25788 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 3, 2000 / Notices

performance during the past year and

the information provided by the RCAC

in their annual report and recertification

package the Coast Guard finds the PWS

RCAC meets the criteria established

under the Oil Pollution Act, and that

recertification in accordance with the

Act is appropriate.

Recertification

By letter dated April 4, 2000, the

Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard

certified that the PWSRCAC qualifies as

an alternative voluntary advisory group

under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o). This

recertification terminates on January 31,

2001.

Dated: April 4, 2000.

T.J. Barrett,

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Seventeenth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–10941 Filed 5–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG 2000–7288]

Guidelines for Assessing Merchant

Mariners’ Proficiency Through

Demonstrations of Survival-Craft Skills

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Availability and

Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces

the availability of, and seeks public

comments on, the national performance

measures proposed here for use as

guidelines when mariners demonstrate

their proficiency in survival-craft skills.

A working group of the Merchant

Marine Personnel Advisory Committee

(MERPAC) developed and

recommended national performance

measures for this proficiency. The Coast

Guard has adapted the measures

recommended by MERPAC.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Docket Management

Facility on or before July 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please identify your

comments and related material by the

docket number of this rulemaking

[USCG 2000–7288]. Then, to make sure

they enter the docket just once, submit

them by just one of the following means:

(1) By mail to the Docket Management

Facility, U.S. Department of

Transportation, room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington DC

20590–0001.

(2) By delivery to room PL–401 on the

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

(3) By fax to the Docket Management

Facility at 202–493–2251.

(4) Electronically through the Web

Site for the Docket Management System

at http://dms.dot.gov.

The Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for this

Notice. Comments and related material

received from the public, as well as

documents mentioned in this Notice,

will become part of this docket and will

be available for inspection or copying at

room PL–401 on the Plaza level of the

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street

SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. You may also

find this docket on the Internet at

http://dms.dot.gov.

The measures proposed here are also

available from Mr. Mark Gould,

Maritime Personnel Qualifications

Division, Office of Operating and

Environmental Standards, Commandant

(G–MSO–1), U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, telephone 202–267–0229.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on this Notice or on the

national performance measures

proposed here, write or call Mr. Mark

Gould where indicated under

ADDRESSES. For questions on viewing or

submitting material to the docket, call

Dorothy Walker, Chief, Dockets,

Department of Transportation,

telephone 202–366–9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Action Is the Coast Guard

Taking?

Table A–VI/2–1 of the Code

accompanying the treaty on Standards

of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW),

1978, as amended in 1995, articulates

qualifications for merchant mariners’

attaining the minimum standard of

competence in survival craft and in

rescue boats other than fast rescue boats.

The Coast Guard tasked MERPAC with

referring to the Table, modifying and

specifying it as it deemed necessary,

and recommending national

performance measures. The Coast Guard

has adapted the measures recommended

by MERPAC and is proposing them here

for use as guidelines when assessing

mariners’ proficiency in survival-craft

skills. Next we set forth the eight skills

that a mariner must demonstrate

respecting survival craft, and give an

example of a Performance Condition, a

Performance Behavior, and three

Performance Standards for one of the

skills.

Eight Skills: Give correct commands

for launching and boarding a survival

craft; Prepare and safely launch a

survival craft; Safely recover a survival

craft; Start and operate a survival-craft

engine; Steer (command) a survival craft

under oars; Row a survival craft; Use

survival-craft equipment; and Rig

devices to aid location.

The Performance Condition for the

skill entitled, ‘‘Give correct commands

for launching and boarding a survival

craft’’ is: Using a lifeboat properly

stowed on gravity davits.

The Performance Behavior for the

same skill is: When hearing an abandonship signal or the order in English to

lower the lifeboat, the mariner will

command launching the boat.

The Performance Standards for the

same skill are: Commands are issued in

proper sequence; All tasks to launch the

lifeboat are verified; and The boat is

launched in ten minutes.

If the mariner properly meets all of

the Performance Standards, he or she

passes the practical demonstration. If he

or she fails to properly carry out any of

the Performance Standards, he or she

fails it.

Why Is the Coast Guard Taking This

Action?

The Coast Guard is taking this action

to comply with STCW, as amended in

1995 and incorporated into domestic

law at 46 CFR Parts 10, 12, and 15 in

1997. Guidance from the International

Maritime Organization on shipboard

assessments of proficiency suggests that

Parties develop standards and measures

of performance for practical tests as part

of their programs for training and

assessing seafarers.

How May I Participate in This Action?

You may participate in this action by

submitting comments and related

material on the national performance

measures proposed here. (Although the

Coast Guard does not seek public

comment on the measures

recommended by MERPAC, as distinct

from the measures proposed here, those

measures are available on the Internet at

the Homepage of MERPAC, http://

www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/advisory/

merpac/merpac.htm.) These measures

are available on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov. They are also available

from Mr. Mark Gould where indicated

under ADDRESSES. If you submit written

comments please include—

• Your name and address;

• The docket number for this Notice

[USCG 2000–7288];

• The specific section of the

performance measures to which each

comment applies; and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 3, 2000 / Notices 25789

• The reason for each comment.

You may mail, deliver, fax, or

electronically submit your comments

and related material to the Docket

Management Facility, using an address

or fax number listed in ADDRESSES.

Please do not submit the same comment

or material more than once. If you mail

or deliver your comments and material,

they must be on 81⁄2-by-11-inch paper,

and the quality of the copy should be

clear enough for copying and scanning.

If you mail your comments and material

and would like to know whether the

Docket Management Facility received

them, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. The

Coast Guard will consider all comments

and material received during the 60-day

comment period.

Once we have considered all

comments and related material, we will

publish a final version of the national

performance measures for use as

guidelines by the general public.

Individuals and institutions assessing

the competence of mariners may refine

the final version of these measures and

develop innovative alternatives. If you

vary from the final version of these

measures, however, you must submit

your alternative to the National

Maritime Center for approval by the

Coast Guard under 46 CFR 10.303(e)

before you use it as part of an approved

course or training program.

Dated: April 26, 2000.

J.P. High,

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 00–10946 Filed 5–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7163; Notice 1]

Evenflo Company, Inc.; Receipt of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Evenflo Company, Inc. of Vandalia,

Ohio, has determined that 678,404 child

restraint systems fail to comply with

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 213, ‘‘Child Restraint

Systems,’’ and has filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’

Evenflo has also applied to be exempted

from the notification and remedy

requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—

‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’ on the basis that

the noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

This notice of receipt of an

application is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgement concerning the

merits of the application.

FMVSS No. 213, S5.5.2(j), requires

each child restraint system equipped

with an anchorage strap to include the

following statement on a permanent

label:

Secure the top anchorage strap

provided with this child restraint as

specified in the manufacturer’s

instructions.

Evenflo has determined that certain

child restraints it manufactured have

been shipped without the label required

by S5.5.2(j). The child restraints

containing the noncompliance are

Ultara (model numbers 234, 235, 236,

237, 238, and 239), Champion (model

numbers 247 and 249), Medallion

(model numbers 254 and 259), Horizon

(model numbers 420, 425, and 426), and

Conquest (model numbers 428 and 429)

child restraints equipped with tether

straps that were manufactured between

1998 and 2000, and shipped before

February 14, 2000. A total of 648,739

units are in noncompliance.

Evenflo supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

On February 11, 2000, Evenflo

personnel were reviewing the Federal

Register and came upon Kolcraft

Enterprises, Inc.’’s Receipt of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance, Docket

No. NHTSA–2000–6729; Notice 1. Upon

reading the request, we initiated a

review of our tethered child restraint

systems for the NHTSA requirement and

discovered the noncompliance.

Similar to Kolcraft, Evenflo

inadvertently overlooked this provision

when redesigning our restraints to

include tether anchorage straps. Evenflo

relied on the changes in the March 5,

1999 final rule to identify the changed

performance requirements. Because

S5.5.2(j) was already in the standard,

and not changed by the March 5, 1999

final rule, the labeling requirement was

overlooked by Evenflo.

Evenflo initiated the necessary

changes, and all units produced on and

after February 15, 2000 are conforming

to the standard. Existing stock is being

reworked to include the label. As

previously stated the restraints do

comply with all performance

requirements of FMVSS 213.

In the instruction book attached to

each restraint system are clear

instructions on how to properly install

the top anchorage strap, tether, with

warning about improper installation.

There already is one warning label

stating ‘‘Warning! Failure to follow each

of the instructions can result in your

child striking the vehicle’s interior

during a sudden stop or crash...’’ on the

units that refer the consumer to the

instruction booklet and instructions for

proper use along with the tether

instructions.

Under Section 30118(d) of the Safety

Act, the Secretary may exempt

manufacturers from the Act’s

notification and remedy requirements

when the Secretary determines that the

noncompliance is inconsequential as it

relates to motor vehicle safety. Evenflo

believes that the noncompliance here

should be found to be inconsequential

because the product meets and exceeds

FMVSS 213 performance regulations,

there is a label on the unit referring

consumers to the instructions for proper

use, and the instructions provide a clear

process for proper installation of the

tether and warnings about improper

installation.

Evenflo does not question the value of

notifying consumers to check the

instruction manual. Given the

circumstances: a label exists referring

the consumer to the instruction where

the substance of the notification has

been achieved, the label is located on

the product where a consumer is likely

to see it, a complete set of installation

instructions with appropriate warnings

accompanies each child restraint, and

the product meets or exceeds all

performance requirements, the

noncompliance does not present a

consequential risk to motor vehicle

safety. Evenflo respectfully requests that

NHTSA grant its petition for exemption.

Evenflo subsequently filed a

supplement to its original petition for

inconsequential noncompliance,

identifying an additional 29,665

convertible child restraints with tethers

it manufactured this year which do not

comply with the labeling requirement of

FMVSS No. 213, S5.5.3. FMVSS No.

213, S5.5.3, requires that ‘‘the

information specified in S5.5.2(g)

through (k) shall be located on the addon child restraint system so that it is

visible when the system is installed as

specified in S5.6.1.’’ Evenflo notes that

the affected child restraint systems do

contain the necessary labeling specified

in S5.5.2(j), however, the labeling may

not be in a location which is visible

after installation of the child restraint

systems into the vehicle. The child

restraints containing the noncompliance

are Ultara (model numbers 235, 236,

and 238), Champion (model numbers

247 and 249), Horizon (model numbers