21148 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules

other forms of air transportation such as

air cargo and air taxi.

The proposed action would allow

1,000 hours TIS after the effective date

of the AD before mandatory

accomplishment of the design

modification. The average utilization of

the fleet for those airplanes in

commercial commuter service is

approximately 25 to 50 hours TIS per

week. Based on these figures, operators

of commuter-class airplanes involved in

commercial operation would have to

accomplish the proposed modification

within 5 to 10 calendar months after the

proposed AD would become effective.

For private owners, who typically

operate between 100 to 200 hours TIS

per year, this would allow 5 to 10 years

before the proposed modification would

be mandatory. The time it would take

those in air cargo/air taxi operations

before the proposed action would be

mandatory is unknown because of the

wide variation between each airplane

used in this service. The exact numbers

would fall somewhere between the

average for commuter operators and

private operators.

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action has been placed in the Rules

Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)

75–26–15, Amendment 39–2464, and by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd.: Docket No. 96–

CE–16–AD. Supersedes AD 75–26–15,

Amendment 39–2464.

Applicability: Models BN–2, BN–2A, BN–

2A–6, BN–2A–8, BN–2A–2, BN–2A–9, BN–

2A–3, BN–2A–20, BN–2A–21, BN–2A–26,

BN–2A–27, BN2A MK. 111, BN2A MK. 111–

2, and BN2A MK. 111–3 airplanes (all serial

numbers), certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD. The

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the modification, alteration, or repair

on the unsafe condition addressed by this

AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been

eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent failure of the aileron mass

balance attachment, which could result in

loss of control of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Prior to the first flight of each day after

the effective date of this AD (see NOTE 2 of

this AD), inspect the attachment of the

aileron mass balance clamp unit for

looseness in accordance with the

‘‘Inspection’’ section of Britten-Norman

Service Bulletin (SB) No. BN–2/SB.67, Issue

1, dated October 24, 1973.

Note 2: The ‘‘prior to first flight of each day

after the effective date of this AD’’

compliance time required by paragraph (a) of

this AD is exactly the same as required by AD

75–26–15 (superseded by this AD).

(b) If a loose attachment of the aileron mass

balance clamp unit is found during any of the

inspections required by this AD, prior to

further flight, modify the aileron and mass

balance clamp unit in accordance with the

‘‘b. Sequence of Operations’’ section of

Britten-Norman SB No. BN–2/SB.67, Issue 1,

dated October 24, 1973.

(c) Within the next 1,000 hours time-inservice after the effective date of this AD,

unless already accomplished as specified and

required by paragraph (b) of this AD, modify

the aileron and mass balance clamp unit in

accordance with the ‘‘b. Sequence of

Operations’’ section of Britten-Norman SB

No. BN–2/SB.67, Issue 1, dated October 24,

1973.

(d) Accomplishing the modification

required by paragraph (b) or (c) of this AD

is considered terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirement of this AD.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(f) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the initial or repetitive

compliance times that provides an equivalent

level of safety may be approved by the

Manager, Brussels Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO), Europe, Africa, Middle East

office, FAA, c/o American Embassy, 1000

Brussels, Belgium. The request should be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Brussels ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Brussels ACO.

Note 4: Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 75–26–15

(superseded by this action) are not

considered approved as alternative methods

of compliance with this AD.

(g) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to Pilatus BrittenNorman Limited, Bembridge, Isle of Wight,

United Kingdom PO35 5PR; or may examine

this document at the FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

(h) This amendment supersedes AD 75–

26–15, Amendment 39–2464.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 2,

1996.

Bobby W. Sexton,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–11533 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21149

14 CFR Part 121

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 219

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 382

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 653 and 654

[OST Docket No. OST–96–1333 , Notice 96–

14]

RIN 2105–AC50

Amendments to Pre-Employment

Alcohol Testing Requirements

AGENCIES: Federal Aviation

Administration, Federal Highway

Administration, Federal Railroad

Administration, Federal Transit

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes

provisions that would implement a

recent statutory change to the preemployment alcohol testing provisions

of the Omnibus Transportation

Employee Testing Act of 1991. The

proposal would harmonize the

regulations with the statute by making

pre-employment testing voluntary for

employers.

DATES: Comments should be received by

July 8, 1996. Late-filed comments will

be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent,

preferably in triplicate, to Docket Clerk,

Docket No. OST–96–1333., Department

of Transportation, 400 7th Street, S.W.,

Room PL-400, Washington, D.C., 20590.

Comments will be available for

inspection at this address from 9:00 a.m.

to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Commenters who wish the receipt of

their comments to be acknowledged

should include a stamped, selfaddressed postcard with their

comments. The Docket Clerk will datestamp the postcard and mail it back to

the commenter. We note that, because

this is a multi-modal rulemaking, we

are, for convenience, designating a

docket in the Office of the Secretary to

receive comments for all concerned

operating administrations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant

General Counsel for Regulation and

Enforcement, Room 10424, (202-366-

9306); 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington

D.C., 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its

April 5, 1995, decision in American

Trucking Associations, Inc. v. FHWA,

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit vacated the FHWA’s preemployment alcohol testing rule and

remanded it to the agency for further

rulemaking consistent with its opinion.

The rule implemented the Omnibus

Transportation Employee Testing Act of

1991, which required pre-employment

testing ‘‘for use, in violation of law or

Federal regulation, of alcohol or a

controlled substance.’’ The rule required

trucking companies to administer preemployment tests to a new driver. The

test could occur at any time up to the

performance of the driver’s first safetysensitive activity. This decision did not

vacate the pre-employment alcohol

testing regulations of the other modes,

which were not before the court, but

these regulations were based on parallel

statutory language, and the rationale of

the court’s decision applied to them as

well.

Because the Court’s decision vacated

FHWA’s pre-employment alcohol

testing rule and created substantial

uncertainty about the legal validity of

the other operating administrations’

rules, the Department took action in

May 1995 to suspend all four preemployment alcohol testing rules. As

announced by Secretary of

Transportation Federico Pen ̃ a before the

Court’s decision was issued, the

Department had decided to transmit a

bill to Congress that would make preemployment alcohol testing

discretionary with employers. The

Department’s proposed legislation was

adopted by Congress as § 342 of the

National Highway Systems Act of 1995.

Section 342 amends the provisions of

the Omnibus Transportation Employee

Testing Act of 1991 to repeal the

requirement that employers conduct

pre-employment alcohol testing. In

place of the repealed requirement,

Congress added a sentence that states

‘‘The [Secretary of Transportation’s]

regulations shall permit such motor

carriers to conduct preemployment

testing of such employees for the use of

alcohol.’’ (§ 342(c); the language of the

provisions for the aviation, transit, and

railroad industries is parallel.)

To implement this statutory change,

the Department’s four operating

administrations involved—the Federal

Aviation Administration, Federal

Highway Administration, Federal

Railroad Administration, and Federal

Transit Administration—are proposing

to remove their existing (but suspended)

pre-employment alcohol testing

mandates and substitute a provision that

would explicitly authorize, but not

require, employers to conduct such

testing as part of their DOT-based drug

and alcohol testing program. This means

that an employer has discretion to

conduct preemployment alcohol testing

under color of Federal statutory and

regulatory authority.

An employer’s choice to exercise the

option to test under Federal authority

would have a number of implications.

First, the employer would have to

comply with Part 40 procedures for the

tests. Second, the employer would have

to apply preemployment alcohol testing

to all safety-sensitive employees

covered by DOT drug and alcohol

testing regulations. Third, the employer

and employees would necessarily

accept the consequences of positive

tests under DOT regulations. Fourth, the

pre-emption provisions of the

Department’s regulations would apply

to pre-employment alcohol testing

under the proposed rules.

Each of the four modal amendments

embodies these points. There are some

drafting differences among the four

provisions, reflecting the differences in

the underlying modal provisions. It

should also be noted that the language

of the modal provisions is intended to

permit the testing to take place after a

conditional offer of employment, earlier

in the hiring process, or after a final

commitment but before the first

performance of safety-sensitive

functions (e.g., before the first time a

new driver takes a transit bus out on a

route). These three provisions also

encompass situations in which an

individual who has been working for

the employer in another capacity

transfers to duties involving the

performance of safety-sensitive

functions.

It is possible, of course, for an

employer to conduct pre-employment

alcohol tests under its own authority,

with no reference to DOT rules,

procedures, or authority. In this case, of

course, the exercise of the employer’s

authority is fully subject to any state

laws that may constrain the employer’s

discretion. If the employer chooses to

conduct pre-employment testing under

the DOT rules, however, the employer

commits itself to conducting the tests in

full compliance with those rules.

The Department supported the

legislation that became § 342 in the

belief that a Federal mandate for preemployment alcohol testing was not

necessary. However, employers may

determine that pre-employment alcohol

testing is a useful part of their substance

abuse prevention policies (e.g., as a

means of emphasizing to new

employees the employer’s commitment

to an alcohol abuse-free workplace). The

Department believes that the proposed

rule will facilitate the efforts of
21150 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules

employers who choose to include this

element in their programs.

Regulatory Process Matters

The proposed rule is considered to be

a nonsignificant rulemaking under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 44

FR 11034. It also is a nonsignificant rule

for purposes of Executive Order 12886.

The Department certifies, under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, that the

NPRM, if adopted, would not have a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

The NPRM would not impose any costs

or burdens on regulated entities, since it

makes pre-employment alcohol testing

completely voluntary. The rule has also

been analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612, and it has been

determined that it does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

FAA

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aircraft pilots,

Airmen, Airplanes, Air transportation,

Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Drugs,

Narcotics, Pilots, Safety, Transportation.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 14

CFR part 121, as follows:

PART 121—CERTIFICATION AND

OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND

SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND

COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF

LARGE AIRCRAFT

1. The authority citation for part 121

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 400113, 40119,

44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711,

44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-

44904, 44912, 46105.

2. In Appendix J, Sec. III, the heading

of Sec. III and subsection A are

proposed to be revised to read as

follows:

Appendix J to Part 121—Alcohol

Misuse Prevention Program

* * * * *

III. Types of Alcohol Tests

A. Pre-employment

1. As part of its alcohol misuse program

under this part, an employer is permitted, but

not required, to conduct pre-employment

testing for the use of alcohol. If the employer

chooses to conduct such testing under this

section, the requirements of paragraphs (2)–

(4) of this section apply.

2. The employer shall administer preemployment alcohol tests to each employee

prior to the first time the employee performs

safety-sensitive functions for the employer.

3. The employer shall conduct the tests

using the procedures of 49 CFR part 40.

4. The employer shall not allow a covered

employee to perform safety-sensitive

functions, unless the result of the employee’s

test indicates an alcohol concentration of less

than 0.04. If a pre-employment alcohol test

result under this section indicates an alcohol

concentration of 0.02 or greater but less than

0.04, the provisions of Paragraph F of Section

V of this appendix apply.

Issued this 2nd day of May, 1996, at

Washington, D.C.

David R. Hinson,

Administrator, Federal Aviation

Administration.

FRA

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 219

Alcohol and drug abuse, Railroad

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, FRA proposes to amend 49

CFR Part 219, as follows:

PART 219—CONTROL OF ALCOHOL

AND DRUG USE

1. The authority for part 219 would

continue to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20111,

20112, 20113, 20140, 21301, 21304; Pub. L.

103-272 (July 5, 1994); and 49 CFR 1.49(m).

2. In § 219.501, paragraphs (a) and (b)

are revised to read as follows:

§ 219.501 Pre-employment tests.

(a) Beginning on January 1, 1995,

prior to the first time a covered

employee performs covered service for a

railroad, the employee shall undergo

testing for drugs. No railroad shall allow

a covered employee to perform covered

service, unless an employee has been

administered a test for drugs with a

result that did not indicate the misuse

of controlled substances. This

requirement shall apply to final

applicants for employment and to

employees seeking transfer for the first

time from non-covered service to duties

involving covered service.

(b) As part of its alcohol misuse

program under this Part, a railroad is

permitted, but not required, to conduct

pre-employment testing for the use of

alcohol. If a railroad chooses to conduct

such testing under this section, the

requirements of paragraphs (b) (1) and

(2) apply.

(1) No railroad shall allow a covered

employee to perform covered service,

unless an employee has been

administered a test for alcohol with a

result indicating an alcohol

concentration less than .04. This

requirement shall apply to final

applicants for employment and to

employees seeking transfer for the first

time from non-covered service to duties

involving covered service.

(2) If the test is result is .02 or greater

but less than .04, the applicant or

employee shall not perform safetysensitive functions for the railroad, and

the railroad shall not permit the

applicant or employee to perform such

functions, until the applicant’s alcohol

concentration measures less than .02.

* * * * *

Issued this 2nd day of May, 1996, at

Washington, D.C.

Jolene M. Molitoris,

Administrator, Federal Railroad

Administration.

FHWA

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 382

Alcohol and drug abuse, Highway

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the FHWA proposes to amend

49 CFR part 382, as follows:

PART 382—CONTROLLED

SUBSTANCES AND ALCOHOL USE

AND TESTING

1. The authority for part 382 would

continue to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31306; 49 U.S.C. app.

31201 et. seq.; 49 U.S.C. 31502; 49 CFR 1.48

2. In section 382.301, paragraphs (a)

and (b) are revised to read as follows:

§ 382.301 Pre-employment testing.

(a) Prior to the first time a driver

performs safety-sensitive functions for

an employer, the driver shall undergo

testing for controlled substances. No

employer shall allow a driver to perform

safety-sensitive functions unless the

driver has received a controlled

substances test result from the medical

review officer indicating a verified

negative test result.

(b) As part of its alcohol misuse

program under this part, an employer is

permitted, but not required, to conduct

pre-employment testing for the use of

alcohol. If the employer chooses to

conduct such testing under this section,

the requirements of paragraphs (b) (1)

through (4) apply.

(1) The employer shall administer a

pre-employment alcohol test to each

driver prior to the first time any driver

performs a safety-sensitive function for

the employer, unless —

(i) The driver has undergone an

alcohol test permitted or required by

this part or the alcohol misuse rule of

another DOT agency under part 40 of

this title within the previous six
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21151

months, with a result indicating an

alcohol concentration of less than 0.04;

and

(ii) The employer ensures that no

prior employer of the driver of whom

the employer has knowledge has records

of a violation of this part or the alcohol

misuse rule of another DOT agency

within the previous six months.

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs

(b)(i)(1) and (ii) of this section, the

employer shall not allow a driver to

perform a safety-sensitive function

unless the driver has been administered

an alcohol test with a result indicating

an alcohol concentration of less than

0.04.

(3) If a pre-employment alcohol test

result under this section indicates an

alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater

but less than 0.04, the provisions of

§ 382.505 apply.

(4) The employer shall conduct the

tests using the procedures of 49 CFR

part 40.

* * * * *

3. In § 382.301(d)(1) introductory text,

the words ‘‘(1) (i) and (ii)’’ are added

after the words ‘‘paragraph (b)’’.

Issued this 2nd day of May, 1996, at

Washington, D.C.

Rodney Slater,

Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration.

FTA

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 653

Drug testing, Grant programstransportation, Mass transportation,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Safety, Transportation.

49 CFR Part 654

Alcohol testing, Grant programstransportation, Mass transportation,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Safety, Transportation.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Federal Transit

Administration proposes to amend 49

CFR Part 654, as follows:

PART 654—PREVENTION OF

ALCOHOL MISUSE IN TRANSIT

OPERATIONS.

1. The authority for Part 654 would

continue to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5331; 49 CFR 1.51

2. Section 654.31 is proposed to be

revised to read as follows:

§ 654.31 Pre-employment testing.

(a) As part of its alcohol misuse

program under this part, an employer is

permitted, but not required, to conduct

pre-employment testing for the use of

alcohol. If the employer chooses to

conduct such testing under this section,

the requirements of paragraphs (b)

through (d) apply.

(b) The employer shall administer a

pre-employment alcohol test before the

first time any covered employee

performs a safety-sensitive function for

the employer.

(c) The employer shall conduct the

tests using the procedures of 49 CFR

Part 40.

(d) The employer shall not allow a

covered employee to perform safetysensitive functions, unless the result of

the employee’s test indicates an alcohol

concentration of less than 0.04. If a preemployment alcohol test result under

this section indicates an alcohol

concentration of 0.02 or greater but less

than 0.04, the provisions of § 654.65

apply.

Issued this 2nd day of May, 1996, at

Washington, D.C.

Gordon J. Linton,

Administrator, Federal Transit

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11432 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0 and 80

[CI Docket No. 95–55, FCC 96–194]

Inspection of Radio Installations on

Large Cargo and Small Passenger

Ships

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted

a Notice of Proposed Rule Making

(NPRM) which proposes rules to require

that large cargo and small passenger

vessels arrange for an inspection of such

ships by an FCC-licensed technician.

The Commission adopted this NPRM to

incorporate changes to the

Communications Act related to the

inspection of ships and to explore ways

to improve the Commission’s ship

inspection process. The intended effect

of these proposed rules is to increase the

availability of competent, private sector

inspectors to conduct inspections of

cargo vessels and small passenger

vessels required to be inspected by the

Commission without adversely affecting

safety and, thus, provide greater

convenience for the maritime industry.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before May 24, 1996, and reply

comments must be filed on or before

June 3, 1996. Written comments by the

public and federal agencies on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections are due by May 24, 1996.

Written comments by OMB on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections on or before July 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the Secretary, a

copy of any comments on the

information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Dorothy

Conway, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to dconway@fcc.gov, and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fain—t@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George R. Dillon of the Compliance and

Information Bureau at (202) 418–1100.

For additional information concerning

the information collections contained in

this NPRM contact Dorothy Conway at

202–418–0217, or via the Internet at

dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, CI Docket No.

95–55, FCC 96–194, adopted April 25,

1996, and released, April 26, 1996. The

full text of this Notice of Proposed Rule

Making is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239)

1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC.

The complete text may be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

2100 M Street NW, Washington, DC

20037, telephone (202) 857–3800.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

This Notice of Proposed Rule Making

(NPRM) was initiated to incorporate

changes to the Communications Act

related to the inspection of ships, to

explore ways to improve the

Commission’s ship inspection process,

to reduce administrative burdens on the

public and the Commission, and to

ensure that vessel safety is not adversely

affected. Currently, the Commission

inspects the radio installations of

approximately 1,110 vessels each year

subject to the Communications Act or

the Safety Convention. The proposed

rules will replace the requirement that

the Commission inspect such ships with

a requirement that ship owners or

operators arrange for an inspection by

an FCC-licensed technician.