26566 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1A.—NATIONAL ADJUSTED OPERATING STANDARDIZED AMOUNTS, LABOR/NONLABOR

Large urban areas Other areas

Labor-related Nonlabor-related Labor-related Nonlabor-related

2,791.45 1,134.64 2,747.26 1,116.68

TABLE 1C.—ADJUSTED OPERATING STANDARDIZED AMOUNTS FOR PUERTO RICO, LABOR/NONLABOR

Large urban areas Other areas

Labor Nonlabor Labor Nonlabor

National ............................................................................................................................. 2,767.78 1,125.02 2,767.78 1,125.02

Puerto Rico ....................................................................................................................... 1,331.29 535.88 1,310.21 527.40

TABLE 1D.—CAPITAL STANDARD FEDERAL PAYMENT RATE

Rate

National .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 377.25

Puerto Rico .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 180.73

TABLE 1E.—NATIONAL ADJUSTED OPERATING STANDARDIZED AMOUNTS FOR ‘‘TEMPORARY RELIEF’’ HOSPITALS, LABOR/

NONLABOR

Large urban areas Other areas

Labor-related Nonlabor-related Labor-related Nonlabor-related

2,799.77 1,138.02 2,755.44 1,120.01

TABLE 1F.—ADJUSTED OPERATING STANDARDIZED AMOUNTS FOR ‘‘TEMPORARY RELIEF’’ HOSPITALS IN PUERTO RICO,

LABOR/NONLABOR

Large urban areas Other areas

Labor Nonlabor Labor Nonlabor

National ............................................................................................................................. 2,776.03 1,128.37 2,776.03 1,128.37

Puerto Rico ....................................................................................................................... 1,335.26 537.48 1,314.11 528.97

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance

Program; No. 93.773 Medicare—Hospital

Insurance; and No. 93.774, Medicare—

Supplementary Medical Insurance)

Dated: May 8, 1998.

Neil J. Stillman,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information

Resource Management.

[FR Doc. 98–12805 Filed 5–8–98; 4:26 pm]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 1 and 10

[USCG–1998–3824]

RIN 2115–AF58

Maritime Course Approval Procedures

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

revise the regulations which govern

Maritime Course Approval Procedures,

by streamlining the process by which

courses are submitted to and reviewed

by the Coast Guard. We also propose to

add a mechanism to allow us to suspend

or revoke approvals for courses.

Although the regulations govern

training schools with approved courses,

only a methodology for course approval

is provided. Revising the regulations to

include a mechanism for withdrawal of

approval will motivate schools to

maintain a uniformly high standard,

improve compliance with course

approval regulations, and ultimately

promote public safety.

DATES: Comments must reach the

Docket Management Facility on or

before July 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

the Docket Management Facility,

(USCG–1998–3824), U.S. Department of

Transportation, room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001, or deliver them to room

PL–401, located on the Plaza Level of

the Nassif Building at the same address

between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

The Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments will become part

of this docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room PL–401,

located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif

Building at the same address between

10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. You

may also access this docket on the

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For questions about the docket, contact

Ms. Paulette Twine, Chief, Documentary

Services Division, Department of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 26567

Transportation, telephone 202–366–

9329. For questions about this notice,

contact Gerald Miante, Project Manager,

National Maritime Center (NMC), 703–

235–0018.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages you to

submit written data, views, or

arguments. If you submit comments,

you should include your name and

address, identify this notice (USCG–

1998–3824) and the specific section or

question in this document to which

your comments apply, and give the

reason for each comment. Please submit

one copy of all comments and

attachments in an unbound format, no

larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for

copying and electronic filing to the DOT

Docket Management Facility at the

address under ADDRESSES. If you want

us to acknowledge receiving your

comments, please enclose a stamped,

self-addressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period.

The Coast Guard plans no public

meeting. You may request a public

meeting by submitting a request to the

address under ADDRESSES. The request

should include the reasons why a

meeting would be beneficial. If the

Coast Guard determines that a public

meeting should be held, it will hold the

meeting at a time and place announced

by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

Regulations for merchant mariner

course approvals have been in place for

several years and are found in 46 CFR

part 10. Courses were first approved for

education mandated by regulation such

as radar observer, fire-fighting, and first

aid. Courses were then approved for

formal training instead of required sea

service for both renewal and raise in

grade of license or an endorsement, and

to substitute for a Coast Guard

examination.

With the publication of a Focus Group

Study, Licensing 2000 and Beyond in

1993, the Coast Guard began approving

courses to substitute for certain modules

of examination, especially for lower

level licenses. Now, with the

implementation of the 1995

Amendments to the International

Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers, 1978 (STCW) of the

International Maritime Organization

(IMO), requirements for basic entrylevel education, structured shipboard

training programs, and specific

assessment protocols, the course

approval burden has increased

considerably.

Presently, the Coast Guard has

approved in excess of 500 courses

presented by over 200 schools and the

number is growing weekly. As part of a

Quality Standard System (QSS), Coast

Guard Regional Examination Centers

(RECs) are charged with oversight of

these widespread training institutions.

The majority of schools consistently

operate according to the regulations

governing course approvals. There are

times, however, when audits of a

particular school show evidence of

infractions ranging from incomplete

recordkeeping to major deficiencies

dealing with examination tampering,

operating outside the conditions of the

course approval, and outright

misrepresentation of course material.

Some primary reasons for suspending or

revoking a course approval would

include (but are not limited to):

• Failure to comply with the

provisions of the course approval.

• Failure to comply with the

provisions of parts 10, 12, 13 or 15 of

Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations

(46 CFR) especially Part 10, Subpart C.

• Scheduling and teaching an

approved course at a location other than

the site required in the application for

approval and authorized in the approval

letter unless prior site approval is

requested of and granted by the Officer

in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) of

the Regional Exam Center in whose area

of responsibility the ‘‘remote site’’ is

located.

• Not adhering to the approved length

of the course; cutting short instructional

time on a daily or weekly basis.

Substituting ‘‘homework’’ or

‘‘preparation time,’’ either on computerbased questions or artificially drawn-out

plotting exercises for quality classroom

instructional contact hours.

• Using unqualified instructors,

substandard facilities or otherwise

presenting the course in a manner that

is not sufficient for or conducive to

achieving the learning objectives of the

course.

• Not giving a final (end-of-course)

exam equal in scope and difficulty to

the Coast Guard exam for that particular

license or endorsement. Also, for not

giving a final exam or a ‘‘re-take’’ exam

which is totally different than any

homework, classroom ‘‘practice

exercise’’ or exam previously viewed by

the student.

• Issuing certificates of course

completion to students who have not

demonstrated competency or who have

not otherwise met the course

requirements.

• Advertising, holding a course, or

issuing certificates of course completion

to students as having passed a course of

instruction for which the school does

not hold a valid Coast Guard approval.

• Assisting a student in passing the

final (end-of-course) exam by either

directly or indirectly providing any

assistance including, but not limited to,

supplying answers, hinting at the

correct answer, grading and returning

the exam for completion and indicating

that certain answers or choices are

incorrect prior to grading.

• Giving a student a final (end-ofcourse) exam orally. The authority to

give an oral examination rests with the

OCMI per 46 CFR 10.205.

• Allowing a student to enroll or join

the course after the beginning of course

instruction.

In order to prevent these infractions,

and ensure the integrity of Coast Guard

approved courses, it is necessary to

establish suspension, revocation, and

appeal provisions in our regulations.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

1. The Coast Guard proposes to

amend section 10.302(a) to require

training organizations seeking course

approval to submit course packages to

the Commanding Officer, National

Maritime Center, (NMC) directly rather

than via the OCMI.

Amended paragraph (a) would also

reflect that the title of the Director,

National Maritime Center has been

changed to the Commanding Officer,

National Maritime Center.

At present, course packages are

submitted to the OCMI who then

conducts a preliminary review of the

course, including an inspection of the

proposed teaching facility and a review

of instructor qualifications. Upon

completion of this preliminary review,

the course package is then forwarded to

the NMC with the OCMI’s

recommendation for approval or

disapproval. The NMC then conducts its

review of the course and either issues or

denies approval. Under the proposed

rule, courses will be submitted directly

to the NMC, who will then direct the

OCMI to conduct an inspection of the

teaching facility and evaluation of the

proposed instructors. This will allow

the OCMI and NMC to conduct their

reviews concurrently thereby reducing

the time between initial submission of

the course by the training organization

and approval of the course by the NMC.

Paragraph (a) would be amended to

indicate that the Coast Guard now

approves training that satisfies

regulatory requirements or that

substitutes for a Coast Guard
26568 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

examination or a portion of a sea service

requirement.

2. The Coast Guard proposes to

amend section 10.302, paragraphs (c)

and (d), to add, in each paragraph, that

approvals expire when a school closes

or when a school no longer offers the

course.

3. The Coast Guard also proposes to

add three paragraphs to section 10.302.

New paragraph (e) would enumerate the

conditions that allow the NMC or OCMI

to suspend a course approval. Approval

may be suspended if the Coast Guard

determines that a specific course does

not comply with 46 CFR Parts 10, 12, 13

or 15 or the requirements specified in

the course approval, if the course

substantially deviates from the course

framework that was initially submitted

for approval, or if the course is

presented in a manner that is not

sufficient for, or conducive to, achieving

learning objectives. If such a

determination is made, the cognizant

OCMI may suspend the approval, may

direct the surrender of the certificate of

approval and/or direct the holder to

cease claiming the course is Coast Guard

approved. In the event of suspension,

the cognizant OCMI will notify the

approval holder in writing of the

impending suspension, and give them

an opportunity to correct the reasons for

suspension. If the approval holder fails

to correct the reasons for suspension,

the course will be suspended and the

matter referred to the Commanding

Officer, NMC. Upon such suspension,

the Commanding Officer, National

Maritime Center will notify the approval

holder that the course fails to meet

applicable requirements and will

explain how those deficiencies can be

corrected. The NMC may grant the

approval holder up to 60 days in which

to correct the deficiencies.

New paragraph (f) would identify

conditions that allow the Commanding

Officer, National Maritime Center to

revoke an approval. Approval(s) may be

revoked for failure to correct

deficiencies identified by the

Commanding Officer, National Maritime

Center. The Coast Guard may also

revoke any or all course approvals held

by an approval holder if there has been

a determination that the approval holder

has a demonstrated history of failure to

comply with applicable requirements of

their course approvals. In such

instances, the approval holder has

shown a clear disregard for the terms of

their approval such that it is reasonable

to infer that they are not adhering to

their approval in any of their courses.

This revocation would ensure the

integrity of Coast Guard approved

training by revoking all approvals if that

approval holder’s conduct is such that

there is reasonable cause to suspect that

all training offered by that approval

holder is not being conducted in

compliance with the Code of Federal

Regulations or the requirements of their

course approvals. Course approvals can

also be revoked if there is a

demonstrated history of substantial

deviations from course curricula or,

presenting courses in a manner that is

not sufficient for, or conducive to,

achieving learning objectives.

New paragraph (g) would outline the

appeal procedure for any of the above

actions. Persons directly affected by a

suspension or revocation of an approval

may appeal to the Commandant via the

Commanding Officer, National Maritime

Center as provided for by 46 CFR Part

1.03–15.

Regarding appeals, 46 CFR 1.03–

15(h)(3) and 1.03–45 would be amended

to reflect that the title of the Director,

National Maritime Center has been

changed to Commanding Officer,

National Maritime Center, and would

add language about appeals regarding

suspension or revocation of course

approvals.

4. In addition, the Coast Guard

proposes to amend section 10.303(e) to

require training organizations to submit

change requests to approved courses to

the Commanding Officer, National

Maritime Center (NMC–4B) directly

rather than via the OCMI.

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). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this proposed rule to be so

minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT is unnecessary.

Course approval suspensions,

revocations, or expirations do not

impose specific requirements on any

course holder that would cause an

economic effect. Rather, this rule

establishes a standard enforcement

method for the rare number of course

approval holders who do not comply

with applicable statutes, regulations,

and the terms of course approval.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

considers whether this proposed rule, if

adopted, would 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.

The small entities affected by this rule

are privately owned and operated

schools with one to several employees,

community colleges, and maritime labor

union owned and operated schools.

Suspension or revocation of an approval

for a course or courses depends on the

nature and severity of the infraction

with the resultant loss of revenue for the

specific period.

However, we realize that most schools

operate within the confines of course

approval regulations, guidelines and

letters. This notice of proposed

rulemaking would provide a standard

mechanism, in regulation, for the rare

instances when a school might deviate

from those course approval regulations,

guidelines and letters. Also, this rule

would provide an opportunity for the

approval holder to correct any

deficiencies prior to revocation.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed

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 proposed 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 will 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.

We will mail copies of the notice of

proposed rulemaking to all schools

teaching approved courses to facilitate

small businesses’ ability to respond

with comments. If your small business

or organization is affected by this rule

and you have questions concerning its

provisions or options for compliance
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 26569

please contact Gerald Miante, 703–235–

0018.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule contains no new

collection-of-information requirements

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Collection of

information control number OMB 2115–

0111 is assigned to this section.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposed rule under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 and has determined that this

proposed rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications 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)(a) of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1B,

this proposed rule is categorically

excluded from further environmental

documentation. A ‘‘Categorical

Exclusion Determination’’ is available in

the docket for inspection or copying

where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and

procedure, Organization and functions

(Government agencies), Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 10

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Schools, Seamen.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 46 CFR parts 1 and 10 as follows:

PART 1—ORGANIZATION, GENERAL

COURSE AND METHODS GOVERNING

MARINE SAFETY FUNCTIONS

1. The authority citation for part 1

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 14 U.S.C. 633; 46

U.S.C. 7701; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46; § 1.01–35 also

issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

2. In § 1.03–15, revise paragraph (h)(3)

to read as follows:

§ 1.03–15 General.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(3) Commanding Officer, National

Maritime Center, for appeals involving

vessel documentation issues and

suspension or revocation of course

approvals.

* * * * *

3. Revise § 1.03–45 to read as follows:

§ 1.03–45 Appeals from decisions or

actions involving documentation of vessels

and suspension or revocation of course

approvals.

Any person directly affected by a

decision or action of an officer or

employee of the Coast Guard acting on

or in regard to the documentation of a

vessel under part 67 or suspension or

revocation of course approvals under

part 10 of this chapter, may make a

formal appeal of that decision or action

to the Commandant (G–MO) via the

Commanding Officer, National Maritime

Center, in accordance with procedures

contained in §§ 1.03–15 through 1.03–

25 of this subpart.

PART 10—LICENSING OF MARITIME

PERSONNEL

4. The authority citation for part 10

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101,

2103, 2110; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 71; 46 U.S.C.

7502, 7505, 7701; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46; Sec.

10.107 also issued under the authority of 44

U.S.C. 3507.

5. In § 10.302, in paragraphs (c) and

(d), immediately preceding the words

‘‘or on the date of’’, add the words

‘‘when the school closes, when the

school no longer offers the course,’’;

revise paragraph (a) introductory text;

and add paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to

read as follows:

§ 10.302 Course approval.

(a) The Coast Guard approves courses

satisfying regulatory requirements and

those that substitute for a Coast Guard

examination or a portion of a sea service

requirement. The owner or operator of

a training school desiring to have a

course approved by the Coast Guard

shall submit a written request to the

Commanding Officer, National Maritime

Center, NMC–4B, 4200 Wilson

Boulevard, Suite 510, Arlington, VA

22203–1804, that contains:

* * * * *

(e) Suspension of approval. If the

Coast Guard determines that a specific

course does not comply with the

provisions of 46 CFR parts 10, 12, 13 or

15, or the requirements specified in the

course approval; or substantially

deviates from the course curriculum

package as submitted for approval; or if

the course is being presented in a

manner that is insufficient to achieve

learning objectives; the cognizant OCMI

may suspend the approval, may require

the holder to surrender the certificate of

approval, if any, and may direct the

holder to cease claiming the course is

Coast Guard approved. The cognizant

OCMI will notify the approval holder in

writing of its intention to suspend the

approval and the reasons for

suspension. If the approval holder fails

to correct the reasons for suspension,

the course will be suspended and the

matter referred to the Commanding

Officer, National Maritime Center. The

Commanding Officer, National Maritime

Center, will notify the approval holder

that the specific course fails to meet

applicable requirements, and explain

how those deficiencies can be corrected.

The Commanding Officer, National

Maritime Center may grant the approval

holder up to 60 days in which to correct

the deficiencies.

(f) Revocation of approval. (1) The

Commanding Officer, National Maritime

Center may revoke approval for any

course when the approval holder fails to

correct the deficiency(ies) of a

suspended course approval within a

time period allowed under paragraph (e)

of this section.

(2) The Commanding Officer, National

Maritime Center may revoke approval of

any or all courses by an approval holder

upon a determination that the approval

holder has demonstrated a pattern or

history of:

(i) Failing to comply with the

applicable regulations or the

requirements of course approvals;

(ii) Substantial deviations from their

approved course curricula; or

(iii) Presenting courses in a manner

that is insufficient to achieve learning

objectives.

(g) Appeals of suspension and

revocation of approval. Anyone directly

affected by a decision to suspend or

revoke an approval may appeal the

decision to the Commandant via the

Commanding Officer, National Maritime

Center, as provided in § 1.03–45 of this

chapter.

6. In § 10.303, revise paragraph (e) to

read as follows:

§ 10.303 General standards.

* * * * *

(e) Not change its approved

curriculum unless approved, in writing,

after the request for change has been

submitted in writing to the

Commanding Officer, National Maritime

Center (NMC–4B).

* * * * *

Dated: April 13, 1998.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 98–12659 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M