Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices 3289

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces

the establishment of a task group formed

by the Chief, Office of Marine Safety,

Security and Environmental Protection,

to assess how to improve safety and

pollution prevention through

improvements in areas where people are

the major factor in accidents. The task

group’s purpose will be to develop a

long-term strategy for the Coast Guard

‘‘Prevention Through People’’ program

which stresses solutions outside the

regulatory process.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

CDR Craig Bone, Commandant (G–MS),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001, or may be made by

telephone at (202) 267–6827, or by fax

at (202) 267–4547.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

CDR Craig Bone, Commandant (G–MS),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001, telephone (202) 267–6827.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard invites suggestions

and recommendations giving insight on

where processes or people-issues have a

potential for improved safety or

efficiencies, either because of changes

by the Coast Guard or by industry.

Interested persons submitting comments

should submit them to the Coast Guard

where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Background and Purpose

The analyses of marine casualties

which have occurred over the past 30

years have prompted the safety regime

of the international maritime

community to evolve from one based

primarily upon technical requirements,

to one which recognizes the importance

of the human element in the system.

This analyses indicates that 65 to 80

percent of casualties are caused by

people. The maritime safety and

pollution prevention programs have

spent the majority of available resources

addressing design requirements and

technical ‘‘fixes’’ to eliminate the

‘‘human element’’ or to provide

redundancy and alarms which can

actually result in the need for increased

technical skills of the operating

personnel. These initiatives have been

mostly successful but, human factors

and people issues still dominate

casualty cases. Consequently, it is

necessary to better address the root

causes of safety and pollution problems

and to address them properly with

adequate resources.

Historically, the international

maritime community has approached

maritime safety from a predominantly

technical perspective. The conventional

wisdom was to apply engineering and

technological solutions to promote

safety and minimize the consequences

of marine casualties. Accordingly,

international standards have addressed

equipment requirements such as the

type and amount of lifesaving and

firefighting apparatus required on board.

Design requirements such as

protectively located segregated ballast

tanks, double hulls, and improved

steering gear standards have been

adopted to make the operation of

tankers safer and to minimize the extent

of pollution in the event of a casualty.

Innovations in structural fire protection

engineering have significantly improved

the fire safety of today’s modern cruise

vessels. State-of-the-art electronics have

had a profound effect on the accuracy of

navigation. Finally, advances in

materials and computer assisted

construction techniques have improved

quality and reliability throughout the

industry.

Despite these engineering and

technological innovations, significant

marine casualties continue to occur. To

further reduce casualties, the role of

‘‘human error’’ in the maritime safety

equation has been evaluated. The term

‘‘human error’’ may be broadly defined

as the acts or omissions of personnel

which adversely affect the proper

functioning of a particular system, or

the successful performance of a

particular task. As indicated, recent

studies have suggested that in excess of

80 percent of all high-consequence

marine casualties may be directly or

indirectly attributable to ‘‘human error.’’

The term ‘‘human factors’’ may be

defined as the study and analysis of the

design of the equipment, and the

interaction of the equipment and the

human operator, and most importantly,

the procedures the crew and

management follow. The purpose of

studying human factors is to identify

how the crew, the owner, operator, the

classification societies, and the

regulatory bodies can each work to sever

the chain of errors which are associated

with every marine casualty.

Consequently, the international

maritime community has started to

emphasize participatory shipboard

management. As noted by the

International Chamber of Shipping and

the International Shipping Federation,

[T]he task facing all shipping companies is

to minimize the scope for human decisions

to contribute, directly or indirectly, to a

casualty or pollution incident. Decisions

made ashore can be as important as those

made at sea, and there is a need to ensure

that every action affecting safety or the

prevention of pollution, taken at any level

within the company, is based upon sound

understanding of its consequences.

There is a clear need to critically

address people-issues. The issues must

be addressed, not only from the

traditional man and machine interface

and ergonomics aspects, but must also

include an assessment of entire

processes including navigating the

vessel, cargo loading and unloading,

and responding to emergencies.

The Coast Guard study team will

consult with industry, including vessel

operators and crew as well as cargo

transfer operators, to obtain insight on

where processes or people-issues have a

potential for improved safety or

efficiencies, either because of changes

by the Coast Guard or by industry.

Small study groups may be formed, if

appropriate, and public meetings may

be held to get input from a broad

interest base. If the Coast Guard decides

to hold a public meeting, the date and

time will be announced by a later notice

in the Federal Register.

Dated: January 5, 1995.

J.C. Card,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Office

of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental

Protection.

[FR Doc. 95–946 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE–95–2]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of

Petitions Received; Dispositions of

Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for

exemption received and of dispositions

of prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking

provisions governing the application,

processing, and disposition of petitions

for exemption (14 CFR Part 11), this

notice contains a summary of certain

petitions seeking relief from specified

requirements of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I),

dispositions of certain petitions

previously received, and corrections.

The purpose of this notice is to improve

the public’s awareness of, and

participation in, this aspect of FAA’s

regulatory activities. Neither publication

of this notice nor the inclusion or

omission of information in the summary

is intended to affect the legal status of

any petition or its final disposition.
3290 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices

DATES: Comments on petitions received

must identify the petition docket

number involved and must be received

on or before February 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any

petition in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–

200), Petition Docket No. llllll,

800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

The petition, any comments received,

and a copy of any final disposition are

filed in the assigned regulatory docket

and are available for examination in the

Rules Docket (AGC–200), Room 915G,

FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),

800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)

267–3132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. D. Michael Smith, Office of

Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone (202) 267–7470.

This notice is published pursuant to

paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 of

Part 11 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Part 11).

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5,

1995.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Petitions for Exemption

Docket No.: 27720

Petitioner: Aircraft Associates, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

45.25

Description of Relief Sought: To allow

Aircraft Associates, Inc., to operate its

Piper PA–31–350 Chieftain,

registration number N100EM, for a

period not to exceed 36 months, with

the registration numbers positioned

over the wing on each side of the

fuselage and on the top of the right

wing and bottom of the left wing,

until the aircraft is repainted.

Docket No.: 27808

Petitioner: Nikolaus Steigler, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.13(a)(1)

Description of Relief Sought: To allow

Nikolaus Steigler, Inc., to be eligible

for a Commercial Operator certificate

under part 135 of the FAR without

meeting citizenship requirements.

Docket No.: 27929

Petitioner: Airline Training Center

Arizona, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

61.93(c)(1) (i), (ii), and 2(iii)

Description of Relief Sought: To permit

Airline Training Center Arizona, Inc.,

student pilots to operate aircraft for

practice solo airwork within 50

nautical miles of Phoenix Goodyear

Airport prior to receiving instruction

required by the above mentioned

sections of the FAR. This exemption

is requested due to airspace

restrictions surrounding Phoenix

Goodyear Airport.

Docket No.: 27931

Petitioner: Mr. Edward Thornton

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

61.27

Description of Relief Sought: To permit

the reissuance of Edward R.

Thornton’s pilot certificate at the

grade of commercial pilot on the basis

of oral tests and flight checks without

written testing. Reissuance is

necessary because Mr. Thornton

erroneously surrendered his ATP

certificate for cancellation instead of

requesting issuance of a certificate of

a lower grade.

Docket No.: 27966

Petitioner: Reeve Aleutian Airways, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.356(a)

Description of Relief Sought: To permit

Reeve Aleutian Airways, Inc., to

operate its Lockheed L–188 aircraft

without TCAS–II installed within

Alaska and foreign Airspace (as

approved by foreign civil aviation

authorities).

Docket No.: 27992

Petitioner: Learjet, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

25.832

Description of Relief Sought: To allow

Learjet, Inc., to type certificate the

Model 45 aircraft without incurring

the performance and cost penalties

that would be inherent in the

installation of ozone converting

equipment carried to comply with the

cabin ozone concentration limits of

§ 25.832. This request, if granted,

would permit the petitioner a

permanent exemption applicable to

the Model 45 aircraft from the

requirements of § 25.832, as amended

by Amendment 25.56.

Dispositions of Petitions

Docket No.: 008SW

Petitioner: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

29.1303(g)(1)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow use of a standby attitude indicator that is usable

through pitch attitudes of + or ¥60

degrees for the Bell Helicopter

Textron, Inc., Model 412 series

transport category helicopter.

Grant, November 14, 1994, Exemption

No. 5985

Docket No.: 26149

Petitioner: Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

21.197

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To extend Exemption No.

5600, which allows Boeing to conduct

training of its pilot flight crew

personnel while operating under

special flight permits issued for the

purpose of production flight testing.

Grant, December 6, 1994, Exemption

No. 5600A

Docket No.: 27435

Petitioner: Air France

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

129.18

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To extend Exemption No.

5799, as amended, which permits Air

France to operate Concorde Aircraft

that are not equipped with an

approved traffic alert and collision

avoidance system (TCAS II).

Partial Grant, December 15, 1994,

Exemption No. 5799B

Docket No.: 27482

Petitioner: Airflite, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

61.57(d)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit pilots

employed by Airflite who hold an

Airline Transport Pilot (ATP)

certificate, to act as pilot in command

(PIC) of aircraft carrying passengers at

night without having made at least

three takeoffs and landings to a full

stop, at night, during the preceding 90

days in the category and class of

aircraft in which the pilot is to act as

PIC.

Denial, October 11, 1994, Exemption

No. 5976

Docket No.: 27918

Petitioner: Alaska Helicopters, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

133.19(a) and 133.51

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Alaska

Helicopters, Inc., to perform externalload operations in Canadianregistered rotorcraft.

Grant, December 13, 1994, Exemption

No. 5998

[FR Doc. 95–952 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

[Summary Notice No. PE–95–3]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of

Petitions Received; Dispositions of

Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for

exemption received and of dispositions

of prior petitions.