to separately monitor the International Distress and Calling Channel,
VHF-FM Channel 16, except when transmitting or receiving traffic on
other VHF-FM channels or when participating in a Vessel Traffic Service
(VTS) or monitoring a channel of a VTS. (Each U.S. towing vessel of 26
feet (about 8 meters) or more in length, except a public vessel, must
hold a ship-radio station license for radio transmitters (including
radar and EPIRBS), and each operator must hold a restricted operator's
licence or higher. To get an application for either license, call (800)
418-FORM or (202) 418-FORM, or write to the FCC; Wireless Bureau,
Licensing Division; 1270 Fairfield Road; Gettysburg, PA 17325-7245.)
(4) Magnetic compass. Either--
(i) An illuminated swing-meter or card-type magnetic steering
compass readable from the vessel's main steering station, if the vessel
engages in towing exclusively on rivers or Western rivers; or
(ii) An illuminated card-type magnetic steering compass readable
from the vessel's main steering station.
(5) Echo depth-sounding device. By [date 5 years after the
effective date of the final rule.], an echo depth-sounding device
readable from the vessel's main steering station
FR Doc. 95-26900 Navigation Safety Equipment for Towing Vessels
, unless the vessel
engages in towing exclusively on rivers or Western rivers.
(6) Electronic position-fixing device. An electronic position-
fixing device, either a LORAN-C receiver or a satellite navigational
system such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) as required by
Sec. 164.41, if the vessel engages in towing seaward of navigable
waters of the U.S. or more than three nautical miles from shore on the
Great Lakes.
(b) Each towing vessel must carry on board and maintain the
following:
(1) Charts or maps. Marine charts or maps of the area to be
transited, published by the National Ocean Service, the Army Corps of
Engineers, or a river authority that are--
(i) Of a large enough scale and have enough detail to make safe
navigation of the area possible; and
(ii) Either--
(A) The current edition, if the vessel engages in towing
exclusively on navigable waters of the U.S., including rivers and
Western rivers; or
(B) Currently corrected, if the vessel engages in towing seaward of
navigable
[[Page 55900]]
waters of the U.S. or more than three nautical miles from shore on the
Great Lakes.
(2) General publications. A currently corrected edition of, or an
applicable currently corrected extract from, each of the following
publications for the area to be transited:
(i) If the towing vessel is engaged in towing exclusively on rivers
and Western rivers--
(A) U.S. Coast Guard Light List;
(B) Applicable Notice to Navigation published by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, or Local Notice to Mariners published by the Coast
Guard, for the area to be transited, when available; and
(C) River-current tables published by the Army Corps of Engineers
or a river authority, if available.
(ii) If the vessel is engaged other than in towing exclusively on
rivers and Western rivers--
(A) Coast Guard Light List;
(B) Coast Guard Local Notice to Mariners;
(C) Tidal-current tables published by the National Ocean Service,
or river-current tables published by the Army Corps of Engineers or a
river authority;
(D) Tide tables published by the National Ocean Service; and
(E) U.S. Coast Pilot.
(3) Inland Navigation Rules. The owner, master, or operator of each
self-propelled vessel of 12 meters (39.38 feet) or more in length shall
carry on board and maintain for ready reference a current edition of
the Inland Navigation Rules as required by 33 CFR 88.05.
(c) Table 164.72, following, summarizes the navigational-safety
equipment, charts or maps, and publications required for towing vessels
of 8 meters or more in length engaged in towing:
Table 164.72.--Equipment, Charts, and Publications for Towing Vessels of 8 Meters or More in Length
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waters seaward of U.S.
U.S. navigable waters navigable waters and 3
Rivers and western rivers other than rivers or NM or more from shore on
western rivers the Great Lakes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Radar:
(1) Towing Vessels of Less than RTCM Paper 71-95/SC112- RTCM Paper 71-95/SC112- RTCM Paper 71-95/SC112-
300 GT. STD Version 1.1, Display STD Version 1.1, STD Version 1.1,
Category II\1\ Display Category II\1\ Display Category I\2\
Stabilization Category Stabilization Category Stabilization Category
BRAVO. BRAVO. ALPHA.
(2) Towing Vessels of 300 GT or RTCM Paper 191-93/SC112- RTCM Paper 191-93/SC112- RTCM Paper 191-93/SC112-
More. STD Version 1.3. STD Version 1.3. STD Version 1.3.
Searchlight...................... X X X
VHF-FM Radios.................... X X X
Magnetic Compass................. X\3\ X X
Swing-Meter...................... X\3\ ........................ ........................
Echo Depth--Sounding Device...... ......................... X X
Electronic Position--Fixing ......................... ........................ X
Device.
Charts or Maps................... (1) Large enough scale... (1) Large enough scale.. (1) Large enough scale.
(2) Current edition...... (2) Current edition..... (2) Currently corrected.
General Publications............. (1) U.S. Coast Guard (1) U.S. Coast Guard (1) U.S. Coast Guard
Light List. Light List. Light List.
(2) Notice to Navigator (2) Local Notice to (2) Local Notice to
or Local Notice to Mariners. Mariners.
Mariners.
(3) River Current Tables. (3) Tidal Current Tables (3) Tidal Current
Tables.
(4) Tide Tables......... (4) Tide Tables.
(5) U.S. Coast Pilot.... (5) U.S. Coast Pilot.
Inland Navigation Rules (if the X X X
vessel is of 12 meters or more
in length).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\Towing vessels with existing radar must meet this requirement by [Date 2 years after effective date of the
rule.]
\2\Towing vessels with existing radar must meet display and stablization requirements by [Date 5 years after
effective date of the rule.]
\3\Towing vessels may carry either a swing--meter or a magnetic compass.
Sec. 164.74 Towline and terminal gear for towing astern.
(a) Towline. The owner, master, or operator of each vessel towing
astern shall ensure that the strength of each towline is adequate for
its intended service, considering at least the following factors:
(1) The size and material of each towline must be--
(i) Appropriate for the horsepower or bollard pull of the vessel;
(ii) Appropriate for the static loads and dynamic loads expected
during the intended service;
(iii) Appropriate for the sea conditions expected during the
intended service;
(iv) Appropriate for the temperatures of normal stowage and service
on board the vessel;
(v) Compatible with associated navigational-safety equipment;
(vi) Appropriate for the likelihood of mechanical damage; and
(vii) Appropriate for exposure to the marine environment and to any
chemicals used or carried on board the vessel.
(2) Each towline as rigged must--
(i) Be free of knots;
(ii) Be spliced with a thimble, or have a poured socket at its end;
and
(iii) Be free of wire clips except for temporary repair. In the
case of temporary repair, the towline must have a thimble and either
five wire clips or as many wire clips as the manufacturer specifies for
the nominal diameter and construction of the towline, whichever is
more.
(3) The condition of each towline must be monitored through the--
(i) Keeping on board the towing vessel or in company files of a
record of the towline's initial minimum breaking strength as determined
by the manufacturer, by a recognized classification society, or by a
tensile test that meets API Specification 9A, Section 3; ASTM D4268-93;
or Cordage Institute CIA 3, Standard Test Methods;
(ii) Keeping on board the towing vessel or in company files of a
record of each retest of the towline's minimum
[[Page 55901]]
breaking strength as determined by a recognized classification society
or by a tensile test that meets API Specification 9A, Section 3; ASTM
D4268-93; or Cordage Institute CIA 3, Standard Test Methods, if the
towline is purchased from another owner, master, or operator of a
towing vessel with the intent to use it as a towline or if the towline
is retested for any reason;
(iii) Conducting of visual inspections of the towline in accordance
with the manufacturer's recommendations, or at least monthly, and
whenever the serviceability of the towline is in doubt (the inspections
must be conducted by the owner, master, or operator, or by a person on
whom the owner, master, or operator confers the responsibility to take
corrective measures appropriate for the use of the towline);
(iv) Evaluating of the serviceability of the whole towline or any
part of the towline, and removing the whole or part from service either
as recommended by the manufacturer or a recognized classification
society or in accordance with a replacement schedule developed by the
owner, master, or operator that accounts for at least the--
(A) Sea miles or time in service of the towline;
(B) Operating conditions experienced by the towline;
(C) History of loading, including any shock loading, of the
towline;
(D) Surface condition, including corrosion and discoloration, of
the towline;
(E) Amount of visible damage to the towline;
(F) Amount of material deterioration indicated by measurements of
diameter and, if applicable, of lay extension of the towline; and
(G) Point at which a tensile test proves the minimum breaking
strength of the towline inadequate by the standards of paragraph (a)(1)
of this section; and
(v) Keeping on board the towing vessel or in company files of a
record of the material condition of the towline when inspected under
paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section. Once this record lapses for
three months or more, except for a vessel that is laid up or out of
service or has not deployed its towline, the owner, master, or operator
shall retest the towline or remove it from service.
(b) Terminal gear. The owner, master, or operator of each vessel
towing astern shall ensure that the gear used to control, protect, and
connect each towline meets the following criteria:
(1) The material and size of the terminal gear are appropriate for
the strength and anticipated loading of the towline and for the
environment;
(2) Each connection is secured by at least one nut with at least
one cotter pin or other means of preventing its failure;
(3) The lead of the towline is appropriate to prevent sharp bends
in the towline from fairlead blocks, chocks, or tackle;
(4) There is provided a method, whether mechanical or non-
mechanical, of emergency release for the towline that does not endanger
operating personnel;
(5) The towline is protected from abrasion or chafing by chafing
gear, lagging, or other means;
(6) Except on board a vessel towing in ice on Western rivers or one
using a towline of synthetic or natural fiber, there is fitted a winch
that evenly spools and tightly winds the towline; and
(7) If a winch is fitted, there is attached to the main drum a
brake that has a holding power appropriate for the horsepower or
bollard pull of the towing vessel and can be operated without power to
the winch.
Sec. 164.76 Towline and terminal gear for towing alongside and pushing
ahead.
The owner, master, or operator of each vessel towing alongside or
pushing ahead shall ensure that the face wires, spring lines, and push
gear used are appropriate for the vessel's horsepower, are appropriate
for the arrangement of the tow, are frequently inspected, and remain
serviceable.
Sec. 164.78 Navigation underway: towing vessels.
(a) The owner, master, or operator of each vessel towing shall
ensure that each person directing and controlling the movement of the
vessel--
(1) Understands the arrangement of the tow and the effects of
maneuvering on the towing vessel and on the vessel, barge, or object
being towed;
(2) Can fix the position of the vessel using installed navigational
equipment, external fixed aids to navigation, geographic reference-
points, and hydrographic contours;
(3) Does not fix the position of the vessel using buoys alone
(Buoys are aids to navigation placed in approximate positions either to
alert mariners to hazards to navigation or to indicate the orientation
of a channel. They may not maintain exact charted positions, because
strong or varying currents, heavy seas, ice, and collisions with
vessels can move or sink them or set them adrift. Although they may
corroborate a position fixed by other means, they cannot fix a
position; however, if no other aids are available, buoys alone may
establish an estimated position.);
(4) Evaluates the danger of each closing visual or radar contact;
(5) Knows and applies the variation and deviation where a magnetic
compass is fitted and where charts or maps have enough detail to enable
this type of correction;
(6) Knows the current speed, current direction, set, drift, and
tidal state for the area to be transited; and
(7) Proceeds at a speed prudent for the weather, visibility,
traffic density, tow draft, possibility of wake damage, current speed,
and local speed-limits.
(b) The owner, master, or operator of each vessel towing shall
ensure that the tests and inspections required by Sec. 164.80 are
conducted and that the results are entered in the log or other record
carried on board.
Sec. 164.80 Tests and inspections.
(a) The owner, master, or operator of each towing vessel of less
than 1600 GT shall ensure that tests and inspections of gear occur
before departing from port or at least weekly, to include--
(1) Steering-systems. A test of the steering-gear-control system; a
test of the main steering gear from the alternative power supply, if
installed; a verification of the rudder-angle indicator relative to the
actual position of the rudder; and a visual inspection of the steering
gear and its linkage;
(2) Communications. Operation of all internal vessel-control
communications and vessel-control alarms, if installed;
(3) Lights. Operation of navigational lights and all searchlights;
(4) Terminal gear. Visual inspection of tackle; of connections of
bridle and towing pendant, if applicable; of chafing gear; and of
winch-brake mechanism, if installed; and
(5) Propulsion systems. Visual inspection of the spaces for main
propulsion machinery, of machinery, and of devices for monitoring
machinery.
(b) The owner, master, or operator of each towing vessel of 1600 GT
or more shall ensure that tests of equipment occur at the frequency
required by Sec. 164.25 and that inspections of gear occur before
departing from port or at least weekly, to include--
(1) Navigational equipment. Tests of onboard equipment as required
by Sec. 164.25; and
(2) Terminal gear. Visual inspection of tackle; of connections of
bridle and towing pendant, if applicable; of chafing gear; and of the
winch-brake mechanism, if installed.
Sec. 164.82 Maintenance, failure, and reporting.
(a) Maintenance. The owner, master, or operator of each towing
vessel shall
[[Page 55902]]
maintain operative, the navigational-safety equipment required by
Sec. 164.72.
(b) Failure. If any of the navigational-safety equipment required
by Sec. 164.72 fails during a voyage, the owner, master, or operator of
the towing vessel shall exercise due diligence to repair it at the
earliest practicable time. He or she shall enter its failure in the log
or other record carried on board. The failure of equipment, in itself,
does not constitute a violation of this rule; nor does it constitute
unseaworthiness per se; nor does it obligate an owner, master, or
operator to moor or anchor the vessel. However, the owner, master, or
operator shall consider the state of the equipment--along with such
factors as weather, visibility, traffic, and the dictates of good
seamanship--in deciding whether it is safe for the vessel to proceed.
(c) Reporting. The owner, master, or operator of each towing vessel
whose equipment is inoperative or otherwise impaired while the vessel
is operating within a Vessel Traffic Service Area shall report the fact
as required by 33 CFR 161.124.
(d) Deviation. The owner, master, or operator of each towing vessel
unable to repair within 96 hours an inoperative marine radar required
by Sec. 164.72(a) shall seek from the Captain of the Port both
deviation from the requirements of this section and authorization for
continued operation in the area to be transited. Failure of redundant
navigational-safety equipment, including but not limited to failure of
one of two installed radars, where both satisfy Sec. 164.72(a), does
not necessitate either deviation or authorization.
(1) The request for deviation must be written, must explain why
immediate repair is impracticable, and must state when and by whom the
repairs will be made.
(2) The Captain of the Port, upon written request, may, in writing,
authorize a deviation from any of the provisions of Secs. 164.70
through 164.82 for a specified, limited time if he or she decides that
the deviation would not impair the safe navigation of the vessel under
anticipated conditions.
Dated: September 26, 1995.
J.A. Creech,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Navigation Safety
and Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 95-26900 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26669 Policies of General Application
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55808-55811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26669]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 114
Policies of General Application
AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to President Clinton's regulatory review
directive, the Small Business Administration has completed a page-by-
page and line-by-line review of its regulations. As a result, SBA is
proposing to clarify and streamline its regulations, revising or
eliminating any duplicative, outdated, inconsistent or confusing
provisions. This proposed rule would reorganize the entire Part 114
covering administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act to
make it more clear and easier to use. It would also amend the Part to
streamline the review and adjustment of claims and provide for the use
of alternative dispute resolution in appropriate cases.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before December 4,
1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to David R. Kohler, Regulatory
Reform Team Leader (114), Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street
S.W., Suite 13, Washington, D.C. 20416.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Lane, Office of General Counsel,
at (202) 205-6879.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part 114 of chapter 1, 13 CFR contains
policies governing the presentment, review and handling of
administrative claims brought against the Federal Government for money
damages for injuries or death arising from the negligent or wrongful
act or omission of any employee of the Small Business Administration.
The rule would reorganize the entire Part 114 to make it more clear and
easier to use and amend it to create a more
[[Page 55809]]
efficient administrative process. It would eliminate from the process
the various boards of survey that now investigate and review claims,
and give Field District Counsel authority to review and adjust claims
of $5,000 or less and use alternative dispute resolution in appropriate
cases. (Boards of Survey would retain all other existing
responsibilities.)
Specifically, the rule would amend:
1. Section 114.100 by deleting definitions of the various boards of
survey that would be eliminated under the proposed rule.
2. Section 114.102, which sets forth the rule for when and where a
claim should be presented, by clarifying that claims must be presented
at the SBA office nearest to where the incident occurred and within the
same state in which the incident occurred. The proposed section also
specifies the statutory deadline.
The rule would reorganize:
1. Section 114.104 relating to SBA's investigatory powers under new
subsection 114.105(a).
2. Section 114.105, which states what evidence and information
claims should include, as section 114.104.
3. Sections 114.106, 114.106-1, 114.107 and 114.108 relating to
SBA's procedure for investigating and processing claims under new
sections 114.105 through 114.109. These proposed sections also
eliminate the boards of surveys and create a streamlined process for
review. Field Counsel would have authority to review and adjust claims
of $5,000 or less and to use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
in appropriate cases. The proposed section specifies the General
Counsel as the Administrator's designee for purposes of determining
claims in excess of $5,000. The rule would still require SBA to seek
written consent from the Department of Justice before it approves
claims in excess of $25,000 and to consult with the Department of
Justice in certain other circumstances.
4. Section 114.109 relating to SBA's authority to ask another
Federal agency to conduct physical exams of claimants under proposed
section 114.105, which describes generally SBA's investigatory
authority.
5. Section 114.110 relating to SBA's denial of claims as new
section 114.109. The proposed section informs claimants of their right
to sue SBA not later than six months after SBA mails the notification
of denial.
6. Section 114.111 relating to the approval of claims as new
section 114.108.
7. Section 114.112 relating to indemnification and representation
of SBA employees as new section 114.110. It would add a paragraph--
Sec. 114.110(a)(3)--that specifically states SBA may pay for, or
request that the Department of Justice provide, representation for SBA
employees.
8. Section 114.113 relating to attorney-client privilege as new
section 114.111.
Compliance With Executive Orders 12612, 12778, and 12866, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35)
SBA certifies that this proposed rule involves internal
administrative procedures and would not be considered a significant
rule within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. It is not likely to have an annual economic effect of $100 million
or more, result in a major increase in costs or prices, or have a
significant adverse effect on competition or the United States economy.
For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35, SBA
certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted in final form, would
contain no new reporting or record keeping requirements.
For purposes of Executive Order 12612, SBA certifies that this rule
would not have any federalism implications warranting the preparation
of a Federalism Assessment.
For purposes of Executive Order 12778, SBA certifies that this rule
is drafted, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the standards
set forth in Section 2 of that Order.
List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 114
Claims.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 5
(b)(1) and (b)(6) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 634 (b)(1) and
(b)(6), 28 U.S.C. 2672, and 28 CFR 14.11 (31 FR 16616), SBA hereby
proposes to revise part 114 of Title 13, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), to read as follows:
PART 114--ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT
AND REPRESENTATION AND INDEMNIFICATION OF SBA EMPLOYEES
Subpart A--Administrative Tort Claims
Sec.
Sec. 114.100 Definitions.
Sec. 114.101 What do these regulations cover?
Sec. 114.102 When and where do I present a claim?
Sec. 114.103 Who may file a claim?
Sec. 114.104 What evidence and information may SBA require relating
to my claim?
Sec. 114.105 Who investigates and considers my claim?
Sec. 114.106 What if my claim exceeds $5,000?
Sec. 114.107 What if my claim exceeds $25,000 or has other special
features?
Sec. 114.108 What if my claim is approved?
Sec. 114.109 What if my claim is denied?
Subpart B--Representation and Indemnification of SBA Employees
Sec. 114.110 What is SBA's policy with respect to indemnifying and
providing legal representation to SBA employees?
Sec. 114.111 Does the attorney-client privilege apply when SBA
employees are represented by the Government?
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634 (b)(1), (b)(6); 28 U.S.C. 2672; 28 CFR
14.11.
Subpart A--Administrative Tort Claims
Sec. 114.100 Definitions.
As used throughout this part 114, ``date of accrual'' means the
date you know or reasonably should have known of your injury. The date
of accrual will depend on the facts of each case. ``Site'' means the
geographic location where the incident giving rise to your claim
occurred.
Sec. 114.101 What do these regulations cover?
This part applies only to monetary claims you assert under the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671, et. seq., for injury to or
loss of property, personal injury, or death arising from the negligent
or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) while acting within the scope of his or her
employment.
Sec. 114.102 When and where do I present a claim?
You must present your claim within two years of the date of accrual
at the SBA office nearest to the site and within the same state as the
site. You must use Standard Form 95 (which may be obtained from SBA) or
give other written notice of your claim, stating the specific amount of
your alleged damages and providing enough information to enable SBA to
investigate your claim. Your claim will be considered presented when
SBA receives this information.
Sec. 114.103 Who may file a claim?
(a) If a claim is based on factors listed in the first column, then
it may be presented by persons listed in the second column.
[[Page 55810]]
Claim factors Claim presenters
Injury to or loss of property............. the owner of the property,
his or her duly authorized
agent, or legal
representative.
Personal injury........................... the injured person, his or
her duly authorized agent,
or legal representative.
Death..................................... the executor or
administrator of the
decedent's estate, or any
other person entitled to
assert the claim under
applicable state law.
Loss wholly compensated by an insurer with the parties individually as
rights as a subrogee. their interests appear, or
jointly.
(b) An agent or legal representative may present your claim in your
name, but must sign the claim, state his or her title or legal
capacity, and include documentation of authority to present the claim
on your behalf.
Sec. 114.104 What evidence and information may SBA require relating to
my claim?
(a) For a claim based on injury to or loss of property:
(1) Proof you own the property.
(2) A specific statement of the damage you claim with respect to
each item of property.
(3) Itemized receipts for payment for necessary repairs or itemized
written estimates of the cost of such repairs.
(4) A statement listing date of purchase, purchase price and
salvage value, where repair is not economical.
(5) Full information about potential insurance coverage and any
insurance claims or payments relating to your claim.
(6) Any other information that may be relevant to the government's
alleged liability or the damages you claim.
(b) For a claim based on personal injury, including pain and
suffering:
(1) A written report from your health care provider stating the
nature and extent of your injury and treatment, the degree of your
temporary or permanent disability, your prognosis, period of
hospitalization, and any diminished earning capacity.
(2) A written report following a physical, dental or mental
examination of you by a physician employed by SBA or another Federal
Agency. If you want a copy of this report, you must request it in
writing, furnish SBA with the written report of your health care
provider, if SBA requests it, and make or agree to make available to
SBA any other medical reports relevant to your claim.
(3) Itemized bills for medical, dental and hospital expenses you
have incurred, or itemized receipts of payment for these expenses.
(4) Your health care provider's written statement of the expected
expenses related to any necessary future treatment.
(5) A statement from your employer showing actual time lost from
employment, whether you are a full or part-time employee, and the wages
or salary you actually lost.
(6) Documentary evidence showing the amount of earnings you
actually lost if you are self-employed.
(7) Information about the existence of insurance coverage and any
insurance claims or payments relating to the claim in question.
(8) Any other information that may be relevant to the government's
alleged liability or the damages you claim.
(c) For a claim based on death:
(1) An authenticated death certificate or other competent evidence
showing cause of death, date of death, and age of the decedent.
(2) Evidence of decedent's employment or occupation at the time of
death, including monthly or yearly salary or earnings, and the duration
of such employment or occupation.
(3) Full names, addresses, birth dates, kinship, and marital status
of the decedent's survivors, including identification of those
survivors who were dependent upon the decedent for support at the time
of his or her death.
(4) Evidence of the support provided by the decedent to each
dependent survivor at the time of his or her death.
(5) A summary of the decedent's general physical and mental
condition before death.
(6) Itemized bills or receipts for payments for medical and burial
expenses.
(7) For pain and suffering damage claims, a physician's detailed
statement specifying the injuries suffered, the duration of pain and
suffering, any drugs administered for pain, and the decedent's physical
condition in the interval between injury and death.
(8) Any other information that may be relevant to the government's
alleged liability or the damages claimed.
Sec. 114.105 Who investigates and considers my claim?
(a) SBA may investigate, or ask another Federal agency to
investigate, your claim. SBA also may request any Federal agency to
conduct a physical examination of you and provide a report to SBA. SBA
will reimburse the Federal agency for the costs of that examination
when authorized or required by statute or regulation.
(b) In those cases in which SBA investigates your claim, the SBA
District Counsel with jurisdiction over the site will conduct an
investigation and make recommendations or a determination with respect
to your claim. The District Counsel may negotiate with you and is
authorized to use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms when they
may promote the prompt, fair and efficient resolution of your claim.
(c) The District Counsel may approve or deny an award, compromise,
or settlement of any claim for $5,000 or less. If your claim is for
$5,000 or less, the District Counsel may deny the claim, or may
recommend approval, compromise, or settlement of the claim to a Senior
Area Counsel who may take final action. The District Counsel first must
refer the claim to SBA's General Counsel for review if SBA should
consult with the Department of Justice before approving the claim, as
required under Sec. 114.107.
Sec. 114.106 What if my claim exceeds $5,000?
The District Counsel must review and investigate your claim and
forward it with a report and recommendation to the General Counsel, who
may approve or deny an award, compromise, or settlement of claims in
excess of $5,000, but not exceeding $25,000. The General Counsel will
handle claims in excess of $25,000 as required by Sec. 114.107.
Sec. 114.107 What if my claim exceeds $25,000 or has other special
features?
(a) The U.S. Attorney General (or designee) must approve in writing
any award, compromise, or settlement of a claim in excess of $25,000.
For this purpose, a principal claim and any derivative or subrogated
claim are considered a single claim.
(b) SBA must consult with the Department of Justice before
adjusting, determining, compromising, or settling a claim whenever the
General Counsel determines:
(1) The claim involves a new precedent or a new point of law; or
(2) The claim involves or may involve a question of policy; or
(3) The United States is or may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution from a third party and SBA is unable to adjust the third
party claim; or
(4) Approval of a claim, as a practical matter, will or may control
the disposition of a related claim in which the amount to be paid may
exceed $25,000.
(c) SBA must consult with the Department of Justice before
adjusting,
[[Page 55811]]
determining, compromising, or settling a claim whenever SBA learns that
the United States, or any of its employees, agents, or cost-plus
contractors, is involved in litigation based on a claim arising out of
the same incident or transaction.
(d) SBA, acting through its General Counsel, must make any
referrals to the Department of Justice for approval or consultation by
transmitting them in writing to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division.
(1) The referral must contain a short and concise statement of the
facts and the reason for the request or referral, copies of the
relevant portions of the claim file, and SBA's views and
recommendations.
(2) SBA may make this referral at any time after a claim is
presented.
Sec. 114.108 What if my claim is approved?
SBA will notify you in writing if it approves your claim. The
District Counsel will forward to you or your agent or legal
representative the forms necessary to indicate satisfaction of your
claim and your acceptance of the payment. Acceptance by you, your agent
or your legal representative, of any award, compromise or settlement of
your claim is final and conclusive under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
It binds you, your agent or your legal representative, and any other
person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the claim was presented. It
also constitutes a complete release of your claim against the United
States and its employees. If you are represented by counsel, SBA will
designate you and your counsel as joint payees and will deliver the
check to your counsel. Payment is contingent upon the waiver of your
claim and is subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Sec. 114.109 What if my claim is denied?
SBA will notify you or your agent or legal representative in
writing by certified or registered mail if it denies your claim. You
have a right to file suit in an appropriate U.S. District Court not
later than six months after the date the notification was mailed.
Subpart B--Representation And Indemnification of SBA Employees
Sec. 114.110 What is SBA's policy with respect to indemnifying and
providing legal representation to SBA employees?
(a) If an SBA employee engages in conduct, within the scope of his
or her employment, which gives rise to a claim, and the SBA
Administrator (or designee) determines that any of the following
actions relating to the claim are in SBA's interest, SBA may:
(1) Indemnify the employee after a verdict, judgment, or other
monetary award is rendered personally against the employee in any civil
suit in state or federal court or any arbitration proceeding.
(2) Settle or compromise the claim.
(3) Pay for, or request that the Department of Justice provide,
legal representation to the employee once personally named in such a
suit.
(b) If you are an SBA employee, you may ask SBA to settle or
compromise your claim, provide you with legal representation, or
provide you with indemnification for a verdict, judgment or award
entered against you in a suit. To do so, you must submit a timely,
written request to the General Counsel, with appropriate documentation,
including copies of any pleadings, verdict, judgment, award, or
settlement proposal. The General Counsel will decide all requests for
representation or settlement, and will forward to the Administrator,
with the accompanying documentation and a recommendation, any requests
for indemnification.
(c) Any payments by SBA under this section will be contingent upon
the availability of appropriated funds.
Sec. 114.111 Does the attorney-client privilege apply when SBA
employees are represented by the Government?
When attorneys employed by SBA participate in any process in which
SBA seeks to determine whether SBA should request the Department of
Justice to provide representation to an SBA employee sued, subpoenaed,
or charged in his or her individual capacity, or whether attorneys
employed by SBA should provide representational assistance for such an
employee, those attorneys undertake a full and traditional attorney-
client relationship with the employee with respect to the attorney-
client privilege. If representation is authorized, SBA attorneys who
assist in the representation of an SBA employee also undertake a full
and traditional attorney-client relationship with the employee with
respect to the attorney-client privilege. Unless authorized by the
employee, the attorney must not disclose to anyone other than attorneys
also responsible for the employee's representation adverse information
communicated to the attorney by the client-employee during the course
of the attorney-client relationship. The attorney-client privilege will
continue with respect to that information whether or not representation
is provided, and even if the employee's representation is denied or
discontinued.
Dated: October 19, 1995.
Philip Lader,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-26669 Filed 11-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.