Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20651

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Issued: April 20, 1995.

Frank H. Thomas,

Deputy Associate Director, Mitigation

Directorate.

[FR Doc. 95–10352 Filed 4–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–21–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 15

[CGD 84–060]

RIN 2115–AB67

Licensing of Pilots; Manning of

Vessels by Pilots

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending

the regulations concerning the licensing

of pilots and the manning of vessels by

pilots. This final rule: defines

‘‘coastwise seagoing vessel’’ for pilotage

purposes; describes first class pilotage

areas where local pilotage expertise is

warranted; allows licensed individuals

to serve as pilots in areas not identified

as first class pilotage areas on vessels

that they are otherwise qualified to

control; requires a Federal pilot for

vessels in excess of 1,600 gross tons,

propelled by machinery and subject to

inspection under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33,

that are not authorized by their

Certificate of Inspection to proceed

beyond the Boundary Line; and

provides quick reference tables for

Federal pilotage requirements. These

changes are necessary to eliminate

confusion over where and on what

vessels pilotage expertise is required.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated,

documents referred to 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 8

a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (202) 267–1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John R. Bennett, Merchant Vessel

Personnel Division (G–MVP/12), Room

1210, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,

2100 Second Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20593–0001, telephone (202) 267–

6102.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this document are: Mr. John R.

Bennett, Project Manager, Merchant

Vessel Personnel Division, Office of

Marine Safety, Security and

Environmental Protection, and, Mr.

Nicholas Grasselli, Project Counsel,

Office of Chief Counsel.

Regulatory History

A notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) was published June 24, 1985

(50 FR 26117), addressing unresolved

pilotage issues. The comment period

was originally scheduled to end on

September 23, 1985, however, a notice

of extension of comment period (50 FR

38557), published in the Federal

Register on September 23, 1985,

extended the comment period to

December 22, 1985. In response to that

notice, the Coast Guard received 172

written comments, and held two public

meetings. One public meeting was held

in New York, hosted by the Maritime

Association of New York, on November

12, 1985. The second was a meeting of

the Towing Safety Advisory Committee

Subcommittee on Personnel Manning

and Licensing, which was held at Coast

Guard Headquarters in Washington,

D.C., on December 12, 1985. On June 6,

1988, the Coast Guard published a

supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking (SNPRM) (53 FR 20654)

addressing the comments received in

response to the NPRM and public

meetings. The comment period for the

SNPRM ended September 6, 1988.

Sixteen written comments were

received regarding the 1988 SNPRM.

Those comments included several

recommendations by the Towing Safety

Advisory Committee (TSAC).

On February 2, 1994, the Coast Guard

published an interim final rule entitled

Licensing of Pilots; Manning of Vessels

by Pilots in the Federal Register (59 FR

4839). The Coast Guard received six

letters commenting on the interim final

rule. No public hearing was requested,

and none was held.

Background and Purpose

Normally, foreign vessels and U.S.

vessels operating on a registry

endorsement are under State pilotage

authority, and U.S. vessels operating on

a coastwise endorsement are under

Federal pilotage authority. The

regulations addressed in this rule deal

only with Federal pilotage.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

Six letters commenting on the interim

final rule were received. Some of the

comments addressed in these letters

raised issues that were not the subject

of this rulemaking. The Coast Guard is

responding only to those comments

relating to this rulemaking.

One comment suggested that there

should be only ‘‘designated’’ pilotage

areas because otherwise the Coast Guard

would be reducing pilotage

requirements for tank barges. The Coast

Guard is not reducing pilotage

requirements for tank barges or any

other vessels in this rulemaking.

Another comment stated that ‘‘the

local pilotage rules are excessive with

regard to the round trip required in nondesignated areas.’’ This rule places a

Federal pilotage requirement on inland

route self-propelled vessels greater than

1,600 gross tons. The only other change

required by this rule is to require the

master, mate or operator of a coastwise

seagoing vessel to have made one round

trip in the non-designated areas of

pilotage waters within the past five

years in order to satisfy the pilotage

requirement for that area. The Coast

Guard does not believe these additional

pilotage requirements are excessive.

Several members of the small

passenger vessel industry indicated that

they are opposed to the rule because it

places a new pilotage requirement on

their vessels. The interim final rule does

not establish a new pilotage requirement

for small passenger vessels. Existing

pilotage regulatory requirements for

these vessels were established in the

1985 Final Rule (50 FR 26106) and in

earlier rules. A vessel has a Federal

pilotage requirement if it is a coastwise

seagoing vessel, not sailing on register,

and underway, not on the high seas.

This rule does not create a pilotage

requirement for certain small passenger

vessels, the requirement already exists.

Another comment stated that while it

is clear in the quick reference table that

a coastwise seagoing tank barge requires

a pilot, the text of the regulation does

not specifically indicate that it is a

‘‘coastwise seagoing’’ tank barge that

requires a pilot, and suggested that the

text of the regulation be modified to

agree with the quick reference table. The

Coast Guard agrees, and the words

‘‘coastwise seagoing’’ are being added to

the text of the regulation in

§ 15.812(a)(1).

The same comment also suggested

that the ‘‘designated’’ areas be compiled

and published in the Code of Federal

Regulations. The Coast Guard does not

agree. This information can be readily

obtained from the local Coast Guard

Captain of the Port (COTP).

The Coast Guard is adopting the

interim final rule as published with

some minor technical changes. First, the
20652 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Coast Guard is defining the term

‘‘pilotage waters’’ in the definition

section as opposed to a footnote in the

reference tables.

Second, the Federal Register

inadvertently omitted five asterisks in

the amendatory language in the interim

final rule. As a result, paragraphs (f) and

(g) from 46 CFR 15.812 were deleted in

error. This clerical error has been

corrected in the final rule. Third, the

Coast Guard is revising the headings to

the quick reference tables to clarify that

designated and non-designated areas are

pilotage waters. Lastly, the Coast Guard

has inserted the words ‘‘coastwise

seagoing’’ in 15.812(a)(1) before the term

‘‘tank barges’’ to clarify that the rule

applies only to coastwise seagoing tank

barges.

Assessment

This rule is a significant regulatory

action under section 3(f) of Executive

Order 12866 and has been reviewed by

the Office of Management and Budget

under that order. It requires an

assessment of potential costs and

benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It is significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (44 FR

11040; February 26, 1979). This rule is

significant because it clarifies when a

vessel is required to use the services of

a Federally licensed pilot, and at one

time was controversial.

The Coast Guard expects the

economic impact of this rule to be

minimal. This rule defines ‘‘coastwise

seagoing vessel’’ for pilotage purposes,

describes first class pilotage areas where

local pilotage expertise is warranted,

and provides quick reference tables for

pilotage requirements. Additionally,

this rule clarifies that a Federal pilot is

required for vessels in excess of 1,600

gross tons, propelled by machinery and

subject to inspection under 46 U.S.C.

Chapter 33, that are not authorized by

their Certificate of Inspection to proceed

beyond the Boundary Line.

This rule codifies current practices,

and there are no expected increases in

costs. Therefore, no additional

assessment is necessary. The Coast

Guard anticipates that the rule will not

increase crew size or require increased

use of pilots since, for the most part,

vessels affected by this rule are

presently required by their Certificate of

Inspection to use a Federal pilot.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

must consider whether this final rule

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include

independently owned and operated

small businesses that are not dominant

in their field and that otherwise qualify

as ‘‘small business concerns’’ under

section 3 of the Small Business Act (15

U.S.C. 632). The small entities that

could be affected by this final rule are

primarily independent operators of tank

barges and self-propelled vessels. Since

this rule, for the most part, adopts

current practices, the Coast Guard

believes that there will be no significant

economic impact on ‘‘small entities.’’

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq) that

this final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This rule contains no collection-ofinformation requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

final rule under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and has determined that this rule

does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment. This rule

does not affect existing State pilotage

requirements, but instead clarifies the

Federal pilotage requirements for those

vessels which, under 46 U.S.C. 8502, are

exclusively subject to Federal pilotage.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this final rule

and concluded that under section 2.B.2

of Commandant Instruction M16475.1B,

this rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

The rule, which clarifies Federal

pilotage requirements, is administrative

in nature since, by codifying existing

practices, it permits vessels to continue

to operate according to current industry

practice. Therefore, this is included in

the categorical exclusion in subsection

2.B.2.1, ‘‘Administrative actions or

procedural regulations and policies

which clearly do not have any

environmental impact.’’ A Categorical

Exclusion Determination has been

placed in the docket.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 15

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Seamen, Vessels.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard is adopting

the interim final rule published at 59 FR

4839 on February 22, 1994, as final with

the following changes:

PART 15—MANNING REQUIREMENTS

1. The authority citation for part 15

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3703, 8101,

8502, 8901, 8902, 8903, 8904, 9102; 50 U.S.C.

198, and 49 CFR 1.46.

1a. In § 15.301(a), the definition for

designated areas is revised and a

definition for pilotage waters is added

in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 15.301 Definition of terms used in this

part.

* * * * *

Designated areas means those areas

within pilotage waters for which first

class pilot’s licenses or endorsements

are issued under part 10, subpart G, of

this Chapter, by the Officer in Charge,

Marine Inspection (OCMI). The areas for

which first class pilot’s licenses or

endorsements are issued within a

particular Marine Inspection Zone and

the specific requirements to obtain them

may be obtained from the OCMI

concerned.

* * * * *

Pilotage waters means the navigable

waters of the United States, including

all inland waters and offshore waters to

a distance of three nautical miles from

the baseline from which the Territorial

Sea is measured.

* * * * *

2. Section 15.812(a)(1) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 15.812 Pilots.

(a) * * *

(1) Coastwise seagoing vessels

propelled by machinery and subject to

inspection under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33,

and coastwise seagoing tank barges

subject to inspection under 46 U.S.C.

Chapter 37;

* * * * *

3. Section 15.812(e) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 15.812 Plots.

(e) Federal pilotage requirements

contained in paragraphs (a) through (d)

of this section are summarized in two

quick reference tables.

(1) Table 15.812(e)(1) provides a guide

to the pilotage requirements for

inspected, self-propelled vessels.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20653

TABLE 15.812(e)(1).—QUICK REFERENCE TABLE FOR FEDERAL PILOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S. INSPECTED SELFPROPELLED VESSELS, NOT SAILING ON REGISTER

Designated areas of pilotage waters (routes

for which First Class Pilot’s licenses are issued)

Nondesignated areas of pilotage waters (between the three mile line and the start of traditional pilotage routes)

Inspected self-propelled vessels greater than

1,600 GT, authorized by their Certificate of

Inspection (COI) to proceed beyond the

Boundary Line, or operating on the Great

Lakes.

First Class Pilot ................................................ Master or Mate may serve as pilot if the individual:

1. Is at least 21 years old.

2. Has an annual physical exam.

3. Maintains current knowledge of the waters

to be navigated.1

Inspected self-propelled vessels not more than

1,600 GT, authorized by their Certificate of

Inspection to proceed beyond the Boundary

Line, or operating on the Great Lakes.

First Class Pilot, or Master or Mate may serve

as pilot if the individual:

1. Is at least 21 years old. ...............................

2. Maintains current knowledge of the waters

to be navigated.1

3. Has 4 round trips over the route.2

Master or Mate may serve as pilot if the individual:

1. Is at least 21 years old.

2. Maintains current knowledge of the waters

to be navigated.1

Inspected self-propelled vessels greater than

1,600 GT, not authorized by their COI to

proceed beyond the Boundary Line (Inland

route vessels); other than vessels operating

on the Great Lakes.

First Class Pilot ................................................ Master or Mate may serve as pilot if the individual:

1. Is at least 21 years old.

2. Has an annual physical exam.

3. Maintains current knowledge of the waters

to be navigated.1

Inspected self-propelled vessels not more than

1,600 GT, not authorized by their COI to

proceed beyond the Boundary Line (Inland

route vessels); other than vessels operating

on the Great Lakes.

No pilotage requirement ................................... No pilotage requirement.

1One round trip within the past 60 months.

2 If the route is to be traversed during darkness, 1 of the 4 round trips must be made during darkness.

(2) Table 15.812(e)(2) provides a guide to the pilotage requirements for tank barges.

TABLE 15.812(e)(2).—QUICK REFERENCE TABLE FOR FEDERAL PILOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S. INSPECTED TANK

BARGES, NOT SAILING ON REGISTER

Designated areas of pilotage waters (routes

for which First Class Pilot’s licenses are issued)

Nondesignated areas of pilotage waters (between the three mile line and the start of traditional pilotage routes)

Tank Barges greater than 10,000 GT, authorized by their Certificate of Inspection to proceed beyond the Boundary Line, or operating on the Great Lakes.First Class Pilot ................................................ Master, Mate, or Operator may serve as pilot

if the individual:

1. Is at least 21 years old.

2. Has an annual physical exam.1

3. Maintains current knowledge of the waters

to be navigated.2

4. Has at least 6 months’ service in the deck

department on towing vessels engaged in

towing.

Tank Barges 10,000 GT or less, authorized by

their Certificate of Inspection to proceed beyond the Boundary Line, or operating on the

Great Lakes.

First Class Pilot, or Master, Mate, or Operator

may serve as pilot if the individual:

1. Is at least 21 years old ................................

2. Has an annual physical exam.1

3. Maintains current knowledge of the waters

to be navigated.2

4. Has at least 6 months’ service in the deck

department on towing vessels engaged in

towing operations.

5. Has 12 round trips over the route.3

Master, Mate, or Operator may serve as pilot

if the individual:

1. Is at least 21 years old.

2. Has an annual physical exam.1

3. Maintains current knowledge of the waters

to be navigated.2

4. Has at least 6 months’ service in the deck

department on towing vessels engaged in

towing operations.

Tank Barges authorized by their Certificate of

Inspection for Inland routes only (Lakes,

Bays, and Sounds/Rivers); other than vessels operating on the Great Lakes.

No pilotage requirement ................................... No pilotage requirement.

1Annual physical exam does not apply to an individual who will serve as a pilot of a Tank Barge of less than 1,600 gross tons.

2One round trip within the past 60 months.

3 If the route is to be traversed during darkness, 3 of the 12 round trips must be made during darkness.

4. Section 15.812(f) is added to read

as follows:

(f) In Prince William Sound, Alaska,

coastwise seagoing vessels over 1,600

gross tons and propelled by machinery

and subject to inspection under 46

U.S.C. Chapter 37 must:

(1) When operating from 60°49′ North

latitude to the Port of Valdez be under

the direction and control of a federally

licensed pilot who:
20654 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(i) Is operating under the Federal

license;

(ii) Holds a license issued by the State

of Alaska; and

(iii) Is not a member of the crew of the

vessel.

(2) Navigate with either two licensed

deck officers on the bridge or a federally

licensed pilot when operating South of

60°49′ North latitude and in the

approaches through Hinchinbrook

Entrance and in the area bounded:

(i) On the West by a line one mile

west of the western boundary of the

Traffic Separation Scheme;

(ii) On the East by 146°00′ West

longitude;

(iii) On the North by 60°49′ North

latitude; and

(iv) On the South by that area of

Hinchinbrook Entrance within the

territorial sea bounded by 60° 07′ North

latitude and 146°31.5′ West longitude.

Dated: March 17, 1995.

Robert E. Kramek,

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.

[FR Doc. 95–10231 Filed 4–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–P

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 213

[Docket No. RST–94–3, Notice No. 1]

Policy on the Safety of Railroad

Bridges

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Interim statement of policy.

SUMMARY: FRA issues an interim

statement of policy for the safety of

railroad bridges. FRA establishes

suggested criteria for railroads to use to

ensure the structural integrity of bridges

that carry railroad tracks. FRA will

subsequently make the interim

statement of policy part of the final rule

amending 49 CFR part 213 (See 57 FR

54038, November 16, 1992). This final

rule will reflect any changes that appear

necessary following public comment on

the interim statement of policy.

DATES: Effective Date: The interim

statement of policy is effective May 30,

1995. Written comments must be

received no later than June 26, 1995.

Comments received after that date will

be considered to the extent possible

without incurring additional delay or

expense.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

policy should be submitted to the

Docket Clerk (RCC–30), Office of Chief

Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. Persons desiring

to be notified that their written

comments have been received by FRA

should submit a stamped, self-addressed

postcard with their comments. The

Docket Clerk will indicate on the

postcard the date the comments were

received and return the postcard to the

addressee. Written comments will be

available for examination, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

during regular business hours in Room

8201 of the Nassif Building at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gordon A. Davids, P.E., Bridge

Engineer, Office of Safety Enforcement,

Federal Railroad Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590, (Telephone: 202–366–0507), or

Nancy Lummen Lewis, Trial Attorney,

Office of Chief Counsel, Federal

Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,

(Telephone 202–366–0635).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Beginning

in 1991, FRA conducted a review of the

safety of railroad bridges. The review

was prompted by the agency’s

perception that the bridge population

was aging, traffic density and loads were

increasing on many routes, and the

consequences of a bridge failure could

be catastrophic.

I. Bridge Safety Survey

FRA counted the approximate number

of bridges that carry railroad track in the

United States, and then surveyed the

safety of those bridges. The count

revealed that

a. Approximately 100,700 bridges

carried railroad tracks in 1991,

b. Approximately 10 bridges exist for

every 14 miles of railroad, and

c. Approximately 120 feet of track per

mile is located on a bridge.

The safety survey accomplished

several objectives. It determined

whether the condition of railroad

bridges posed a significant hazard to the

safety of the public. It documented the

methods used by the railroad industry

for the inspection, management and

assurance of safety of those bridges. It

provided information with which FRA

could evaluate the need for federal

action to improve the safety of railroad

bridges.

The survey assessed the policies and

practices used by 80 railroads to ensure

the integrity of their bridges. The

railroads surveyed included 21 major

railroads (including 14 class I railroads

and seven major passenger or commuter

railroads), 20 class II regional railroads,

and 39 class III shortline railroads. The

21 class I and passenger railroads are

termed ‘‘major railroads’’ because they

own most of the railroad bridges and

handle the majority of freight and

passenger traffic. In the course of the

survey, FRA inspectors observed

railroad inspections of more than 8,000

bridges.

The survey showed that all of the 21

major railroads have conducted

comprehensive, effective bridge

inspection programs for several decades.

The survey demonstrated that these

railroads are acting to safeguard the

integrity of their bridges. The railroad

managers know the condition of their

bridges, and they are taking appropriate

action to prevent structural failure. The

findings for the 20 regional railroads

were similar to those of the major

railroads.

The survey showed the major and

regional railroads use a variety of

methods to inspect and manage their

bridges. The degree to which inspectors

are supervised, the levels at which

certain decisions are made, and the

methods used to record and report

inspections vary considerably among

railroads. Nevertheless, these programs

share certain basic principles that

characterize effective bridge

management practices.

The consistency of findings among

the Class I and II railroads, passenger

operators, and many smaller railroads

indicates that railroads are following a

course of action that corresponds with

the public interest in prevention of

bridge failures. The railroads’ actions

are driven by a need to prevent the

significant economic harm that result

from the loss of a valuable bridge and

the cost of associated casualties.

On shortline railroads, however, FRA

found considerable variation in the

quality of bridge management programs

and bridge conditions. Many shortlines

have exemplary programs, well-suited

to their size and the nature of their

structures and traffic. A few, however,

did not address all of their

responsibilities for the safety of their

bridges.

These smaller railroads with minimal

bridge management programs typically

move low levels of traffic over a small

number of bridges. Nevertheless, the

consequences of a bridge failure on one

of these railroads could be as severe as

a failure occurring anywhere. The risk

of human casualty or environmental

damage would be the same for each, and

the cost of the failure could be ruinous

to a railroad with limited resources.

This finding indicates a situation that

FRA must address.