35822 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

and 29 and October 10, 11 and 12, 1998

the draws will open on signal if at lease

three hours notice is given. In the event

of an approaching tropical storm on

hurricane, the channel will be cleared

and the draws will return to normal

operation within 12 hours.

Dated: June 23, 1998.

A.L. Gerfin, Jr.

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th

Coat Guard Dist. Acting.

[FR Doc. 98–17510 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 155

[CGD 79–116]

RIN 2115–AA03

Qualifications for Tankermen and for

Persons in Charge of Transfers of

Dangerous Liquids and Liquefied

Gases

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; establishment of

dates for compliance.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard modifies the

qualification requirements for some

Persons in Charge (PICs) of transfers of

fuel oil and establish the date for

compliance with the modified

requirements. This modification is

necessary to address public concern and

implement the Final Rule, which, in the

part addressed here, reduces the risk

and severity of spillage from vessels

involved in fuel-oil transfers. The

requirement that PICs obtain letters

from their trainers stating that the PICs

have successfully completed certain

training should ensure to the greatest

degree possible that crewmembers

acting as PICs of fuel-oil transfers get

sufficient training to minimize the risks

of water pollution.

DATES: Effective date: The effective date

for the amendments in this rule is July

1, 1998.

Compliance dates:

(1) The compliance date for 33 CFR

155.710(e)(4) is July 1, 1998.

(2) The compliance date for 33 CFR

155.710(e) introductory text, (e)(1),

(e)(2), and (e)(3) and § 155.715 is

October 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Documents, as indicated in

this preamble, are available for

inspection or copying at the office of the

Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA, 3406), U.S. Coast

Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street

SW., room 3406, Washington, DC

20593–0001, between 9:30 a.m. and 2

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The telephone number

is 202–267–1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mark C. Gould, Project Manager,

Maritime Personnel Qualifications

Division, (202) 267–6890 or 1–800–842–

8740, extension 7–6890.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

On December 18, 1980, the Coast

Guard published two Notices of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs): CGD

79–116, which proposed rules for

tankermen [45 FR 83290]; and CGD 79–

116a, which proposed rules for Persons

in Charge (PIC) of transfers of oil [45 FR

83268].

On October 17, 1989, the Coast Guard

published a Supplemental Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM),

entitled, ‘‘Tankerman Requirements and

Qualifications for Persons-in-Charge of

Dangerous Liquid and Liquefied Gas

Transfer Operations’’ [54 FR 42624],

which combined the original two

rulemakings and officially closed CGD

79–116a as a distinct rulemaking. The

Coast Guard received 42 comments on

that SNPRM. No public meeting was

requested, nor was one held.

On April 4, 1995, the Coast Guard

published an Interim Rule entitled

‘‘Qualifications for Tankermen and for

Persons in Charge of Transfers of

Dangerous Liquids and Liquefied

Gases’’ [60 FR 17134].

On March 26, 1996, the Coast Guard

reopened the comment period [61 FR

13098]. No public meeting was

requested, nor was one held.

On May 8, 1997, the Coast Guard

published a Final Rule entitled

‘‘Qualifications for Tankermen and for

Persons in Charge of Transfers of

Dangerous Liquids and Liquefied

Gases’’ [62 FR 25115].

On September 17, 1997, the Coast

Guard published a request for comments

to that portion of the Final Rule

concerning the qualifications for a PIC

of transfer of fuel oil [62 FR 48769]. This

request for comments also delayed the

compliance date until July 1, 1998, for

33 CFR 155.710 (e) introductory text

and paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3).

Several comments requested a public

meeting, but none was held. This

regulatory project has been in

preparation since 1979. During the

nineteen years of preparation, the Coast

Guard requested comments on the

proposed rule no fewer than five times.

In the last request for comments, the

focus was on a very narrow section of

the entire rule-qualification

requirements for PICs of transfers of fuel

oil. The Coast Guard felt that all sides

of this debate could be adequately

covered in writing; therefore, no public

hearing was necessary.

Background and Purpose

In the Interim Rule [60 FR 17134

(April 4, 1995)], § 155.710(e) of title 33,

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

which sets out requirements for

Tankermen-PICs, was written

ambiguously. If interpreted literally, the

section stated that, on an uninspected

vessel required to have a licensed

person aboard, either (a) the PIC of a

transfer of fuel oil must hold a license

authorizing service as master, mate,

engineer, or operator aboard that vessel,

or (b) that person must have been

instructed by the operator or agent of

the vessel both in his or her duties and

in the Federal statutes and regulations

on water pollution that apply to the

vessel.

In the Final Rule [62 FR 25115 (May

8, 1997)], the Coast Guard corrected this

ambiguity by revising the section. The

Final Rule required that, onboard one of

these same uninspected vessels, the PIC

of a transfer of fuel oil hold either (a) a

license authorizing service as master,

mate, engineer, or operator aboard that

vessel, or (b) a merchant mariner’s

document (MMD) endorsed as

Tankerman-PIC.

Before this clarification, the Captains

of the Port (COTPs) in some ports,

particularly deepwater, were already

interpreting the section in this way.

However, in other ports, particularly

inland and river, the COTPs were

allowing the industry to comply with

either the ambiguous requirements

stated in the Interim Rule or the

intended requirements stated in the

Interim Rule as clarified in the Final

Rule.

Many in the inland maritime industry

were satisfied with the wording of the

Interim Rule and, not suspecting that

the Final Rule would change the

qualification requirements, did not

submit comments until the Final Rule

was published. Many of these comments

claimed that the Coast Guard had not

provided the opportunity to comment

on the revised text of § 155.710(e). As a

result, the Coast Guard issued a request

for comment on § 155.710(e) and

delayed the compliance date for this

section except paragraph 4—whose

compliance date already was July 1,

1998—until July 1, 1998 [62 FR 48769

(September 17, 1997)].

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard received a total of 96

written comments in response to the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 35823

reopened comment period. All of these

letters are available for inspection in

CGD 79–116 at the address listed under

ADDRESSES.

Applicability

The Coast Guard received four written

comments addressing the applicability

of this rule. One of the comments asked

whether an Uninspected Towing Vessel

(UTV) with a 14,000-gallon fuel capacity

would have to comply with this rule if

the transfer of fuel oil was always

accomplished by a shoreside fuelingcompany whose trucks have a

maximum capacity of 8,000 gallons.

Section 155.700 of title 33 CFR states

that, if either vessel has a capacity in

excess of 250 barrels (or 10,500 gallons),

then 33 CFR 155.710(e) applies.

A second comment questioned

whether this rule would apply to Mobile

Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs). More

specifically, it asked, ‘‘What must the

PIC of a transfer of fuel on a MODU

hold—a license, an endorsed MMD, or

neither?’’

That person must hold a license or

else hold an MMD endorsed as

Tankerman-PIC. 33 CFR Section 155.700

of 33 CFR, the applicability section that

covers 33 CFR 155.710(e), applies to

each vessel with a capacity of more than

250 barrels of fuel oil, cargo oil, or

hazardous materials. Therefore, the PIC

of a transfer of fuel oil on a MODU

encompassed by 33 CFR 155.710 must

comply with 33 CFR 155.710(e)(1); that

is, he or she must hold a valid license

issued under 46 CFR part 10 authorizing

service as a master, mate, pilot,

engineer, or operator aboard that vessel,

or else hold an MMD endorsed as

Tankerman-PIC.

The third comment expressed concern

that the Coast Guard had stated that

crewmembers of Oil Spill Response

Vessels (OSRVs) belong to a category of

person eligible to seek restricted

Tankerman-PIC endorsements in 46 CFR

13.111, though the Coast Guard

Authorization Act of 1996 stated that

they are not subject to requirements of

tankermen for tank vessels as such.

The Coast Guard disagrees. It agrees

that 46 U.S.C. 3702(f) establishes that 46

U.S.C. Chapter 37, and statutes whose

applicability is based on 46 U.S.C.

Chapter 37, do not apply to an OSRV.

However, 46 U.S.C. 3302(a) makes clear

that the designation of a vessel as an

OSRV does not preclude it from also

being considered a tank vessel under

other laws and regulations. An OSRV is

a tank vessel as defined by 46 U.S.C.

2101(39). 46 U.S.C. 3702(f) only states

only that an OSRV will not be subject

to regulations promulgated under the

authority in 46 U.S.C. Chapter 37. This

does not affect the applicability to an

OSRV of other regulations for tank

vessels, regulations not based on the

authority of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 37. The

Ports and Waterways Safety Program (33

U.S.C. Chapter 25, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et.

seq.) and the Water Pollution Prevention

and Control Program (33 U.S.C. Chapter

26, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.) also apply

to these types of operations conducted

by OSRVs. The purposes of Chapter 25

include the protection of the marine

environment and natural resources

through, among other functions, the

regulation of vessel manning. The

tankerman requirements for OSRVs are

based on these statutes and on 33 CFR

part 155. Therefore, under 33 CFR

155.710(a)(3), the PIC of a transfer of

liquid cargo in bulk or of cargo-tank

cleaning on an OSRV shall hold a

Tankerman-PIC endorsement issued

under 46 CFR part 13 that authorizes the

holder to supervise the transfer of fuel

oil, the transfer of liquid cargo in bulk,

or cargo-tank cleaning, as appropriate to

the product. Note that 46 CFR 13.111(a)

discusses the possibility of OSRVs’

crewmembers’ obtaining a restricted

Tankerman-PIC endorsements.

Individual companies should ask their

Regional Examination Centers (RECs)

about establishing training programs

and competency requirements unique to

their vessels’ configurations and

operations.

A fourth comment asked whether

floating crane rigs or other stevedoring

equipment need to comply with this

rule.

Again, 33 CFR 155.700, the

applicability section that covers 33 CFR

155.710(e), applies to each vessel with

a capacity of more than 250 barrels of

fuel oil, cargo oil, or hazardous

materials. Therefore, the PIC of a

transfer of fuel oil on any vessel

encompassed by 33 CFR 155.710 must

comply with 33 CFR 155.710—either

(e)(1), if the vessel is inspected, or (e)(2),

if the vessel is uninspected.

Exemptions

One comment asked that this rule

continue to exempt those vessels with a

fuel-oil capacity of less than 250 barrels.

The Coast Guard agrees and makes no

changes to the applicability under 33

CFR 155.700.

Comment Period

Several comments requested that the

Coast Guard hold public meetings

before making a final decision on such

an important issue.

The Coast Guard declines. The public

has received more than adequate

opportunity to submit comments or ask

questions on this issue.

General Comments

The comments received did not

surprise the Coast Guard. Comments

from deepwater ports generally tended

to favor the stricter interpretation, since

many uninspected vessels in those ports

each already carry several licensed

persons aboard, as well as unlicensed

crewmembers documented as

Tankermen-PICs. On the other hand,

comments from inland and river ports,

where vessels usually each carry only

one licensed person onboard, generally

tended to favor the wording of the

Interim Rule.

Two of the comments shared the

opinion that the Coast Guard should

require the PIC to hold a valid MMD.

One of these two recommended that the

PIC receive his or her vessel-specific

training from the master of the UTV or

other licensed officer.

The Coast Guard disagrees. For

previously mentioned reasons, and

because of the expense applicants

would incur to complete the required

training, PICs on UTVs need not obtain

MMDs.

Another comment stated that most

spills caused by the human factor are

the result of attitude rather than ability.

The PIC knows how to do the job; he or

she simply fails to execute.

The Coast Guard does not know

whether this is true; however, the first

step is to require some minimal amount

of training to maximize the chances of

a safe transfer of fuel oil. Besides,

training can improve attitude along with

ability.

A recommendation in one comment

stated that the Coast Guard needs to

understand the unique operating and

regulatory environment of the brownwater maritime fleet.

The Coast Guard agrees, and has gone

to extraordinary lengths to include the

inland and river marine industry in this

rulemaking. In fact, it was mostly

comments from the brown-water fleet of

UTVs that led the Coast Guard to the

final amendments in this reconstitution

of the Final Rule.

The Coast Guard received eleven

comments agreeing with the wording as

it appeared in the Final Rule [62 FR

25115 (May 8, 1997)]. These comments

stated that requiring a license or an

MMD for transfers of fuel oil on UTVs

is good marine practice. One of the

eleven stated that the rule should

require that the PIC of such transfers

hold either a license or an MMD.

Upon reviewing the public comments,

the Coast Guard now disagrees. Because

it lacks firm statistical evidence that

transfers of fuel oil contribute to the

amount of pollution from UTVs, the
35824 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Coast Guard lacks adequate reason to

require a license or an MMD with

Tankerman-PIC endorsement.

Most comments agreed that the Coast

Guard should require PICs of transfers

of fuel oil to obtain instruction by the

operators or agents of their vessels, both

in their duties and in the Federal

statutes and regulations on water

pollution that apply to their vessels.

These comments presented the

following persuasive arguments:

Statistics

Many of the comments stated there

are currently no statistics to prove that

spills from transfers of fuel oil

contribute significantly to the pollution

of the marine environment.

Although the Coast Guard speculates,

and has heard from reliable sources off

the record, that mid-stream transfers

contribute significantly to pollution of

rivers, there are currently no supporting

statistics. However, the Coast Guard

recently instituted new data-gathering

systems that in time will provide

statistics one way or the other.

Further, many of the comments stated

that, factually, there are no data to show

that a reduction in oil spills would

occur if the PIC of a UTV transfer of fuel

oil were required to hold a license or

MMD and that, therefore, no such

requirement would be appropriate.

The Coast Guard agrees and, again,

has dropped the requirement.

Training

Several comments stated that the key

to the safe transfer of fuel oil to UTVs

is training. They suggested that the

Coast Guard and industry jointly

develop and adopt a training program

that specifically addresses transfers.

The Coast Guard agrees—in part. For

now, the new requirement for a letter of

training from the operator or agent of a

vessel will satisfy the training

requirements. However, if it later turns

out that this training is not having the

desired effect, the Coast Guard will ask

the industry to help it develop and

adopt more formal training.

Several comments felt that simple

possession of a license does not endow

an Operator of Uninspected Towing

Vessels (OUTV) with sufficient

knowledge of transfers of fuel oil. In

addition, the OUTV often is not

physically present where the transfer

takes place. Therefore, it is unfair to

make the OUTV legally responsible for

the transfer.

The Coast Guard agrees. The person

legally responsible for the transfer of

fuel oil to the UTV, if not from the

barge, is the PIC aboard the UTV.

Five comments recommended that the

Coast Guard create a new UTV license

that specifically certifies an individual

for transfers of fuel oil. The industry

and Coast Guard would jointly develop

qualifications and training procedures

for this license.

Currently, the Coast Guard disagrees.

For now, a letter of training from the

operator or agent of a vessel will satisfy

the training requirements. However, if it

later turns out that this training is not

having the desired effect, the Coast

Guard will consider strengthening the

requirements in a further rulemaking.

Courses in Firefighting

Four of the comments addressed the

requirements for the successful

completion of approved courses in

firefighting. The comments stated that

these courses do not apply to operations

on UTVs.

The Coast Guard agrees that most

existing, approved courses in

firefighting contain more-detailed

training than personnel aboard UTVs

need. However, the Coast Guard no

longer requires approved courses in

firefighting for PICs of uninspected

vessels involved in transfers of fuel oil.

The Coast Guard remains willing,

should the need arise, to work with

industry in designing the proper

curriculum for a course in firefighting

applicable to UTVs.

Training in Preventing Pollution

Some of the comments stated that

significant training in preventing

pollution is not now required to obtain

a license as OUTV. Therefore, mere

possession of a license, as required in

the Final Rule, will not ensure that a

transfer of fuel oil is safely conducted.

The Coast Guard agrees that there is

insufficient stress put on environmental

protection to ensure that the bare fact of

holding an OUTV license marks a PIC

as sufficiently trained in preventing

water pollution.

A letter from the operator or agent of

a vessel, stating that the PIC has been

instructed both in his or her duties and

in the Federal statutes and regulations

on water pollution that apply to the

vessel, will satisfy the training

requirements.

Voluntary Industry Standards

Several of the comments mentioned

the existence of voluntary industry

standards. They stated that the

American Waterways Operators (AWO)

carries out a Responsible Carrier

Program with the Coast Guard. Many of

the comments urged that this Program,

as well as other voluntary industry

initiatives, should improve marine

safety and environmental protection

without this new rule.

The Coast Guard agrees that the

Responsible Carrier Program is indeed

an exemplary initiative for volunteer

companies to help reduce pollution and

improve marine safety. However, the

volunteer companies participating in

the various initiatives are not, nor have

they ever been, the companies with

which the Coast Guard is concerned.

The Coast Guard is concerned with

companies that do not belong to any of

these initiatives. What incentive do they

have to implement new programs to

help improve marine safety and reduce

pollution? Therefore, the new

requirement, for an operator or agent of

a vessel to sign a letter stating that the

crewmember acting as PIC in a transfer

of fuel oil has received the proper

training, significantly increases the

chances that the training has, in fact,

been conducted. Only time will tell the

significance of the impact these

voluntary initiatives will have on

marine safety and environmental

protection.

In addition, the Coast Guard received

one comment stating that the towing

industry has chosen to turn its back on

this issue in the past because it carries

unlicensed engineers on its UTVs.

The Coast Guard partially agrees.

However, with AWO’s Responsible

Carrier Program and similar initiatives

now in place, the Coast Guard feels that

the industry is trying to address the

problem without added regulation.

Regional Examination Centers

Two comments stated that RECs of the

Coast Guard are already inundated with

licensing and documentation. The

advent of the estimated 3,000–4,000

applicants required to obtain the MMD

endorsed as Tankerman-PIC would

place the RECs in an untenable position.

The Coast Guard recognized that the

initial impact on the RECs would have

been significant. That is why the plan

staggered the date of compliance to

correspond with renewal of MMDs,

normally accomplished every 5 years.

This Final Rule renders this issue

irrelevant: It lifts the burden from the

RECs and, to some extent, from the

mariners while it shifts it in kind

though not in amount for the operators

and agents.

Cost

Several comments felt that the cost of

hiring a licensed tankerman for each

transfer of fuel oil to a UTV would be

staggering.

The Coast Guard disagrees, but the

point is moot. No vessel will have to

hire a licensed tankerman for each
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 35825

transfer, or to incur fees transfer by

transfer. The PIC of each transfer will be

an onboard crewmember who has

received in-house training from the

vessel’s operator or agent.

Use of Other Trained Personnel on a

Vessel

Two comments recommended that the

expertise of a driver required to hold a

commercial driver’s license at the

shoreside fueling-company suffice for a

transfer of fuel oil to a UTV.

The Coast Guard disagrees. The PIC

onboard the UTV must have some

minimal training to ensure that he or

she is aware of the rules peculiar to the

vessel and of the law that governs the

prevention of pollution.

Another comment stated that the

Tankerman-PIC onboard the barge

supplying the fuel oil should be

responsible for the entire transfer to the

UTV.

The Coast Guard disagrees. The PIC

on the barge is, in all probability,

unfamiliar with the loading

characteristics of the receiving UTV.

The PIC onboard the UTV must have

some minimal training to ensure that he

or she is aware of the rules for the vessel

and of the laws that govern the

prevention of pollution.

Many of the comments recommended

that companies, rather than their PICs

aboard UTVs, be responsible for the safe

completion of transfers of fuel oil to the

UTVs.

The Coast Guard agrees in part. Each

company is responsible for the proper

training of its PICs and is accountable to

its underwriters and the law for unsafe

practices. However, the PIC is the

logical person to be responsible for the

safe completion of a transfer of fuel oil

to the UTV.

One comment asked whether the

Tankerman-PIC on the fueling barge

bears any responsibility for ensuring

compliance by the UTV. The PIC on the

barge is responsible for satisfying

requirements for the safe transfer of fuel

oil from the barge, though not to the

vessel. The PIC on the UTV is

responsible for satisfying them for the

safe transfer of it to the UTV, though not

from the barge. Several comments stated

that possession of a license or MMD will

not ensure that the transfer of fuel oil to

a UTV is conducted safely. Therefore,

they could not understand the logic

behind the insistence by the Coast

Guard that the requirement is ‘‘good

marine practice.’’

The Coast Guard now agrees. A letter

from the operator or agent of a vessel,

stating that the PIC has been instructed

both in his or her duties and in the

Federal statutes and regulations on

water pollution that apply to the vessel,

will satisfy the training requirements.

One comment stated that the most

appropriate option might be to require

the PIC on a UTV to obtain a restricted

Tankerman-PIC (Barge) endorsement.

The Coast Guard disagrees. The PIC

on a UTV must have received training

peculiar to his or her UTV to minimize

the chances of a polluting spill. The

transfer procedures on a tank barge may

be vastly different from those on any

UTV.

Inapplicable Comments

Six comments suggested that in-house

training is sufficient for the safe loading

and unloading of chemical barges

dockside. The loading or unloading of

chemical cargo is not the subject of this

request for comments. The Coast Guard

will answer these comments by letter.

The Coast Guard will also answer by

letter another comment, which asked

about the applicability of the Final Rule

to vessels loading or unloading chlorine.

Qualifications for persons loading and

unloading chemical cargoes are not the

subject of this request for comments.

One comment stateds that the Coast

Guard should exempt or grandfather

from the rules those who can show prior

experience in loading and unloading

cargo.

The loading and unloading of cargo

(other than fuel oil) by Tankerman-PICs

are not proper subjects of this comment

period. The Coast Guard will answer

this comment by letter, too.

Although the Coast Guard will allow

those who wish to act as PICs of

transfers of fuel oil to so act after

obtaining instruction by the operators or

agents of their vessels both in their

duties and in the Federal statutes and

regulations on water pollution that

apply to the vessels, it is still concerned

that some may not receive the proper

training necessary to minimize the

chances of water pollution.

Therefore, after receiving proper

instruction from the operator or agent of

a vessel, each trainee will have to

receive a letter of instruction. The letter

must come from the party providing the

training. The training need occur only

once, unless there is some unique

characteristic about a particular vessel

that would necessitate later, vesselspecific training. No person changing

his or her place of employment need

retake the training, unless there is

something unique about the new vessel.

The letter of instruction must stay either

with the person, on the vessel, or in the

office of the operator or agent of the

vessel. It must be readily available to

Coast Guard boarding officers.

Collection of Information

This reconstitution of a final rule

provides for a collection of information

under the 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 information collections

associated with this rule concern the

letter of instruction described in 33 CFR

§§ 155.710(e)(2) and 155.715. The Coast

Guard sought authority for the

collection from the OMB, asking

emergency processing of the request for

authority by July 15, 1998. The title and

description of the collection, a

description of the respondents, and an

estimate of the total annual burden

follow. The new request has been

submitted and is pending approval. A

copy of the request is available for

review in the docket.

The Coast Guard estimates that the

letter of instruction will impose an

annual burden of 153 hours’

information collection. The burden

comprises all time for both gathering

and maintaining the information.

Title: Letter of Instruction for Persons

-In-Charge (PICs) on Uninspected

Vessels.

Summary of the Collection of

Information: This Final Rule contains

collection-of-information requirements

in 33 CFR 155.710(e)(2) and 155.715.

Need for Information: The U. S. Coast

Guard administers and enforces the

laws and regulations promoting the

safety of life and property in marine

transportation. It establishes Standards

of training for mariners to ensure their

ability to safely and adequately carry

out duties and responsibilities that

promote safety on vessels. To ensure

that training standards are complied

with, each PIC on an uninspected vessel

must carry a letter of instruction. The

letter’s contents should verify the PIC’s

credentials, stating that the holder has

received sufficient formal instruction

from the owner, operator, or agent of the

vessel, as required by 33 CFR

155.710(e)(2).

Proposed Use of Information: Carriage

of a letter of instruction will verify the

credentials of the PIC, and expedite

verification of compliance by the

Captain of the Port (COTP).

Description of the Respondents:

Respondents include the operator,

agent, or PIC involved in a transfer

described in 33 CFR 155.700.

Number of Respondents: According to

data from the Coast Guard Marine Safety

Management System, there are

approximately 1380 vessels that are
35826 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

classified as uninspected vessels and are

required to have PICs for transfers. The

total population count [2760] represents

the number of vessels [1380] multiplied

by the number of PICs aperper vessel

[2].

Frequency of Response: The Coast

Guard expects that each PIC will receive

the recognized training once.

Burden of Response: 10 minutes

annually per respondent.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: An

annual burden of 153 hours’

information collection.

Persons submitting comments on the

collection of information should submit

the comments both to OMB and to the

Coast Guard where indicated under

ADDRESSES by the date under DATES.

No person need to respond to a

request for collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid

control number from OMB.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155

Hazardous substances, Oil pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard is amending

33 CFR part 155 as follows:

TITLE 33—NAVIGATION AND

NAVIGABLE WATERS

PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS

MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION

REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS

1. The authority citation for part 155

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46

U.S.C. 3715; Sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,

3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46.

Sections 155.100 through 155.130, 155.350

through 155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 155.470,

155.1030(j) and (k), and 155.1065(g) also

issued under 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); and sections

155.1110 and 155.1150 also issued under 33

U.S.C. 2735.

2. Revise paragraphs (e) introductory

text, (e)(1), (2) and (e)(3) of § 155.710 to

read as follows:

§ 155.710 Qualifications of person in

charge.

* * * * *

(e) The operator or agent of each

vessel to which this section applies

shall verify to his or her satisfaction that

the PIC of any transfer of fuel oil

requiring a Declaration of Inspection—

(1) On each inspected vessel required

by 46 CFR chapter I to have a licensed

person aboard, holds a valid license

issued under 46 CFR part 10 authorizing

service as a master, mate, pilot,

engineer, or operator aboard that vessel,

or holds a valid merchant mariner’s

document endorsed as Tankerman-PIC;

(2) On each uninspected vessel, either

complies with the requirements of

paragraph (e)(1) of this section or carries

a letter satisfying the requirements of

§ 155.715 and designating him or her as

a PIC, unless equivalent evidence is

immediately available aboard the vessel

or at his or her place of employment.

(3) On each tank barge, for its own

engine-driven pumps, either complies

with paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this

section or has been instructed by the

operator or agent of the vessel both in

his or her duties and in the Federal

statutes and regulations on water

pollution that apply to the vessel; or

* * * * *

3. Add a new § 155.715 to read as

follows:

§ 155.715 Contents of letter of designation

as a person-in-charge of the transfer of fuel

oil.

The letter of instruction required in

§ 155.710(e)(2) must designate the

holder as a person-in-charge of the

transfer of fuel oil and state that the

holder has received sufficient formal

instruction from the operator or agent of

the vessel to ensure his or her ability to

safely and adequately carry out the

duties and responsibilities of the PIC

described in 33 CFR 156.120 and

156.150.

Dated: June 23, 1998.

J. P. High,

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 98–17267 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of

Engineers

36 CFR Part 327

Shoreline Use Permits, Flotation

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY:An amendment to Appendix A

section 327.30 ‘‘Guidelines for Granting

Shoreline Use Permits’’ was part of a

proposed rule published in the Federal

Register on April 15, 1997. The

language in this amendment reduced

the burdensome requirements on

individuals who have requested waivers

because of limiting health conditions.

The amendment gives Operations

Managers the flexibility to take special

circumstances of the applicant into

consideration when issuing a shoreline

use permit. This amendment is also in

this final rule.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

also published a proposed rule in the

April 15, 1997, issue of the Federal

Register, to amend Appendix C of

Section 327.30. The amendment

concerned flotation materials to be used

on all new docks and boat mooring

buoys. Comments received during the

45-day comment period prompted the

Corps to conduct further studies and

withdraw the proposed rule to amend

Appendix C issued on April 15, 1997.

Subsequently, a replacement rule was

published in the Federal Register on

December 4, 1997. Comments were

accepted on this proposed revision until

January 20, 1998. This final rule reflects

the comments received. We believe that

the changes will substantially increase

the safety of project visitors and the

protection of the natural resources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 17, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Darrell E. Lewis, (202) 761–0247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

published a final rule providing policy

and guidance on the management of

shorelines of Corps managed Civil

Works projects in the Federal Register

on July 27, 1990 (55 FR 30690–30702),

last amended in the Federal Register on

July 1, 1992 (57 FR 29219–29220).

Two amendments to the regulations

were published as a proposed rule in

the Federal Register on April 15, 1997

(62 FR 18307–18308). An amendment to

Paragraph 2.c.(9) of Appendix A,

Section 327.30, Guidelines for Granting

Shoreline Use Permits, gave Operations

Managers the flexibility to take special

circumstances of the applicant into

consideration when issuing a permit.

This language reflected the Corps desire

to accommodate basic access for those

individuals who have requested waivers

because of limiting health conditions

that are either obvious or substantiated

by a doctor’s certification. No negative

comments were received regarding this

amendment during the comment period.

Paragraph 14, Appendix C, of Section

327.30, also published as a proposed

rule on April 15, 1997, reflected the

Corps amended flotation requirements

for all new docks and boat mooring

facilities. The Corps received 28 letters

concerning flotation during the

comment period of this proposed

rulemaking. The comments prompted

the Corps to conduct further studies and

give additional consideration to

flotation requirements. Accordingly, the

flotation portion of the proposed rule

published on April 15, 1997, was

withdrawn and was subsequently