55548 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

highway and transit vehicle emissions.

EPA is proposing to utilize the on-road

mobile emissions provided in the 15

percent plan SIP submittals as the motor

vehicle emission budgets for

transportation conformity purposes. The

1996 projected on-road mobile emission

estimates contained within the State’s

15 percent plans are shown in the

following table:

TABLE 3.—1996 MOTOR VEHICLE

EMISSION BUDGETS

PorDov-Roc

area

NH portion of

BosLawWor

area

VOC .............................. 12.1 18.0

NOX ............................... 17.2 24.1

EPA is soliciting public comments on

the issues discussed in this proposal or

on other relevant matters. These

comments will be considered before

EPA takes final action. Interested parties

may participate in the Federal

rulemaking procedure by submitting

written comments to the EPA regional

office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this action.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, in relation to relevant statutory

and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from review under

Executive Order 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. § 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.

§§ 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Reporting and recordkeeping, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671–q.

Dated: September 29, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

[FR Doc. 97–28370 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 10 and 15

[CGD 94–055]

RIN 2115–AF23

Licensing and Manning for Officers of

Towing Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard revises the

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

published on June 19, 1996, proposing

requirements for licensing mariners who

operate towing vessels, inspected as

well as uninspected. This supplemental

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)

addresses the numerous comments

received in response to the NPRM. It

should improve the clarify those

requirement proposed in the NPRM.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast

Guard on or before February 24, 1998.

Comments sent to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on

collection of information must reach

OMB on or before December 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA/3406) (CGD 94–055),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001, or deliver them to room

3406 at the same address between 9:30

a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is 202–267–1477.

You must also mail comments to

collection of information 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, and documents as indicated

in this preamble, will become part of the

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room 3406,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, between

9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LCDR Don Darcy, Office of Operating

and Environmental Standards (G–MSO),

(202) 267–0221.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55549

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 94–055) and the specific section of

this document 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 longer than 81⁄2 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.

The Coast Guard plans to hold public

meetings regarding this proposed

rulemaking before the close of the

comment period. It will hold these

meetings for the purpose of receiving

oral opinions and presentations on the

proposed changes. It will announce the

dates, times, and places of the public

meetings in a late notice in the Federal

Register. Persons may request

additional public meetings by writing to

the Marine Safety Council at the address

under ADDRESSES. The request should

include the reasons why an additional

public meeting would be beneficial. If it

determines that an additional

opportunity for oral presentations will

aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard

will hold another public meeting at a

time and place to be announced by a

later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

On June 19, 1996, the Coast Guard

published an NPRM in the Federal

Register (61 FR 31332). The NPRM

proposed updates to the licensing,

training, and qualifications of operators

of towing vessels in order to reduce

marine casualties. A more detailed

treatment of the following matters

appear in the preamble to the NPRM.

Development of the NPRM was an

essential part of a comprehensive

initiative undertaken by the Coast Guard

to improve navigational safety for

towing vessels. It followed a Coast

Guard report directed by the Secretary

of Transportation, entitled ‘‘Review of

Marine Safety Issues Related to

Uninspected Towing Vessels’’ (‘‘the

Review’’), which identified

improvement in licensing, training, and

qualifications of operators of

uninspected towing vessels (OUTVs)

necessary to achieve improved safety.

As stated in the NPRM, the Secretary

of Transportation initiated the Review

after the allision in September, 1993, of

a towing vessel and its barges with a

railroad bridge near Mobile, Alabama

(‘‘Amtrak casualty’’). The National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

attributed this casualty, at least in part,

to the Coast Guard’s failure to establish

higher standards for the licensing of

inland operators of towing vessels. The

Review, a previous study conducted by

the Coast Guard entitled ‘‘Licensing

2000 and Beyond’’ (‘‘Licensing 2000’’),

and other research concluded that the

requirements for licensing all operators

of towing vessels were outdated and

needed improvement on the licensing,

training, and qualifications of

personnel.

In response to the Review, on March

2, 1994, the Coast Guard published a

Notice of Public Meeting and

Availability of Study that announced

the availability of the Review and

scheduled a meeting to seek public

comment on its recommendations (59

FR 10031). The public meeting occurred

on April 4, 1994, and was well attended

by the public, representing a wide range

of towing interests. Public comments,

both oral and written, helped shape the

NPRM.

Advisory committees that addressed

the towing-safety initiative (the Review)

included the Merchant Marine

Personnel Advisory Committee

(MERPAC) and the Towing Safety

Advisory Committee (TSAC). These

committees and several of their working

groups created reports to address

licensing and training. The NPRM drew

on the reports, too.

Note, also, that many issues

pertaining to licensing and training of

matters come within the International

Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafearers, 1978 (STCW). An interim

rule (62 FR 34506; June 26, 1997) carries

this treaty into domestic effect.

Consequently, mariners serving on

seagoing towing vessels must meet the

requirements of STCW on training,

certification, and watchkeeping, as

stated previously in the NPRM.

The Coast Guard received over 780

comment letters in response to the

NPRM. Because of this response, the

Coast Guard published a notice of intent

(61 FR 66642; December 18, 1996)

explaining that would modify the

NPRM along lines urged by public

comment and the advisory committees,

and would publish the changes in an

SNPRM. This would afford the public

an opportunity to comment on the

revisions before issuance of a final rule.

The regulatory language of this

SNPRM combines text from the NPRM

with text based on comments on the

NPRM. The preamble of this SNPRM

discusses only the new text.

In an effort to develop a more

customer-oriented approach to drafting

regulations, the Coast Guard will

publish the final rule using ‘‘plain

language’’ techniques. Clear, more

readable regulations are important for

the success of our government’s

reinvention initiative.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

Although the Coast Guard received

comments from all geographic areas,

most (75 percent) came from the Gulf

and Western rivers. The comments

addressed the following subjects: (1)

Public meetings and extension of the

comment period; (2) responsibilities of

companies; (3) responsibilities of the

masters; (4) a need for additional input

from mariners; (5) overall cost and costbenefit analysis; (6) completion of

approved training courses; (7) approved

training courses using check-ride

assessments to demonstrate proficiency;

(8) approved training courses using

simulators to demonstrate proficiency;

(9) designated examiners; (10) trainingrecord books; (11) refresher courses; (12)

title terminology; (13) licensing

structure; (14) horsepower as a basis of

authority; (15) route endorsements; (16)

grandfathering of licenses; (17) special

endorsements; and (18) other, general

subject matter.

1. Public Meetings and Extension of the

Comment Period

Of the 780 comments, 489 requested

either additional public meetings or an

extension of the comment period.

Because many contained multiple

suggestions for modifying the proposed

requirements, the Coast Guard deemed

it appropriate to incorporate any

changes into an SNPRM. This would

afford the public time to reflect upon

the changes, rather than repeat itself on

the NPRM. This SNPRM provides the

public with an opportunity both to

comment in writing and to participate

in public meetings at times and places

announced by later notices in the

Federal Register.

2. Responsibilities of Companies

The Coast Guard received 48

comments suggesting that individual

companies be held responsible, in

addition to the mariners, for the safe

operation of their towing vessels. The

comments alleged that some companies

use coercive tactics to force mariners to
55550 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

operate vessels beyond normal safety

limits so that products arrive at their

destination on time; ultimately straining

the mariners, the companies, and the

industry.

The Coast Guard recognized in the

NPRM that many companies have

already demonstrated their

commitments to safety by ongoing

training and evaluating of their

employees. Under the SNPRM,

companies would share greater

responsibility for training and

qualification of mariners by establishing

approved training courses,

recommending designated examiners,

and overseeing the completion of

mariners’ training-record books. This

increase in responsibility is consistent

with Licensing 2000 and with the TSAC

Report, both of which urged increased

responsibilities of companies and

accountability for the competence and

quality of mariners. The Coast Guard

will not condone coercion directed at

forcing mariners to operate towing

vessels in an unsafe manner. Any unsafe

operating conditions should be reported

to the Coast Guard in reliance on 46

U.S.C. 2114.

3. Responsibilities of the Masters

The Coast Guard received 339

comments concerning masters’

(captains’) responsibilities. Many

misinterpreted language in the NPRM to

mean that the master would assume

responsibility for the vessel and the

actions of its crew at all times.

In the past, the Coast Guard held an

operator of uninspected towing vessels

(OUTV) responsible for the operation of

the towing vessel only during his or her

watch. However, business practices

dictated—and the Coast Guard

concluded—that one operator (the lead

OUTV), usually referred to as the ‘‘front

watch,’’ should be designated as the

captain, who would be responsible for

the safe operation of the vessel at all

times. Although the Coast Guard does

consider the captain to be in control of

the vessel’s operations or management

at all times, it does not consider him or

her to be responsible for the misconduct

or incompetence of the second officer,

usually referred to as the ‘‘back watch,’’

unless that officer was following

directions issued by the captain. The

NPRM did not, and this SNPRM does

not, intend any change in this

understanding.

4. A Need for Additional Input From

Mariners

The Coast Guard received 188

comments expressing disapproval at its

failure to involve mariners during the

preliminary stages of this rulemaking.

These comments encouraged the Coast

Guard to avail itself of the knowledge

and experiences of active mariners, to

develop accurate and safe regulations.

The Coast Guard always endeavors to

involve all interested parties in the

rulemaking process and encourages

active mariners to participate in future

public meetings, industry meetings, and

the additional comment period that this

SNPRM provides.

5. Overall Cost and Cost-Benefit

Analysis

The Coast Guard received 359

comments on cost. Sixty (17 percent)

opposed the cost-benefit analysis,

stating that the dollar figures did not

reflect current salaries or wages,

accurate simulator and check-ride costs,

or realistic designated-examiner fees.

The remaining 299 (83 percent) made

general statements about the excessive

financial burden that the rule would

place on small businesses and

individual mariners. These comments

argued that the industry is already

heavily burdened with other licensing

expenses, such as new radar

requirements, renewal fees, medical

examinations, and drug-screening

examinations, and should not be

financially responsible for additional

licensing requirements. One comment

even suggested that the Coast Guard

should be held financially responsible

for demonstration of proficiency.

The Coast Guard has evaluated the

comments from the public and various

recommendations from TSAC, all of

which concern the cost-benefit analysis.

The analysis within the SNPRM reflects

editorial comments and current

technical information that the Coast

Guard has reviewed and applied to the

regulatory assessment for the SNPRM.

6. Completion of Approved Training

Courses

A few comments supported the idea

of approved training courses as written,

but most questioned including

simulator training, check-ride

assessments, and a practical

demonstration of proficiency at the time

of renewal. (Later sections discuss both

simulator training and check-ride

assessments). With regard to renewals,

acting on a recommendation from TSAC

the Coast Guard now proposes to let

those mariners who have maintained

recency of service and have not had

their licenses revoked or suspended

document their service and proficiency

rater than undergo practical

demonstrations of proficiency at license

renewal. Proof acceptable for these

mariners at license renewal includes

evidence of the minimum required

service in the form of a companyprovided service letter and evidence of

continued navigational proficiency in

the form either of a letter or another

document from the operator’s employer

or of an ongoing training-record book. In

addition, all candidates for renewal of

licenses as Masters of Towing Vessels

will have to pass a rules-of-the-road

exercise or refresher course.

Accordingly, mariners who have not

maintained recency of service, or who

have been the subject of suspension or

revocation proceedings, would have to

demonstrate proficiency by check-ride

assessment or simulator in order to

renew their licenses.

7. Approved Training courses Using

Check-Ride Assessments To

Demonstrate Proficiency

Of the 254 comments received in

response to the NPRM concerning this

subject, 71 percent opposed the

proposed requirement of a practical

demonstration by a check-ride. Most of

the 71 percent came from mariners who

already have several years of experience

in the towing industry and resent that,

at the time of renewal, they may have

to ‘‘prove’’ to someone that they are

capable of handling towing vessels.

Another 19 percent opposed the

requirement of practical demonstration

of proficiency by check-ride for

experienced mariners, but supported it

for mariners with little or no experience

and for those with histories of poor

seamanship. Others suggested that

company letters declaring mariners’

competence be acceptable as an

alternative to the practical

demonstration of proficiency by checkride. Only 10 percent supported a

practical demonstration of proficiency

by check-ride as proposed. The Coast

Guard now proposes that practical

demonstrations of proficiency by checkride be mandatory only for licenserenewal applicants whose most recent

licenses were suspended or revoked by

administrative action on charges of

incompetence. However, other

applicants may still opt for the practical

demonstrations in lieu of submitting

properly maintained training-record

books.

8. Approved Training Courses Using

Simulators To Demonstrate Proficiency

The Coast Guard received 115

comments addressing simulator

training. Of those, 86 percent opposed

such training, for two reasons: (1) The

excessive cost to companies as well as

individual mariners; and (2) the

inadequate number of simulators

available to provide each mariner

sufficient training time. In addition, 5
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55551

percent simply opposed such training

for experienced mariners. However,

these same comments supported it for

mariners with little or no experience.

Nine percent supported it with various

modifications such as allowing mariners

to use simulators for training though not

for demonstrating proficiency. In this

SNPRM, the Coast Guard still proposes

to accept (not require) simulator

training, as well as use of actual towing

vessels, for demonstrating proficiency

by check-ride.

9. Designated Examiners

Of the 130 comments on the proposed

use of a designated examiner, only 10

percent opposed the idea. Once again,

most of the 10 percent expressed

resentment at having to potentially

‘‘prove’’ their abilities for license

renewal to a designated examiner that

may have less experience. However,

while the comments opposed the use of

a designated examiner for experienced

mariners, they supported the idea for

the monitoring of entry-level masters

and mates.

In contrast, the remaining 90 percent

generally supported application of the

idea for all mariners. These supporting

comments also raised several concerns

and offered suggestions for modifying

the designated-examiner proposal, most

of which emphasized the need for Coast

Guard control of the designatedexaminer program. Of primary concern

was assurance from the Coast Guard that

companies and training institutions

would in no way be involved in the

selection of designated examiners. The

comments argued that, by excluding

companies and training institutions

from this decision, the Coast Guard

would reduce the potential for partiality

and inconsistency throughout the

towing industry. However, a few

comments did request that the Coast

Guard allow individual companies to

designate their own examiners. A few

comments recommended that the Coast

Guard control the selection, training,

and re-qualification of potential

designated examiners. Others comments

requested that the Coast Guard ensure

that mariners designated as examiners

be well-experienced, not just

grandfathered, towing-vessel mariners

with higher-level licenses and more

experience than those of the mariners

they are certifying. Last, some

encouraged the Coast Guard to

determine and clarify the criteria used

for passing or failing a prospective

mariner and the procedures for

appealing a designated examiner’s

decision and urged the Coast Guard to

negate the potential liability of the

designated examiner—possibly by

requiring two or more check-rides with

different designated examiners.

An alternative demonstration of

proficiency for renewal was

recommended by TSAC and includes

documentation in the form of a trainingrecord book listing training, drills,

experience during the license’s validity,

and any administrative action

culminating in suspension or revocation

against the license. The Coast Guard

agrees with TSAC and has determined

that there should be an alternative

method for renewal. The Coast Guard

also tasked TSAC with determining

guidelines for pass-fail criteria, and

TSAC has submitted acceptable ones,

which this SNPRM draws on.

The SNPRM defines a designated

examiner as a person trained or

instructed in assessment techniques and

otherwise qualified to evaluate whether

a candidate for a license, document, or

endorsement has achieved the level of

competence necessary to hold the

license, document, or endorsement. As

in the NPRM, this person may be

designated by the Coast Guard either

directly or (within the context of a

program of training or assessment

approved by the Coast Guard)

indirectly. A recently issued TSAC

report recommended that a designated

examiner administering a check-ride

assessment evaluate a mariner’s

performance in six categories: (1) Vessel

familiarity; (2) communications; (3)

emergency procedures; (4) rules of the

road; (5) piloting and navigation; and (6)

maneuvering. Intervention by the vessel

master or designated examiner, serious

violation of a rule of the road, causing

of a reportable marine incident, or

failure by the operator to sufficiently

demonstrate his or her proficiency in

one or more of the six categories would

be grounds for failure of a check-ride

assessment. The operator would then

have to wait at least 30 days before

undergoing a re-evaluation. The Coast

Guard is considering how to implement

this TSAC recommendation, however,

we have decided not to include it in this

SNPRM.

10. Training-Record Book

Of the 27 comments on the proposed

requirement of maintaining a trainingrecord book, only 4 opposed the use of

such a tool. These four argued that the

vessel’s daily radio log would provide

sufficient evidence of a mariner’s

training and service, and that use of

such a record book, if implemented,

would cause a financial burden to the

industry. In addition, two of the four

suggested, as an alternative, that a letter

of recommendation from two active

masters under whom the mariner served

and a letter from the company should be

enough to prove training.

The remaining comments supported

use of a training-record book, but

offered suggestions for modifying it.

These suggestions included the

following: (1) Require mariners to

maintain a daily logbook; (2) require

owners to ensure that the logbook is

accurate and up to date by using

attached letters yearly or trip by trip; (3)

place sole responsibility for the

logbook’s accuracy and content on the

individual mariner; (4) standardize—or,

at the very least, establish guidelines as

to the minimum—information that the

training-record book must contain to

expedite review; and (5) develop a

process that would allow electronic

maintenance of records. The Coast

Guard agrees with the 23 comments that

recommend the training-record book as

a valuable document to efficiently

demonstrate experience in the covered

subjects.

Because the towing industry is so

diverse, a separate training-record book

will have to be created for each segment

of the industry, such as vessel assist,

western rivers, coastal, and ocean

towing. The Coast Guard anticipates

that allowing completion of a trainingrecord book for an STCW endorsement

will allow a mariner to qualify for

oceans and international service

without additional training.

11. Refresher Courses

Of the 92 comments on refresher

courses and rules-of-the-road testing, 39

percent opposed such courses; 4

comments specifically opposed such

testing. In contrast, 56 comments

supported some form of approved

training relative to refresher courses or

testing—31 wholly supported a

refresher course, and 21 wholly

supported rules-of-the-road testing. Of

those in favor of testing or courses,

many supported approved training and

testing through various methods

including open-book examinations, oral

examinations, examination by mail,

classroom training, and training based

on degree of experience.

This SNPRM would allow four

options to fulfill the requirements for

demonstration of proficiency: (1)

Complete an approved course using a

simulator; (2) complete an approved

course using a towing vessel; (3)

complete a check-ride assessment with

a designated examiner; or (4) submit

documentation mentioned as an option

to the completion of an approved

training course. Additionally, it would

let mariners complete refresher-training

courses on rules of the road in place of

exercises. The Coast Guard agrees with
55552 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TSAC’s observation that a rules-of-theroad exercise or a refresher course can

only improve safety throughout the

industry. Consequently, the proposed

requirement of rules-of-the-road

knowledge for renewal persists in this

rulemaking.

12.Title Terminology

The Coast Guard received 34

comments pertaining to the terms used

for crewmembers on a towing vessel, 30

of which opposed replacing the terms

‘‘operator’’ and ‘‘second-class operator’’

with the terms ‘‘master’’ and ‘‘mate

(pilot)’’. Their argument, similar to that

embraced by TSAC, was that,

throughout the history of inland towing,

‘‘mate’’ has never referred to a licensed

officer; rather, it has referred to the chief

unlicensed deck person, while ‘‘pilot’’

has referred to the licensed person that

operates the vessel. This SNPRM would

leave ‘‘pilot of towing vessels’’ available

for use on Western rivers. The license

requirements for mater of towing vessels

and pilot of towing vessels remain

identical. Again, this term in no way

implies either the taking or passing of

the first-class pilotage examination or

the associated level of proficiency; it

merely reflects the historical application

of titles in the inland towing industry.

13. Licensing Structure

The Coast Guard received 58

comments regarding the proposed

licensing structure. Of them, 52 percent

opposed the new licensing structure, for

the following reasons: (1) 48 months

does not provide enough wheelhouse

experience for an unlimited master’s

license; (2) implementing a third-level

license will be costly to entry-level

mariners as well as to companies

(because, for example, some vessels do

not have the spare room to allow

another person on board); (3) the

apprentice-mate level is unnecessary

because mariners already receive handson training as seamen and most

companies already have training

programs in place; and (4) the structure

would limit mariners to certain areas

and vessels. Several comments opposed

the idea of ‘‘direct supervision’’ during

the training of an apprentice mate,

explaining that standing watch alone is

necessary at some point during the

practice sessions. A separate comment

stated that no standard time-limit for the

training of apprentice mates should be

preset since everyone learns at a

different pace.

A total of 28 comments supported the

proposed licensing structure, given its

aim to increase experience and skill.

However, some of these comments

offered suggestions to change

terminology (as noted above in category

12) and the amount of time a mariner is

to serve as an apprentice mater before

becoming a mate varying from 1 to 5

years. Other comments specifically

recommended that the Coast Guard

ensure that no current mariner-intraining be hastily granted a license as

mate (pilot) to avoid the requirements of

this rulemaking.

Under current rules, the OUTV

license requires 3 years of total service.

Under this SNPRM a Master of towing

vessels would require 4 years of service,

the same as Master: (1) Ocean and Nearcoastal, 1600 GT; (2) Great Lakes or

Inland, any GT; and (3) Uninspected

fishing-industry vessels. The proposed

licensing structure would require a

mariner to gain wheelhouse training and

experience before taking the exam for a

license as apprentice mate or steersman

of towing vessels. More training and

experience in the wheelhouse and

completion of the training-record book

would then qualify him or her for a

demonstration of proficiency with a

designated examiner before issuance of

a license as mate (pilot) of towing

vessel. A license as mate (pilot) would

qualify a mariner to stand the watch of

the current second-class OUTV or ‘‘back

watch,’’ but would not authorize the

person to serve as master.

14. Horsepower as a Basis of Authority

The Coast Guard received a total of

365 comments pertaining to the

proposed 3000-horsepower breakpoint.

Twelve percent of the 365 supported

using a horsepower breakpoint to limit

licenses—6 percent of which suggested

variations to the NPRM such as

applying it to entry-level mariners only

and creating a third breakpoint.

Of the 365, 60 percent opposed any

sort of horsepower breakpoint, primarily

on the basis that it would limit

employment for both mariners and

companies by restricting mariners to

vessels of particular horsepowers.

Twenty-six percent of them objected to

the breakpoint as written and requested

that it be either removed or completely

revised using a higher breakpoint; in

contrast, only 2 percent of them stated

that 3000 horsepower was too high and

requested that it be either removed or

completely revised using a lower

breakpoint. Another twelve percent of

the opposing comments specifically

recommended that the Coast Guard

remove any horsepower breakpoint as

the qualifying criterion and use a ratio

of the vessel’s gross tonnage to the size

of the vessel’s tow. Many of them

opposed the horsepower breakpoint

arguing that small towing vessels

require just as much handling

responsibility as, and often more than,

larger vessels since smaller vessels are

limited in maneuvering capability. They

argued that the size of the two—not the

horsepower of the tug—determines the

level of safety. Mariners also expressed

concern that a breakpoint would let

employers prevent less-experienced

mariners from obtaining equal

employment-opportunities.

In consideration of the comments

received and TSAC’s recommendation,

the Coast Guard has decided to replace

the horsepower breakpoint with

proficiency as the basis of authority for

the new licensing system. The TSAC

working group pointed out that, while

some level of horsepower had originally

seemed a sound criterion for

differentiation of licenses, no consensus

had ever formed within the industry as

to just what level was most appropriate

for a breakpoint. Therefore, increased

emphasis on the experience an

applicant has on particular waters will

replace any such breakpoint.

15. Route Endorsements

The Coast Guard received about 65

comments pertaining to route

endorsements, 17 percent of which

supported them as proposed and

perceived geographical knowledge of

the traveled area as a necessity. Some of

these comments even suggested that the

endorsements be more restrictive than

proposed. Meanwhile, 74 percent of the

comments opposed route endorsements.

These comments maintained that, in

some cases, a mariner may have to

travel unlicensed on one route while

trying to get to the route for which he

or she holds a license (for example,

mariners with licenses endorsed for

Oceans already have to travel through

Near-coastal waters to get to their

regular routes). In addition, the

comments argued that route

endorsements would unnecessarily

restrict mariners, ultimately limiting

their employment—financially and

professionally—within a company.

Other concerns expressed by the

comments pertained to either specific

route endorsements or procedures for

obtaining endorsements. Several

comments argued that Western rivers

covers multiple routes and should

therefore be eliminated from the

proposed rule or modified to reflect

specific routes. A separate comment

recommended inclusion of the

Mississippi in that for Western rivers,

while others requested clarification of

those for Rivers and Western rivers, and

inclusion of the Gulf Intercoastal

Waterways in that for either Nearcoastal waters or the Great Lakes and

inland waters. Comments also requested
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55553

the Coast Guard to allow use of an

employment record or company

document for proof of time and

experience on a particular route.

Under this SNPRM, as under the

NPRM, towing vessel-licenses would be

issued for the following routes:

a. Oceans.

b. Near-coastal routes.

c. Great Lakes and inland routes.

d. Rivers.

e. Western rivers.

f. Restricted local areas designated by

Officers in Charge, Marine Inspection

(OCMIs).

The license of a master or mate (pilot)

of towing vessels endorsed for Oceans

would authorize service on Near-coastal

routes, Great Lakes and inland routes, or

Rivers upon 30 days of observation and

training on the subordinate route. That

of a master or mate (pilot) of towing

vessels endorsed for Near-coastal routes

would authorize service on Great Lakes

and inland routes or Rivers upon 30

days of observation and training on the

subordinate route.

On the Western rivers, the methods of

towing, the aids to navigation, the

operating methods, and the operating

environment are unique. Therefore, not

even the license of a master or mate

(pilot) of towing vessels endorsed for

Oceans, Near-coastal routes, Great Lakes

and inland routes, or Rivers would

authorize service on Western rivers. To

get an endorsement for this service, an

applicant would have to show 90 days

of operation and training over a route on

a Western river.

To get an endorsement for a new

route, an applicant would have to pass

an exam for the route and serve in the

next lower grade for 90 days on the

route sought. Afterwards the Coast

Guard would remove the lower-grade

restriction. For example, an applicant

holding a license as master of towing

vessels endorsed for Rivers, applying for

the same license endorsed for a Nearcoastal route, would have to pass an

exam for this route and submit evidence

of 90 days’ experience as not a master

but a mate on this route. Upon

completion of the required sea service,

the applicant could have his or her

master’s license endorsed for this route.

16. Grandfathering of Licenses

The Coast Guard received 56

comments pertaining to the licensing of

experienced mariners, the majority of

which (84 percent) wholly supported

grandfathering holders of current

licenses commensurate with experience.

The remaining comments either

opposed grandfathering or requested

clarification on the criteria for

grandfathering.

Mariners currently holding OUTV

licenses could have them renewed as

licenses for masters of towing vessels.

These mariners therefore would be

grandfathered in that they would have

to meet only the renewal requirements

contained in the proposed rule.

17. Special Endorsements

The Coast Guard received about 25

comments in response to its request for

comments on the applicability of the

proposed requirements, specifically the

horsepower breakpoint on harbortowing vessels and assist-towing

vessels. Only 4 comments opposed a

harbor endorsement, free of horsepower

limitation, while 12 comments

supported a harbor endorsement for the

following reasons: (1) Harbor work

requires flexibility; (2) harbor vessels do

not face the same level of danger as do

line boats; and, (3) without the

endorsement, the proposed horsepower

breakpoint would limit career

advancement. A separate comment

suggested that, since harbor-towing

companies normally use their operators

on all of their boats at one time or

another, a harbor-vessel operator should

have to demonstrate proficiency on the

company-owned vessel with the highest

horsepower.

Three comments supported a special

endorsement for masters of assisttowing vessels on the basis that it would

be difficult to obtain a master to

undertake a ship assist without such

endorsement. These comments also

noted that assist-towing vessels have

different demands from other towing

vessels and need less damage control.

Another comment suggested applying a

horsepower limitation on an

endorsement for assist-towing vessels if

the mariner seeking it has experience

only with such vessels. However, the

same comment argued that those

mariners with experience on vessels of

greater horsepower should be permitted

to operate these without limitation by a

restrictive endorsement. Only three

comments agreed that operators of

assist-towing vessels of 26 feet or more

in length that are hired for commercial

use should be subjected to the same

standards and testing as operators of

other towing vessels.

TSAC voiced concern about the

difficulties for mariners in the vessel

assist segment of the industry to obtain

training time for the apprentice mate

(steersman) license. TSAC

recommended that vessel assist

applicants proceed to the mate (pilot)

license by completing the written exam

and demonstrating proficiency at the

same time. Note: The mariner will also

have to complete either the trainingrecord book or an approved training

course.

The SNPRM does not propose a

horsepower breakpoint for towingvessel licenses. Vessel assist licenses

(not to be confused with licenses

endorsed for Assistance-Towing) may go

directly to mate of towing vessels

without getting an apprentice mate

(steersman) license but will be limited

to the vessel assist portion of the

industry.

The Coast Guard received four

comments pertaining to other types of

vessels used in the towing industry. One

comment requested that oil-spillresponse vessels be excluded from the

proposed requirements because the

requirements would create an

unnecessary financial burden on the

companies that operate these vessels

without enhancing navigational safety.

Two comments supported an

endorsement for anchor-handling tugsupply (AHTS) vessels, which support

the offshore industry, because barge

towing is not a primary source of

employment for these vessels. Another

comment noted that the NPRM had not

discussed passenger barges, but

requested that they be exempt from this

rulemaking. Passenger barges are

inspected and certified by the Coast

Guard and, by themselves, are not

affected by this rulemaking. However,

the means of propulsion (towing

vessels) for the most part do not require

inspection and certification, and are

included in this rulemaking.

Oil-spill-response-vessels will not

normally be exempt from the proposed

licensing requirement; however, in

emergencies such as a major oil spill,

the local OCMI can temporarily exempt

oil-spill-response-vessels for the

duration of the emergency. AHTS

vessels may already qualify for licensing

exemptions, and no additional

exemptions for this segment of the

industry are being considered.

The Coast Guard notes that vessels

engaged solely in assistance towing are

covered by existing regulations and

remain exempt from this rulemaking. It

has proposed a definition of disabled

vessel under § 10.103 to better define

the assistance-towing industry and

show that this proposed rule does not

cover that industry.

The Coast Guard recognizes that—by

employing similar terms, Assistance

towing and Vessel assist, for dissimilar

industries—it may be risking confusion.

The Coast Guard invites your comments

to avert any confusion.
55554 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

18. Other, General Subject Matter

Several comments opposed the Coast

Guard’s attempt to further regulate the

towing industry, an attempt based, they

stated, on one mariner’s incompetence

resulting in the Amtrak casualty. Other

comments (inconsistent with those)

resented the application of blue-water

rules to a brown-water industry.

Remaining comments cited the Coast

Guard’s failure to properly and safely

maintain waterways and regulate

recreational and pleasure boats, rather

than operators’ errors, as the basis for

problems in the towing industry. A

number of these comments did not

relate directly to the content of the

proposed regulations. Illustrative of

these were issues of the 12-hour work

limit (2-watch system), the increased

manning of towing vessels to include a

licensed engineer, and the reason for

improved aids to navigation. The Coast

Guard has addressed and will address

these issues and others in appropriate

ways outside of this SNPRM.

The definitions of ‘‘Coast Guardaccepted,’’ ‘‘designated examiner,’’

‘‘practical demonstration,’’ ‘‘qualified

instructor,’’ and ‘‘standard of

competence,’’ proposed under § 10.103,

and § 10.309, titled, ‘‘Coast Guardaccepted training other than approved

courses’’, were published in the Coast

Guard interim rule implementing the

1978 Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers as amended in 1995 (62 FR

34506); and, therefore, they have been

removed from this proposed

rulemaking.

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

of the Evaluation follows:

Summary of Benefits

The principal benefits of this

proposed rule would be to enhance the

safety of navigation and reduce the risk

of collisions, allisions, groundings,

fatalities, and injuries in the towing

industry. The training required by this

rule has the particular potential to

significantly decrease the number of

fatalities and injuries in the industry. If

this rule reduces the number of

reportable marine casualties—whether

they involve fatalities, injuries requiring

professional medical treatment, or

property damage costing in excess of

$25,000—by 13 a year over the next 10

years, the benefits will exceed the costs.

The effectiveness to this rulemaking

cannot be accurately quantified because

of the inability to measure the damage

dollars based on human error alone.

However, the baseline of preventing 3

deaths, which is 50% of the total

fatalities which occurred in the past ten

years from casualties that this rule

should prevent, would be $8.1 million.

Therefore, this alone will exceed the

total cost of the rulemaking. The

complex cumulative effect of human

error makes it difficult to quantify the

exact benefits of the proposed rule.

One way to reduce the risks

associated with human error in

operating towing vessels is to ensure

that mariners maintain the highest

practicable standards of training,

certification, and competence. Although

the Coast Guard recognizes that many

prudent operators already practice

proficient navigation, this rule would

codify their skills, provide basic

performance standards for

demonstration of proficiency, and

compel compliance for operators not

conforming to sound practices of the

majority of the industry. The rule is

intended to accrue benefits from a

reduction of towing-vessel accidents

and injuries through an increased

awareness of safe towing practices.

Summary of Costs

There are around 5,400 documented

towing vessels in the United States. The

impact on the operators of these vessels

would be minimal because holders of

current licenses would be grandfathered

into licenses commensurate with their

experience. Because these new licenses

would be issued at the time of routine

renewal, there would be no new users’

fees for them. The proposed rule,

however, would result in increased fees

for new entrants into the industry.

Most changes to the proposed rule in

this SNPRM either are editorial or

update technical information to reflect

comments to the NPRM. But there are

certain ones that are substantive and

will require different behavior by

mariners. Responsive to comments from

the public and TSAC, the Coast Guard

would let those mariners who have

maintained recency of service, and have

not had administrative action against

their license culminating in suspension

or revocation, forgo any demonstration

of proficiency for license renewal;

rather, the Coast Guard would let them

submit ‘‘information’’.

The Coast Guard estimates the annual

costs of compliance—for new entrants

into the industry—with the proposed

rule at around $1,057,850. The 10-year

present value of these costs, discounted

at 7 percent back to 1996, would total

$7,429,896.

Small Entitles

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

considers whether this proposed rule, if

adopted, will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. ‘‘Small

entities’’ include small businesses, notfor-profit organizations that are

independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

This proposed rule would place its

primary economic burden on the

mariners, not on their employers—who

may, though they need not, assume

responsibility for this burden. The Coast

Guard expects that, of the employers

who would assume this responsibility,

few, if any, would be small entities.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule, 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 rule will have a significant

economic impact on your business or

organization, please submit a comment

(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you

think it qualifies and in what way and

to what degree this proposed rule would

economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

In accordance with section 213(a) of

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub.

L. 104–121), the Coast Guard wants to

assist small entities in understanding

this proposed rule so that they can

better evaluate its effects on them and

participate in the rulemaking process. If

your small business or organization is

affected by this rule and you have

questions concerning its provisions or

options for compliance, please contact

LCDR Don Darcy, Office of Operating

and Environmental Standards (G–MSO),

202–267–0221.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule provides for a

collection of information under the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55555

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). As defined in 5

CFR 1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of

information’’ includes reporting,

recordkeeping, monitoring, posting,

labeling, and other, similar actions. The

title and description of the information

collections, a description of the

respondents, and an estimate of the total

annual burden follow. Included in the

estimate is the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing sources

of data, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection.

DOT No.: 2115.

OMB Control No.: 2115–0623.

Title: Licensing and Manning for

Officers of Towing Vessels.

Summary of the Collection of

Information: This proposed rule would

require every mariner who seeks an

original license as mate (pilot) of towing

vessels or an endorsement for towing

vessels to have a training-record book. It

may also require a report on a final

check-ride before a designated

examiner.

Need for Information: The need for

the collection of information is to

ensure that the mariners’ training

information is available to assist in

determining an individuals overall

qualification to hold a Coast Guard

issued merchant mariners license. These

recordkeeping requirements are

consistent with good commercial

practices to the end of good seamanship

for safe navigation. The following is a

section-by-section explanation of them:

Proposed § 10.304(e) would require

each applicant for a license as mate

(pilot) of towing vessels, and each

master or mate of self-propelled vessels

of greater than 200 gross tons seeking an

endorsement for towing vessels, to

complete a training-record book.

Proposed § 10.463(h) would require a

company to maintain evidence that

every vessel it operates is under the

direction and control of a licensed

mariner with appropriate experience,

including 30 days of observation and

training on the intended route. The

company could do this with copies of

current licenses and voyage records that

most companies already keep.

Proposed § 10.464(d)(2) would require

masters of vessels of greater than 200 GT

to maintain training-record books for

license endorsements as masters of

towing vessels. Collection of this

information is necessary to ensure that

the masters have completed the series of

qualifications for licensing.

Proposed §§ 10.465(a)(2), (b)(2), (c)(2),

and (d)(2) would each require a final

check-ride before a designated

examiner. They would then require the

applicant to submit his or her

completed training-record book to the

Coast Guard Regional Examination

Center. Collection of this information is

necessary because it would raise the

safety of towing by upgrading the

evaluation process.

Proposed § 10.465(d)(2) would also

require mates of self-propelled vessels

of greater than 200 GT to maintain

training-record books for license

endorsements as mates (pilots) of

towing vessels. Collection of this

information is necessary to ensure that

the mates have completed the series of

qualification for licensing.

Proposed Use of Information: This

information would warrant the mariner

qualified to hold a license for the

service in which he or she would

engage.

Description of Respondents: Mariners

licensed to operate towing vessels,

prospective towing vessel officers, and

companies employing these mariners.

Number of Respondents: 14,455

mariners of towing vessels and

approximately 400 companies

employing these mariners, during a 3-

year period.

Frequency of Response: For 60

percent of the mariners, the frequency of

response is estimated to be once over

the initial three years. An estimated five

percent of currently licensed mariners

may complete a report on a final checkride before a designated examiner every

5 years. Final check-ride before a

designated examiner under proposed

§§ 10.465 (a)(2), (b)(2), (c)(2), and (d)(2)

would entail a one-time record after the

mariner’s training-record book had been

completed. Approximately 400

companies would be required to

maintain a license and voyage record

file for each mariner to be revised upon

the expansion of a mariner’s route.

Burden of Response: Approximately

95 percent of current licensed towing

vessel operators would have to perform

an estimated 1.0 hour of management

over a 3-year period to provide the Coast

Guard updates of their licensing

records. Approximately five percent of

the currently licensed mariners may

perform an estimated 0.5 hours of

management time to comply with

providing the Coast Guard the final

check-ride. Approximately 1,560 entry

mariners seeking a license to operate

towing vessels would have to perform

an estimated 1.0 hour of management

time over a 3-year period to comply

with providing the Coast Guard updates

of their licensing records. Under

proposed § 10.643(h), approximately

400 companies would have to maintain

evidence that every vessel it operates is

under the direction and control of a

licensed mariner with appropriate

experience. Each company would

perform 0.25 hours of administrative

time for each mariner to maintain these

records. The estimated cost burden for

information collection would be

§ 106,069.25 per year and $318,207.75

for the initial 3 years.

Estimated Total Annual Burden:

During a 3-year period, the total

reporting and recordkeeping burden

would be 12,717.25 hours.

As required by section 3507(d) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

Coast Guard has submitted a copy of

this proposed rule to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for its

review of the collection of information.

The Coast Guard solicits public

comment on the proposed collection of

information to: (1) Evaluate whether the

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Coast Guard, including whether the

information would have practical

utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the

Coast Guard’s estimate of the burden of

the collection, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (4) minimize the burden

of the collection on those who are to

respond, as by allowing the submittal of

responses by electronic means or the

use of other forms of information

technology.

Persons submitting comments on the

collection of information should submit

their comments both to OMB and to the

Coast Guard where indicated under

ADDRESSES by the date under DATES.

Persons are not required to respond to

a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number. Before the requirements for this

collection of information become

effective, the Coast Guard will publish

notice in the Federal Register of OMB’s

decision to approve, modify, or

disapprove the collection.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

rule under the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612 and

has determined that this proposed rule

does not have sufficient implications for

federalism to warrant the preparation of

a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

rule and concluded that, under

paragraph 2.B.2.e.(34) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. This rule
55556 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

is a matter of ‘‘training, qualifying,

licensing and disciplining of maritime

personnel’’ within the meaning of

subparagraph 2.B2.e (34) of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1B

that clearly has no environmental

impact. A ‘‘Categorical Exclusion

Determination’’ is available in the

docket for inspection or copying where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 10

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Schools, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 15

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Seamen, Vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 46 CFR parts 10 and 15 as

follows:

PART 10—LICENSING OF MARITIME

PERSONNEL

1. Review the authority citation for

part 10 to read as follows:

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 31 U.S.C. 9701;

46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C.

Chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7302, 7502, 7505, and

7701; 49 CFR 1.45 and 1.46. Section 10.107

is also issued under the authority of 44

U.S.C. 3507.

2. To § 10.103, add definitions, in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 10.103 Definitions of terms used in this

part.

Apprentice mate (steersman) of

towing vessels means a mariner

qualified to perform watchkeeping on

the bridge, aboard a towing vessel,

while in training under the direct

supervision of a licensed master or mate

(pilot) of towing vessels.

* * * * *

Approved training means training that

is approved by the Coast Guard or meets

the requirements of § 10.309.

* * * * *

Disabled vessel means a vessel that

needs assistance, whether docked,

moored, anchored, aground, adrift, or

under way; but does not mean a barge

or any other vessel not regularly

operated under its own power.

* * * * *

Pilot of towing vessels means a

qualified officer of towing vessels

operating exclusively on inland routes.

* * * * *

Vessel Assist means the use of a

towing vessel during maneuvers to

dock, undock, moor, or unmoor a vessel,

or to escort a ship with limited

maneuverability.

* * * * *

§ 10.201 [Amended]

3. In § 10.201, in paragraph (f)(1),

remove the words ‘‘second-class

operator of uninspected towing vessel’’

and add, in their place, the words ‘‘mate

(pilot) of towing vessels (19 years)’’;

and, in paragraph (f)(2), remove the

words ‘‘designated duty engineer of

vessels of not more than 1,000

horsepower, may be granted to an

applicant who has reached the age of 18

years.’’ and add, in their place, the

words ‘‘designated duty engineer of

vessels of not more than 1,000

horsepower, or apprentice mate

(steersman) of towing vessels, may be

granted to an applicant, otherwise

qualified, who has reached the age of 18

years.’’

§ 10.203 [Amended]

4. In § 10.203, in Table 10.203,

remove the word ‘‘Uninspected’’ from

before the words ‘‘towing vessels’’ and

capitalize the first letter in the word

‘‘towing’’ in column one; and remove

the words ‘‘Operator: 21; 2/c operator:

19.’’ from the license category that way

just amended to read ‘‘Towing vessels’’

in column two and add, in their place,

the words ‘‘Master of towing vessels: 21;

mate (pilot) of towing vessels: 19;

apprentice mate (steersman): 18’’.

§ 10.205 [Amended]

5. In § 10.205, in paragraph (f)(1),

remove the words ‘‘operator of

uninspected towing vessels’’ and add, in

their place, the words ‘‘master or mate

(pilot) of towing vessels’’; and, in

paragraph (g)(3), remove the words ‘‘All

operators of uninspected towing vessels,

oceans (domestic trade)’’ and add, in

their place, the words ‘‘All licenses for

master or mate (pilot), except apprentice

mate (steersman), for towing vessels on

Oceans’’.

6. In § 10.209, add paragraphs (c)(6)

and (7) to read as follows:

§ 10.209 Requirements for renewal of

licenses, certificates of registry, and STCW

certificates and endorsements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(6) Except as provided by paragraph

(c)(7) of this section, an applicant for

renewal of a license as master or mate

(pilot) of towing vessels shall submit

satisfactory evidence, predating the

application by not more than 1 year, of

satisfying the requirements of paragraph

(c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, or those of

paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section

except the exercise; and of—

(i) Either completing a practical

demonstration of maneuvering and

handling a towing vessel before a

designated examiner or submitting

documentation in the form of a trainingrecord book listing training, drills,

experience during the license’s validity

in which an operator’s proficiency is

assessed over time; and

(ii) Either passing a rules-of-the-road

exercise or completing a refreshertraining course.

(7) An applicant for renewal of a

license as master or mate (pilot) of

towing vessels whose most recent

license was suspended or revoked by an

administrative law judge for

incompetence shall complete the

practical demonstration rather than

submit the training-record book under

paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section.

* * * * *

7. In § 10.304, redesignate paragraph

(h) as (i), and add new paragraph (h) to

read as follows:

§ 10.304 Substitution of training for

required service, and use of training-record

books.

* * * * *

(h) Each applicant for a license as

mate (pilot) of towing vessels, and each

master or mate of self-propelled vessels

of greater than 200 gross tons seeking an

endorsement for towing vessels, shall

complete a training-record book that

contains at least the following:

(1) Identification of the candidate,

including full name, home address,

photograph or photo-image, and

personal signature.

(2) Objectives of the training and

assessment.

(3) Tasks to be performed or skills to

be demonstrated.

(4) Criteria to be used in determining

that the tasks or skills have been

performed properly.

(5) Places for a qualified instructor to

indicate by his or her initials that the

candidate has received training in the

proper performance of the tasks or

skills.

(6) A place for a qualified examiner to

indicate by his or her initials that the

candidate has successfully completed a

practical demonstration and has proved

competent in the task or skill under the

criteria.

(7) Identification of each qualified

instructor by full name, home address,

employer, job title, ship name or

business address, number of any Coast

Guard license or document held, and

personal signature.

(8) Identification of each designated

examiner by full name, home address,

employer, job title, ship name or

business address, number of any Coast
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55557

Guard license or document held, and

personal signature confirming that his

or her initials certify that he or she has

witnessed the practical demonstration

of a particular task or skill by the

candidate.

* * * * *

8. In § 10.403, revise the heading of

the section and Figure 10.403 to read as

follows:

§ 10.403 Structure of deck licenses.

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M
55558 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910–14–C
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55559

§ 10.412 [Amended]

9. In § 10.412(a), remove the words

‘‘operator of uninspected towing

vessels,’’.

§ 10.414 [Amended]

10. In § 10.414(a), remove the words

‘‘operator of uninspected towing

vessels,’’.

11. In § 10.418, revise the heading and

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 10.418 Service for master of Ocean or

Near-coastal steam or motor vessels of not

more than 500 gross tons.

* * * * *

(b) The holder of a license as master

or mate (pilot) of towing vessels

authorizing service on Oceans or Nearcoastal routes is eligible for a license as

master of Ocean or Near-coastal steam

or motor vessels of not more than 500

gross tons after both 1 year of service as

master or mate of towing vessels on

Oceans or Near-coastal routes and

completion of a limited examination.

§ 10.420 [Amended]

12. In § 10.420, remove the words

‘‘operator of uninspected towing

vessels,’’.

§ 10.424 [Amended]

13. In § 10.424(a)(2), remove the

words ‘‘operator or second-class

operator of ocean or near coastal

uninspected towing vessels’’ and add, in

their place, the words ‘‘master or mate

of Ocean or Near-coastal towing

vessels’’.

14. In § 10.426, revise the heading and

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

§ 10.426 Service for master of Near-coastal

steam or motor vessel of not more than 200

gross tons.

(a) * * *

(2) One year of total service as

licensed master or mate of towing

vessels on Oceans or Near-coastal

routes. Completion of a limited

examination is also required.

* * * * *

§ 10.442 [Amended]

15. In § 10.442, paragraphs (a) and (b),

remove the words ‘‘operator of

uninspected towing vessels’’ from the

two places where they occur and add,

in their places, the words ‘‘master or

mate (pilot) of towing vessels’’.

16. In § 10.446, revise the heading and

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 10.446 Service for master of Great Lakes

and inland steam or motor vessels of not

more than 500 gross tons.

* * * * *

(b) The holder of a license as master

or mate (pilot) of towing vessels is

eligible for this license after completion

of both 1 year of service as master or

mate (pilot) of towing vessels and a

limited examination specific to towing.

§ 10.452 [Amended]

17. In § 10.452(a), remove the words

‘‘operator or second-class operator of

uninspected towing vessels’’ and add, in

their place, the words ‘‘master or mate

(pilot) of towing vessels’’.

§ 10.462 [Amended]

18. In § 10.462(c) introductory text,

remove the words ‘‘operator of

uninspected towing vessels’’ and add, in

their place, the words ‘‘master or mate

(pilot) of towing vessels’’.

19. Add § 10.463 to read as follows:

§ 10.463 General requirements for licenses

for master, mate (pilot), and apprentice

mate (steersman) of towing vessels.

(a) The Coast Guard issues licenses as

master and mate (pilot) of towing

vessels in the following categories:

(1) Unlimited. For this section,

unlimited means a towing vessel of less

than 200 gross tons not conducting

vessel assist.

(2) Vessel assist.

(b) The Coast Guard restricts licenses

as master and mate (pilot) of towing

vessels for Oceans and Near-coastal

routes by the gross tonnage of the

towing vessels on which the experience

was acquired—by 200, 500, and 1,600

gross tons, in accordance with

§§ 10.424, 10.418, and 10.412,

respectively.

(c) The Coast Guard endorses licenses

as master, mate (pilot), and apprentice

mate (steersman) of towing vessels for

one or more of the following routes:

(1) Oceans.

(2) Near-coastal routes.

(3) Great Lakes and inland routes.

(4) Rivers.

(5) Western rivers.

(6) Restricted local areas designated

by Officers in Charge, Marine

Inspection.

(d) A license as master or mate of

towing vessels endorsed for Oceans

authorizes service on Oceans. This

license also authorizes service on a

subordinate route of Near-coastal, Great

Lakes and inland, or Rivers (except

Western rivers) upon completion of 30

days of observation and training on the

specific subordinate route.

(e) A license as master or mate (pilot)

of towing vessels endorsed for Nearcoastal routes authorizes service on

Near-coastal routes, Great Lakes and

inland routes, and Rivers (except

Western rivers) upon completion of 30

days of observation and training on each

subordinate route.

(f) A license as master or mate (pilot)

of towing vessels endorsed for Great

Lakes and inland routes authorizes

service on Great Lakes and inland routes

and Rivers (except Western rivers) upon

completion of 30 days of observation

and training on the subordinate route.

(g) Before serving as master or mate

(pilot) of towing vessels on Western

rivers, the licensed mariner shall

possess 90 days of observation and

training and have his or her license

endorsed for Western rivers.

(h) Each company must maintain

evidence that every vessel it operates is

under the direction and control of a

licensed mariner with appropriate

experience, including 30 days of

observation and training on the

intended route.

(i) For all inland routes, the license as

pilot of towing vessels is equivalent to

that as mate of towing vessels. All

qualifications and equivalencies are the

same.

(j) For all inland routes, the license as

steersman is equivalent to that as

apprentice mate. All qualifications and

equivalencies are the same.

20. Revise § 10.464 to read as follows:

§ 10.464 Licenses as masters of towing

vessels.

(a) For a license as master of towing

vessels (unlimited), an applicant shall—

(1) Have 48 months of total service

including—

(i) Eighteen months of service on deck

of a towing vessel of 8 meters (at least

26 feet) or over in length while holding

a license as mate (pilot) of towing

vessels unlimited;

(ii) Twelve months of the 18 months,

as mate (pilot) on towing vessels other

than vessel assist; and

(iii) Three months of the 18 months

on the particular route sought by the

applicant; or

(2)(i) Have 12 months of service as

mate (pilot) of towing vessels

(unlimited) while holding a license as

master of towing vessels (vessel assist)

including 3 months of service on the

particular route sought by the applicant;

(ii) Have completed the ‘‘unlimited’’

sections of the training-record book; and

(iii) Have passed an ‘‘unlimited’’

examination.

(b) For a license as master of towing

vessels (vessel assist), an applicant

shall—

(1) Have 48 months of total service

including—

(i) Eighteen months of service on deck

of a towing vessel of 8 meters (at least

26 feet) or over in length while holding

a license as mate (pilot) of towing

vessels;
55560 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(ii) Twelve months of the 18 months,

as mate (pilot) on towing vessels

conducting vessel assist; and

(iii) Three months of the 18 months

on the particular route sought by the

applicant; or

(2) Have 12 months of service as mate

(pilot) of towing vessels (vessel assist)

while holding a license as limited

master of towing vessels including 3

months of service on the particular

route sought by the applicant.

(c) For a license as master of towing

vessels (vessel assist) endorsed for a

restricted local area, an applicant shall

have 36 months of total service

including—

(1) Twelve months of service on deck

of a towing vessel of 8 meters (at least

26 feet) or over in length as limited mate

(pilot) of towing vessels; and

(2) Three months of service on the

particular route sought by the applicant.

(d) The holder of a license as master

of self-propelled vessels of greater than

200 gross tons and first-class pilots may

obtain an endorsement for towing

vessels (restricted to the service

presented) if he or she—

(1) Has 30 days of training and

observation on towing vessels on each

of the routes for which the endorsement

is sought;

(2) Submits evidence of assessment of

practical demonstration of skills, in the

form of a training-record book,

described in § 10.304(e); and

(3) Passes an examination.

(e) The holder of a license as master

of towing vessels may have a restricted

endorsement, as mate (pilot) for a route

not included in the current

endorsements on which he or she has

no operating experience, placed on his

or her license after passing an

examination for that route. Upon

completion of 90 days of experience on

that route, he or she may have the

restricted endorsement removed.

21. Add § 10.465 to read as follows:

§ 10.465 Licenses as mates (pilots) of

towing vessels.

(a) For a license as mate (pilot) of

towing vessels (unlimited), an applicant

shall—

(1) Have 30 months of total service

including—

(i) Twelve months of service on deck

of a towing vessel of 8 meters (at least

26 feet) or over in length while holding

a license as apprentice mate

(steersman); and

(ii) Three months of the 12 months on

the particular route sought by the

applicant;

(2) Submit either—

(i) A certificate of completion from a

Coast-Guard-approved course as

specified in paragraph (f) of this section;

or

(ii) Evidence of assessment of

practical demonstration of skills, in the

form of a training-record book in

accordance with § 10.304(e); or

(3) Have 30 days of service observing

and training on towing vessels other

than vessel assist while holding a

license as master of towing vessels

(vessel assist) and pass a partial

examination.

(b) For a license as mate (pilot) of

towing vessels (vessel assist), an

applicant shall—

(1) Have 30 months of total service

including—

(i) Twelve months of service on deck

of a towing vessel of 8 meters (at least

26 feet) or over in length while holding

a license as apprentice mate (steersman)

of towing vessels; or

(ii) Thirty months of total service on

vessel assist towing vessels and have

passed an apprentice mate (pilot)

examination;

(2) Have 3 months of the last 12

months of service on the particular

route sought by the applicant; and

(3) Submit either—

(i) A certificate of completion from a

Coast Guard-approved course as

specified in paragraph (f) of this section;

(ii) Evidence of assessment of

practical demonstration of skills, in the

form of a training-record book in

accordance with § 10.304(e); or

(iii) Evidence of 30 days of service

observing and training on towing

vessels while holding a limited license

as master of towing vessels and pass a

partial examination.

(c) For a license as mate (pilot) of

towing vessels (vessel assist) endorsed

for a restricted local area, an applicant

shall—

(1) Have 24 months of total service

including 6 months of service on deck

of a towing vessel of 8 meters (at least

26 feet) or over in length as limited

apprentice mate (steersman) of towing

vessels; and

(2) Submit either—

(i) A certificate of completion from a

Coast-Guard-approved course as

specified in paragraph (f) of this section;

or

(ii) Evidence of assessment of

practical demonstration of skills, in the

form of a training-record book in

accordance with § 10.304(e).

(d) The holder of a license as mate of

self-propelled vessels of greater than

200 gross tons may obtain an

endorsement for towing vessels if he or

she—

(1) Has 30 days of training and

observation on towing vessels on each

route for which the endorsement is

requested;

(2) Submits evidence of assessment of

practical demonstration of skills, in the

form of a training-record book in

accordance with § 10.304(e); and

(3) Passes an examination.

(e) The holder of a license as mate

(pilot) of towing vessels may have a

restricted endorsement, as apprentice

mate (steersman) for a route not

included in the current endorsements

on which he or she has no operating

experience, placed on his or her license

after passing an examination for that

route. Upon completion of 3 months of

experience in that route, he or she may

have the restricted endorsement

removed.

(f) An accepted training course for

mate (pilot) of towing vessels, whether

unlimited or vessel assist, must include

formal instruction and practical

demonstration of proficiency either on

board a towing vessel or at a shoreside

training facility before a designated

examiner, and must cover—

(1) Shipboard management and

training;

(2) Seamanshp;

(3) Navigation;

(4) Watchkeeping;

(5) Radar;

(6) Meteorology;

(7) Maneuvering and handling of

towing vessels;

(8) Engine-room basics; and

(9) Emergency procedures.

22. Redesignate § 10.466 as § 10.467

and add a new § 10.466 to read as

follows:

§ 10.466 Service for apprentice mate

(steersman) of towing vessels.

(a) For a license as apprentice mate

(steersman) of towing vessels, an

applicant shall—

(1) Have 18 months of service on deck

including 12 months on towing vessels;

(2) Have 3 months of the 18 months

on the particular route sought by the

applicant; and

(3) Pass the examination specified in

subpart I of this part.

(b) For a license as limited apprentice

mate (steersman) of towing vessels, an

applicant shall—

(1) Have 18 months of service on deck

including 12 months on towing vessels;

(2) Have 3 months of the 18 months

on the particular route sought by the

applicant; and

(3) Pass the examination.

(c) The holder of a license as

apprentice mate (steersman) of towing

vessels may have a restricted

endorsement, as limited apprentice

mate (steersman) for a route not

included in the current endorsements

on which he or she has no operating

experience, placed on his or her license
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55561

upon passing an examination for that

route. Upon completion of 3 months of

experience in that route, he or she may

have the restricted endorsement

removed.

23. In § 10.482, revise paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 10.482 Assistance towing.

(a) This section contains the

requirements to qualify for an

endorsement authorizing an applicant to

engage in assistance towing. The

endorsement applies to all licenses

except those for master and mate (pilot)

of towing vessels and those for master

or mate authorizing service on inspected

vessels over 200 gross tons. Holders of

any of these licenses may engage in

assistance towing within the scope of

the licenses and without the

endorsement.

* * * * *

§ 10.701 [Amended]

24. In § 10.701(a), remove the words

‘‘operator of uninspected towing

vessels’’ and add, in their place, the

words ‘‘master or mate (pilot) of towing

vessels’’.

§ 10.703 [Amended]

25. In § 10.703(a), remove the words

‘‘operator of uninspected towing

vessels’’ and add, in their place, the

words ‘‘master or mate (pilot) of towing

vessels’’.

§ 10.901 [Amended]

26. In § 10.901(b)(1), remove the

words ‘‘uninspected towing vessels’’

and add, in their place, the words

‘‘master or mate (pilot) of towing

vessels’’.

27. In § 10.903, revise paragraphs

(a)(18) and (b)(4) to read as follows:

§ 10.903 Licenses requiring examinations.

(a) * * *

(18)(i) Apprentice mate (steersman) of

towing vessels;

(ii) Mate (pilot) of towing vessels,

vessel assist;

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) Master or mate (pilot) of towing

vessels (endorsed for the same route).

28. In § 10.910, revise paragraphs 10

through 12 in Table 10.910–1 to read as

follows:

§ 10.910 Subjects for deck licenses.

* * * * *

10. Apprentice mate, towing vessels,

Oceans (domestic trade) and Nearcoastal routes.

11. Apprentice mate (steersman),

towing vessels, Great lakes and inland

routes.

12. Steersman, towing vessels,

Western rivers.

* * * * *

PART 15—MANNING REQUIREMENTS

29. Revise the authority citation for

part 15 to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 3306,

3703, 8101, 8102, 8104, 8105, 8301, 8304,

8502, 8503, 8701, 8702, 8901, 8902, 8903,

8904, 8905(b), 9102; 50 U.S.C. 198; and 49

CFR 1.45 and 1.46.

§ 15.301 [Amended]

30. In § 15.301, remove paragraph

(b)(6); and redesignate paragraphs (b)(7)

through (10) as paragraphs (b)(6)

through (9).

31. Revise section § 15.610 and its

heading to read as follows:

§ 15.610 Masters and mates (pilots) of

towing vessels.

Every towing vessel at least 8 meters

(at least 26 feet) in length measured

from end to end over the deck

(excluding sheer), except a vessel

described by the next sentence, must be

under the direction and control of a

person licensed as master or mate (pilot)

of towing vessels or as master or mate

of appropriate gross tonnage holding an

endorsement of his or her license for

towing vessels. This does not apply to

any vessel engaged in assistance towing,

or to any towing vessel of less than 200

gross tons engaged in the offshore

mineral and oil industry if the vessel

has sites or equipment of that industry

as its place of departure or ultimate

destination.

§ 15.705 [Amended]

32. In § 15.705(d), remove the words

‘‘individual operating an uninspected

towing vessel’’ and add, in their place,

the words ‘‘master or mate (pilot)

operating a towing vessel’’; and remove

the words ‘‘individuals serving as

operators of uninspected towing

vessels’’ and add, in their place, the

words ‘‘masters or mates (pilots) serving

as operators of towing vessels’’.

33. In § 15.805, add paragraph (a)(5) to

read as follows:

§ 15.805 Master.

(a) * * *

(5) Every towing vessel of 8 meters (at

least 26 feet) or more in length.

* * * * *

34. In § 15.810, redesignate

paragraphs (d) and (e) as (e) and (f); and

add a new paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 15.810 Mates.

* * * * *

(d) Each person in charge of the

navigation or maneuvering of a towing

vessel of 8 meters (at least 26 feet) or

more in length shall hold either a

license authorizing service as mate of

towing vessels—or, on inland routes, as

pilot of towing vessels—or a license as

master of appropriate gross tonnage

according to the routes, endorsed for

towing vessels.

* * * * *

35. Revise § 15.910 and its heading to

read as follows:

§ 15.910 Towing vessels.

No person may serve as master or

mate (pilot) of any towing vessel of 8

meters (at least 26 feet) or more in

length unless he or she holds a license

explicitly authorizing such service.

Dated: October 17, 1997.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 97–28409 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–68; RM–8999]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Hayfield,

VA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; denial of

petition.

SUMMARY: The Commission denies the

petition for rule making filed by Vixon

Valley Broadcasting proposing the

allotment of Channel 263A to Hayfield,

Virginia. See 62 FR 9409, March 3,

1997. The proposal is denied because

Hayfield was found not to be a

community for allotment purposes.

With this action, this proceeding is

terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 97–68,

adopted September 24, 1997, and

released October 17, 1997. 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, ITS, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.