25786 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 3, 2000 / Notices

with crews of less than five that use

manual rather than mechanical means

to retrieve nets, or catch shrimp in using

other methods that do not threaten sea

turtles. Use of such small-scale

technology does not adversely affect sea

turtles. The nine nations are: the

Bahamas, China, the Dominican

Republic, Fiji, Haiti, Jamaica, Oman,

Peru and Sri Lanka.

Any shipment of shrimp harvested in

Honduras with a date of export prior to

May 1, 2000 will be allowed entry into

the United States regardless of date of

importation into the United States. That

is, shipments of shrimp harvested in

this country in transit prior to the

effective date of the ban are not barred

from entry.

The Department of State

communicated the certifications under

section 609 to the Office of Trade

Operations of the United States Customs

Service in a letter transmitted on April

27, 2000.

Dated: April 27, 2000.

R. Tucker Scully,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans,

Fisheries and Space, U.S. Department of

State.

[FR Doc. 00–11025 Filed 5–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–14–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[CGD17–00–002]

Annual Certification of Prince William

Sound Regional Citizen’s Advisory

Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of recertification.

SUMMARY: Under the Oil Terminal and

Tanker Environmental Oversight Act of

1990, the Coast Guard may certify on an

annual basis, an alternative voluntary

advisory group in lieu of a regional

citizens’ advisory council for Prince

William Sound, Alaska. This

certification allows the advisory group

to monitor the activities of terminal

facilities and crude oil tankers under the

Prince William Sound Program

established by the statute. The purpose

of this notice is to inform the public that

the Coast Guard has recertified the

alternative voluntary advisory group for

Prince William Sound, Alaska.

DATES: This certification is effective

from January 31, 2000 to January 31,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information regarding the PWS

RCAC or viewing material submitted to

the docket, contact LCDR Larry Musarra,

Seventeenth Coast Guard District,

Marine Safety Division, (907) 463–2211.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Congress

passed the Oil Pollution Terminal and

Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight

and Monitoring Act of 1990, (the Act),

Section 5002, to foster the long-term

partnership among industry,

government, and local communities in

overseeing compliance with the

environmental concerns in the

operation of terminal facilities and

crude-oil tankers. Subsection 5002(o)

permits an alternative voluntary

advisory group to represent the

communities and interests in the

vicinity of the terminal facilities in

Prince William Sound (PWS), in lieu of

a council of the type specified in

subsection 5002(d), if certain conditions

are met.

The Act requires that the group enter

into a contract to ensure annual

funding, and that it receive annual

certification by the President to the

effect that it fosters the general goals

and purposes of the Act, and is broadly

representative of the communities and

interests in the vicinity of the terminal

facilities and Prince William Sound.

Accordingly, in 1991, the President

granted certification to the Prince

William Sound Regional Citizen’s

Advisory Council (PWS RCAC). The

authority to certify alternative advisory

groups was subsequently delegated to

the Commandant of the Coast Guard and

redelegated to the Commander,

Seventeenth Coast Guard District.

On January 6, 2000, the Coast Guard

announced in the Federal Register the

availability of the application for

recertification that it received from the

PWS RCAC and requested comments

(65 FR 800). Twenty-seven comments

were received.

Discussion of Comments

Of the 27 comments received, 24 were

supportive of recertification and

generally noted the positive efforts,

good communication, and broad

representation of PWS communities as

PWS RCAC carries out its

responsibilities as intended by the Act.

Three commenters recommended the

Coast Guard conditionally certify the

PWS RCAC due to what they perceived

were substantial non-conformities with

the Council’s By Laws and the intent of

OPA–90. The following summarizes the

Coast Guard’s analysis of the issues

raised during the review process.

Two commented that the PWS RCAC

is confrontational or adversarial,

engaging in ‘‘polarizing/politicization’’

behavior, noting that such relations

were not consistent with fostering

cooperation, as per the Act. However,

the majority of the commenters did not

share that view. While the Act promotes

developing trust, cooperation, and

consensus between the industry,

government and local citizens, it also

establishes that local citizens (through

the PWS RCAC) should provide advice

and recommendations regarding

environmental concerns of crude oil

terminal and tanker operations in PWS.

Based on 24 positive comments

received, the action taken by PWS

RCAC is consistent with their advisory

role in representing the interests of local

citizens on environmental concerns.

One commenter criticized the

resolution passed by PWS RCAC

regarding the proposed BP acquisition

of ARCO. The resolution urged that

certain factors be taken into

consideration, and that certain

commitments be sought from BP if the

acquisition was approved. The

commenter suggested this was a tactic

based on ‘‘unsubstantiated and

subjective judgments’’ of various issues.

Upon review, the Coast Guard

concludes that the resolution offered

advice to regulators to help ensure that

environmental safety would be

preserved during the proposed BP

acquisition of ARCO, an action within

the scope of the purposes of the Act.

Three commenters complained that

the PWS RCAC’s activities regarding the

PWS tanker contingency plan were not

consistent with their role under the Act,

showing lack of clarity in their role and

moving from the role of advisor to

adversary. The complaints in this area

center around changes suggested by the

PWS RCAC to the 1998 tanker

contingency plans and advice provided

to the government regarding an appeal

of the Conditions of Approval of the

plans. The Coast Guard finds that the

advice and suggestions provided by

PWS RCAC was within the scope of the

purposes of the PWS RCAC in their role

to review and advise on the adequacy of

oil spill prevention and contingency

plans for the terminal facilities and

crude oil tankers operating in Prince

William Sound.

Three commenters believe that PWS

RCAC has shown an increasing

tendency to expand its scope beyond

‘‘environmental monitoring for terminal

facilities in Prince William Sound and

the crude oil tankers operating in Prince

William Sound.’’ However, the PWS

RCAC may be recertificated so long as

it fosters the general goals and purposes

of the Act and is broadly representative

of the communities and interests in the

vicinity of the terminal facilities and

Prince William Sound.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 3, 2000 / Notices 25787

One commenter suggested that last

year’s recertification provided for

insufficient scrutiny and follow-up in

assessing PWS RCAC’s compliance with

OPA–90 and called for an audit and the

establishment of new performance

criteria beyond that provided by law.

The Coast Guard does not agree that last

year’s process was insufficient and does

not agree that establishment of

measurable performance criteria beyond

that provided by law is necessary.

One commenter complained that

there is a lack of accountability for the

scope and application of funded studies

by the PWS RCAC and called on the

Coast Guard to provide oversight of the

projects undertaken and funded by the

PWS RCAC to ensure the studies are

within the scope of the organization and

have practical application. The Coast

Guard reviewed the funded studies and

found all met the intent of the Act.

Procedures exist for the government and

industry to provide input on such

projects. The PWS RCAC provides the

Coast Guard and industry written

information on their projects and invites

both the Coast Guard and industry to

attend meetings of RCAC’s technical

advisory committees. The Coast Guard

encourages interested parties to utilize

these avenues of communication.

One commenter believes that there is

a need for ‘‘improving representation of

regional citizens and communities’’ and

calling for recertification to be

conditioned on ‘‘completion of

assessments with public comment

opportunities’’ in this and other areas.

Upon review, the 19-member board,

with members from all areas of the PWS

region as well as from various interest

groups with stakes in the region

represents citizens and communities in

a way that satisfies the demands of

OPA–90. Additionally, this year’s

recertification notice drew numerous

letters of support from citizens and

communities in the represented area in

response to the ‘‘public comment

opportunities’’ provided by the Federal

Register and Alaska media notification

of the recertification process. The

requirements of the Act were met.

One commenter suggested that PWS

RCAC should hold ‘‘monthly meetings

in various communities throughout the

Sound’’ to improve communications

with the communities. The Coast Guard

finds the PWS RCAC is presently doing

this through having the board meet in

member communities, as well as having

staff members, board members and

committee volunteers attending public

hearings, oil spill drills and exercises in

affected communities. Additionally,

PWS RCAC technical advisory

committee meetings are held in member

communities and the RCAC’s executive

director, the community liaison and

other staffers periodically travel to

member communities to share with city

councils, borough assemblies, and the

public the state of oil spill prevention

and response issues.

One commenter noted conflicts of

interest of the PWS RCAC leadership.

This comment was made as a result of

an incident at an international

conference on environmental

protection. This problem was limited to

a single individual, and was resolved to

the Coast Guard’s satisfaction.

Two commenters stated that PWS

RCAC has engaged in litigation, which

is barred under OPA–90. Upon review,

the Coast Guard concludes the two

examples cited are not engaging in

litigation. PWS RCAC’s actions in the

1995 contingency plan approvals were

reviewed during last year’s

recertification process by the Coast

Guard and were found to be

appropriate. The PWS RCAC filed a

friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S.

Supreme Court in the Intertanko case.

The friend-of-the-court brief was in the

role of analyst and adviser to industry

and government (not as a litigation

party) in a case that could clearly affect

the regulation of oil shipping in PWS.

Two commenters were concerned

over the residency standards for

membership on the PWS RCAC board.

This issue was raised last year and

addressed by the PWS RCAC board in

adopting a new residency definition,

which was included with this year’s

recertification application.

One commenter raised an issue that

the PWS RCAC Code of Conduct does

not specify consequences to an

employee or volunteer for noncompliance. In exploring this issue the

Coast Guard found the Executive

Director of PWS RCAC is responsible for

the management of employees.

Violations of the Code of Conduct

exposes an employee to the full range of

sanctions traditionally at management’s

disposal, from counseling in minor

cases up to dismissal in the most serious

cases. For volunteers, the PWS RCAC’s

Board addresses dealing with Code of

Conduct violations with actions ranging

from advising the sponsoring entity of

the problem to denial of the board or

committee seat.

The PWS RCAC has asked the Coast

Guard to consider whether a different

recertification process would be more

efficient. The Coast Guard is willing to

consider alternatives and will request

comments and suggestions from

interested parties.

As a result of the above analysis the

Coast Guard recommends PWS RCAC

continue to seek ways to foster trust and

cooperation, and lead from

confrontation to partnership on the

important issues of oil terminal and

tanker operations in PWS. The Coast

Guard encourages industry to raise

issues with PWS RCAC at the working

level to also foster cooperation and

consensus.

PWS RCAC’s Response to Coast Guard

Comments

In its last recertification letter (dated

Jan. 13, 1999) to the Prince William

Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory

Council, the Coast Guard made several

recommendations. The following is a

summary of each recommendation, and

an explanation of the council’s

response:

The Coast Guard recommended that

organizations receiving inaccurate

information from council board or staff

members about council positions should

be provided with feedback from the

council. Response: This issue has not

arisen in the current certification

period, but it is the council’s intention

to respond appropriately should it arise

in the future.

The Coast Guard recommended that

the council revisit the issue of who is an

Alaska resident for purposes of

membership on the council board.

Response: The council considered this

issue over the spring and summer of

1999, and unanimously adopted the

following definition of residency at its

September 1999 board meeting: A

resident is a person who intends to

make Alaska his or her home, does not

claim residency in any other state, and

meets two of the following criteria: (1)

Is a registered voter in Alaska and is not

registered to vote in any other state. (2)

Has a current Alaska driver’s license

and does not maintain a driver’s license

from any other state. (3) Earns primary

income in Alaska and is not employed

full-time in another state.

The Coast Guard recommended that

the council conduct an internal policycontrols audit. Response: In September

1998, the council board appointed a

committee of board members to revise

the policy manual. The final draft was

presented to the board in December

1998 and approved after minor

revisions.

The Coast Guard requested the PWS

RCAC include a copy of their By Laws

as part of their recertification

application. Response: The By Laws

were included with the request for

recertification. The Coast Guard is

satisfied with the PWS RCAC responses

to these recommendations.

Upon review of the comments

received regarding the PWS RCAC’s

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