4056 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

presenting this information as a set of

guidelines suitable for use. However, we

do not intend for this proposed policy

to become a binding norm; it does not

form a new regulation, and the FAA

would not apply or rely on it as a

regulation.

The FAA Aircraft Certification Offices

(ACO’s) and Flight Standards District

Offices (FSDO’s) that certify changes in

type design and approve alterations in

normal, utility, and acrobatic category

airplanes should try to follow this

policy when appropriate. Also, as with

all advisory material, this statement of

policy identifies one means, but not the

only means, of compliance.

Because this proposed general

statement of policy only announces

what the FAA seeks to establish as

policy, the FAA considers it to be an

issue for which public comment is

appropriate. Therefore, the FAA

requests comments on the following

proposed general statement of policy

relevant to compliance with § 23.777 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR 23.777), and other related

regulations.

Background

How does part 23 address the

automatic pilot (autopilot) and control

wheel steering? The guidance on

autopilots used in part 23 airplanes does

not specifically address Control Wheel

Steering (CWS). Before 1996, CWS was

a term used by industry to describe a

momentary autopilot interrupt mode.

Holding the CWS switch depressed

temporarily disconnected the autopilot

pitch and roll servos so the airplane

could be maneuvered. When the CWS

switch was released, the autopilot

servos would reengage in the same

mode as previously selected.

One minor exception was where an

autopilot dropped the vertical axis from

the reengagement. But in no case was

there a change to a mode that had not

been selected.

What recent developments have led to

this proposed policy? More recently,

there have been some autopilots

certificated that could be engaged from

a CWS mode switch on the primary

flight controls. Additionally, some

autopilots were certificated that

changed modes from what had been

previously selected by depressing the

CWS switch.

In some cases, these two installations

could lead to inadvertent autopilot

engagement or mode changes during

critical phases of flight such as liftoff,

approach, and landing flare. Inadvertent

operation could then lead to confusion

and a misperception of a flight control

problem or an unintended loss of

approach coupling.

Although not specifically pertinent to

autopilot controls, § 23.777 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

23.777) requires that each cockpit

control ‘‘be located . . . to provide

convenient operation and to prevent

confusion and inadvertent operation.’’

The Proposed Policy

In order to comply with the intent of

§ 23.777 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 23.777) as

applicable to automatic pilots

(autopilots) installed in part 23

airplanes, autopilots should be

evaluated in accordance with the

following:

Note: These characteristics are not

applicable to ‘‘go around’’ mode switches

which are allowed on throttles.

• The automatic pilot (autopilot)

should not be engaged from a switch on

the primary flight controls, unless that

switch is protected so inadvertent

engagement is not possible. Guards

covering the switch, which can be

moved to provide access to the switch,

may be acceptable in some cases.

• Mode changes should not be made

by using a switch on the primary flight

controls unless some reliable means is

provided to prevent unsafe conditions

caused by inadvertent mode changes.

Refer to § 23.1329(h) of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

23.1329(h)).

• The autopilot disengage button

should be the color red and be of

different design from nearby switches so

it is distinguishable by touch.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on January

2, 2001.

Marvin R. Nuss,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–1276 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

[Docket No. MARAD–2001–8669]

Crowley Maritime Corporation; Notice

of Application for Written Permission

Under Section 805(a) of the Merchant

Marine Act, 1936, as Amended

AGENCY: Maritime Administration,

Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Application.

SUMMARY: Crowley Maritime

Corporation (Crowley), by letter dated

January 4, 2001, requests written

permission under section 805(a) of the

Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended

(Act), to allow Marine Transport

Corporation’s (MTC) vessels CHEMICAL

EXPLORER and CHEMICAL TRADER to

continue to receive operatingdifferential subsidy (ODS) after MTC

becomes a subsidiary of Crowley. This

section 805(a) permission is necessary

for these vessels to continue to receive

ODS because Crowley, through its

subsidiaries, owns and operates vessels

engaged in the domestic inter-coastal or

coastwise service.

DATES: You should submit your

comments early enough to ensure that

Docket Management receives them not

later than close of business (5 p.m. est)

on January 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Your comments should

refer to docket number MARAD–2001–

8669. You may submit your comments

in writing to: Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401, 400 7th Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20590. You may

also submit them electronically

via the internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/

submit/. You may call Docket

Management at (202) 366–9324 and visit

the Docket Room from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.,

EST., Monday through Friday, except

Federal Holidays. An electronic version

of this document is available on the

World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You

may call Edmond J. Fitzgerald, Director,

Office of Insurance and Shipping

Analysis, (202) 366–2400. You may

send mail to Edmond J. Fitzgerald,

Director, Office of Insurance and

Shipping Analysis, Room 8117,

Maritime Administration, 400 Seventh

St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit

Comments?

Your comments must be written and

in English. To ensure that your

comments are correctly filed in the

Docket, please include the docket

number of this document in your

comments. We encourage you to write

your primary comments in a concise

fashion. However, you may attach

necessary additional documents to your

comments. There is no limit on the

length of the attachments. Please submit

two copies of your comments, including

the attachments, to Docket Management

at the address given above under

ADDRESSES.

If you wish Docket Management to

notify you upon its receipt of your

comments, enclose a self-addressed,

stamped postcard in the envelop

containing your comments. Docket

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4057

Management will return the postcard by

mail.

How do I submit confidential

business information? If you wish to

submit any information under a claim of

confidentiality, you should submit three

copies of your complete submission,

including the information you claim to

be confidential business information, to

the Chief Counsel, Maritime

Administration, at the address given

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. You should mark

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL’’ on each page of the

original document that your would like

to keep confidential. In addition, you

should submit two copies, from which

your have deleted the claimed

confidential business information, to

Docket Management at the address

given under ADDRESSES. When you send

comments containing information

claimed to be confidential business

information, you should include a cover

letter setting forth with specificity the

basis for any such claim.

Will the Agency Consider Late

Comments?

We will consider all comments that

Docket Management receives before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above under

DATES. To the extent possible, we will

also consider comments that Docket

Management receives after that date.

How Can I Read Comments Submitted

by Other People?

You may read the comments received

by Docket Management at the address

given above under ADDRESSES. The

hours of the Docket Room are indicated

above in the same location. You may

also see the comments on the Internet.

To read the comments on the Internet,

take the following steps: Go to the

Docket Management System (DMS) Web

page of the Department of

Transportation (http//dmses.dot.gov/),

click on the box labeled ‘‘Search’’. The

docket number for this document is

MARAD–2001–8669. After typing in the

last four-digits of the docket number,

click on ‘‘search.’’ On the next page,

which contains the docket summary

information for the docket you selected,

click on the desired comments. You

may download the comments.

Application Request

Crowley and its wholly owned

subsidiary, Shiloh Acquisition, Inc.

(Shiloh), entered into an Agreement of

Merger with MTC dated December 20,

2000. As part of the process, Shiloh will

make a Tender Offer to purchase all the

shares of MTC on January 5, 2001,

which offer will expire on February 5,

2001, at which time Crowley expects to

have control of MTC and subsequently

thereafter effect a complete merger

between Shiloh and MTC, with MTC

being the surviving corporation as a

direct subsidiary of Crowley.

MTC, through its subsidiaries,

Frances ODS Corporation and Julius

ODS Corporation, has two operatingdifferential subsidy agreements with the

Maritime Administration dated as of

September 30, 1998, Contract No. MA/

MSB–442 and Contract No. MA/MSB–

440, respectively. Pursuant to these

agreements, Frances ODS Corporation

receives ODS for the SMT CHEMICAL

EXPLORER and Julius ODS Corporation

receives ODS for SMT CHEMICAL

TRADER. The agreement for SMT

CHEMICAL EXPLORER will terminate

by its terms on September 18, 2001 and

the agreement for SMT CHEMICAL

TRADER will terminate by its terms on

March 25, 2001. Frances ODS

Corporation receives approximately

$8,500 per day pursuant to the

agreement for the SMT CHEMICAL

EXPLORER and Julius ODS Corporation

receives approximately $8,100 per day

pursuant to the agreement for SMT

CHEMICAL TRADER.

Crowley, through its subsidiaries,

owns and operates vessels engaged in

the domestic inter-coastal or coastwise

service, and has provided as an

attachment to its application: Schedule

A—the fleet of tugs and barges operating

on the West Coast and Alaska and the

Gulf; Schedule B—the fleet of tugs and

barges operating in the U.S.-Puerto Rico

trade; Schedule C—the fleet of tugs and

barges operating on the East Coast and

Gulf; and , Schedule D—the fleet of oil

tankers operating throughout the Jones

Act trading areas. These schedules show

the horsepower of the tugs, capacity of

the barges and tankers as well as the

general itineraries. Interested parties

may review these schedules by reading

the application which is part of the

docket and is accessible electronically

via the internet, or personally at the

DOT Docket Room, as described above

under how to read comments submitted

by other people.

In connection with these domestic

services, Crowley requests written

permission of the Secretary of

Transportation, pursuant to section

805(a) of the Act to allow the MTC

subsidiaries to continue to receive ODS

pursuant to the subsidy contracts

referred to above after MTC becomes a

wholly owned subsidiary of Crowley.

In deciding whether to grant

Crowley’s application for a waiver

pursuant to section 805(a) of the Act,

Crowley requests the Maritime

Administration to consider the

following:

First, continued receipt by the two

subsidiaries of MTC of ODS will not

leak to Crowley. The subsidy dollars

received by the two MTC subsidiaries

will be used for the purposes set forth

in the section 603 of the Act, as

financial aid for the operation of the two

vessels, the CHEMICAL EXPLORER and

CHEMICAL TRADER. Thus, the ODS

payments will remain with and be used

by the ODS contractors, Frances ODS

Corporation and Julius ODS

Corporation.

Second, the continued receipt of ODS

will be for (i) a relatively small amount

of money and (ii) for a very short period

of time. Crowley expects to have control

of and complete the merger process by

early February 2001. If this timetable

holds firm, it would mean that Juluis

ODS Corporation will receive subsidy

for approximately one and a half

months and Frances ODS Corporation

will receive subsidy for approximately

six and a half months. During this short

period of time, the subsidy payments

will be used by the ODS contractors and

not leaked to Crowley.

Third, Crowley has been an operator

in the Jones Act trades for over 100

years and, operates a wide range of

vessels throughout the entire Jones Act

trade area. Receipt of (i) a relatively

small amount of ODS, (ii) for a short

period of time; and (iii) earmarked for

use by the Julius ODS Corporation and

Frances ODS Corporation in the

operation of the CHEMICAL TRADER

and CHEMICAL EXPLORER will not

leak to any of Crowley’s wide range of

Jones Act operations. In addition, it

should be noted that by reason of the

Title XI Reserve Fund and Financial

Agreement between MARAD and the

Julius ODS Corporation and the Frances

ODS Corporation, those companies are

prohibited from dividending any

monies to their corporate parent and

will continue to be so restricted through

the date of the last ODS payment on

September 18, 2001. Thus, there is no

way for MTC to leak the ODS payments

to Crowley.

For the reasons set forth above,

Crowley believes that the grant of the

requested section 805(a) waiver will not

result in unfair competition to any

person, firm, or corporation operating

exclusively in the coastwise or intercoastal service or that it would be

prejudicial to the objects and policy of

the Act and a hearing on the matter is

not needed.

Any person, firm, or corporation

having any interest (within the meaning

of section 805(a)) in Crowley’s request

and desiring to submit comments

4058 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

together with petition for leave to

intervene should do so in accordance

with the above instructions for

submitting comments. The petition

should state clearly and concisely the

grounds of interest, and the alleged facts

relied on for relief.

If no petition for leave to intervene is

received with the specified time or if it

is determined that petitions filed do not

demonstrate sufficient interest to

warrant a hearing, the Maritime

Administration will take such action as

may be deemed appropriate.

In the event petitions regarding the

relevant section 805(a) issues are

received from parties with standing to

be heard, a hearing will be held, the

purpose of which will be to receive

evidence under section 805(a) relative to

whether the proposed operations: (a)

could result in unfair competition to

any person, firm, or corporation

operating exclusively in the coastwise

or inter-coastal service, or (b) would be

prejudicial to the objects and policy of

the Act relative to domestic trade

operations.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Programs No. 20.805 Operating-Differential

Subsidies)

By Order of the Maritime Administrator.

Dated: January 11, 2001.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–1359 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

[Docket No. MARAD–2000–8666]

ALASKA ROSE, BERING ROSE, and

SEA WOLF—Applicability of Preferred

Mortgage, Ownership and Control

Requirements to Obtain a Fishery

Endorsement

AGENCY: Maritime Administration,

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Invitation for public comments

on a petition requesting MARAD to

issue a determination that the

ownership and control requirements

and the preferred mortgage

requirements of the American Fisheries

Act of 1998 and 46 CFR Part 356 are in

conflict with an international

investment agreement.

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration

(MARAD, we, our, or us) is soliciting

public comments on a petition from the

owners and mortgagees of the vessels

ALASKA ROSE—Official Number

610984, BERING SEA—Official Number

609823, and SEA WOLF—Official

Number 609823 (hereinafter the

‘‘Vessels’’). The petition requests that

MARAD issue a decision that the

American Fisheries Act of 1998

(‘‘AFA’’), Division C, Title II, Subtitle I,

Pub. L. 105–277, and our regulations at

46 CFR Part 356 (65 Fed. Reg. 44860

(July 19, 2000)) are in conflict with the

U.S.-Japan Treaty and Protocol

Regarding Friendship, Commerce and

Navigation, 206 UNTS 143, TIAS 2863,

4 UST 2063 (1953) (‘‘U.S.-Japan FCN’’ or

‘‘Treaty’’). The petition is submitted

pursuant to 46 CFR 356.53 and 213(g) of

AFA, which provide that the

requirements of the AFA and the

implementing regulations will not apply

to the owners or mortgagees of a U.S.-

flag vessel documented with a fishery

endorsement to the extent that the

provisions of the AFA conflict with an

existing international agreement relating

to foreign investment to which the

United States is a party. This notice sets

forth the provisions of the international

agreement that the Petitioner alleges are

in conflict with the AFA and 46 CFR

Part 356 and the arguments submitted

by the Petitioner in support of its

request. If MARAD determines that the

AFA and MARAD’s implementing

regulations conflict with the U.S.-Japan

FCN, the requirements of 46 CFR Part

356 and the AFA will not apply to the

extent of the inconsistency.

Accordingly, interested parties are

invited to submit their views on this

petition and whether there is a conflict

between the U.S.-Japan FCN and the

requirements of both the AFA and 46

CFR Part 356. In addition to receiving

the views of interested parties, MARAD

will consult with other Departments and

Agencies within the Federal

Government that have responsibility or

expertise related to the interpretation of

or application of international

investment agreements.

DATES: You should submit your

comments early enough to ensure that

Docket Management receives them not

later than February 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number that appears at the

top of this document. Written comments

may be submitted by mail to the Docket

Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401,

Department of Transportation, 400 7th

St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590–0001.

You may also send comments

electronically via the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov/submit/. All comments will

become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection and copying at

the above address between 10 a.m. and

5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday,

except Federal Holidays. An electronic

version of this document and all

documents entered into this docket are

available on the World Wide Web at

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

T. Marquez, Jr. of the Office of Chief

Counsel at (202) 366–5320. You may

send mail to John T. Marquez, Jr.,

Maritime Administration, Office of

Chief Counsel, Room 7228, MAR–222,

400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington,

D.C., 20590–0001 or you may send email to John.Marquez@marad.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The AFA was enacted in 1998 to give

U.S. interests a priority in the harvest of

U.S.-fishery resources by increasing the

requirements for U.S. Citizen

ownership, control and financing of

U.S.-flag vessels documented with a

fishery endorsement. MARAD was

charged with promulgating

implementing regulations for fishing

vessels of 100 feet or greater in

registered length while the Coast Guard

retains responsibility for vessels under

100 feet.

Section 202 of the AFA, raises, with

some exceptions, the U.S.-Citizen

ownership and control standards for

U.S.-flag vessels that are documented

with a fishery endorsement and

operating in U.S.-waters. The ownership

and control standard was increased

from the controlling interest standard

(greater than 50%) of 2(b) of Shipping

Act, 1916 (‘‘1916 Act’’), as amended, 46

App. U.S.C. 802(b), to the standard

contained in 2(c) of the 1916 Act, 46

App. U.S.C. 802(c), which requires that

75 percent of the ownership and control

in a vessel owning entity be vested in

U.S. Citizens. In addition, section 204 of

the AFA repeals the ownership

grandfather ‘‘savings provision’’ in the

Anti-Reflagging Act of 1987, Pub. L.

100–239, 7(b), 101 Stat 1778 (1988),

which permits foreign control of

companies owning certain fishing

vessels.

Section 202 of the AFA also

establishes new requirements to hold a

preferred mortgage on a vessel with a

fishery endorsement. State or federally

chartered financial institutions must

now comply with the controlling

interest standard of 2(b) of the 1916 Act

in order to hold a preferred mortgage on

a vessel with a fishery endorsement.

Entities other than state or federally

chartered financial institutions must

either meet the 75% ownership and

control requirements of 2(c) of the 1916

Act or utilize an approved U.S.-Citizen

Trustee that meets the 75% ownership

and control requirements to hold the