Implementation of Vessel Security Officer Training and Certification Requirements-International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended, 29060-29071 [E8-11225]

Download as PDF 29060 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations expert recommended sampling strategy options for the Agency’s consideration in enforcing the DPM final limit in a September 2007 report. MSHA was reviewing the expert’s recommendations when it published its December 10, 2007 Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda in which the Agency continued to state its intent to propose a rule to convert the 160 TC limit. MSHA now has determined that insufficient data exist to proceed with further rulemaking to convert the DPM final limit using a single, constant conversion factor, such as the 1.3 factor currently used for EC for all mines. B. Notice of Enforcement of DPM Final Limit MSHA has developed an enforcement strategy for implementation of the DPM 160 TC PEL beginning May 20, 2008. MSHA will continue to determine a miner’s exposure to DPM based on a single personal sample taken over the miner’s full shift as specified in existing 30 CFR § 57.5061 of the DPM standard. MSHA will use an EC analysis and appropriate sampling methods to ensure that a citation for a miner’s overexposure to the 160 TC PEL is valid and not the result of interferences. C. Reason for Withdrawal of Intent To Issue a Proposed Rule jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES MSHA is withdrawing its intent to issue a proposed rule to convert the 160 TC PEL because it has determined that insufficient data exist to support such a rule, and because it has determined that the enforcement strategy it will begin to use on May 20, 2008, is an accurate and effective way of enforcing the DPM standard. This enforcement strategy will provide effective health protections for miners at underground metal and nonmetal mines. In light of MSHA’s enforcement action, this notice does not reduce health protections for underground metal and nonmetal miners. Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners is withdrawn from the Regulatory Agenda. This document does not preclude future agency action that MSHA may find to be appropriate. Dated: May 15, 2008. John P. Pallasch, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8–11329 Filed 5–19–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–43–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 104 46 CFR Parts 10 and 15 [Docket No. USCG–2008–0028] RIN 1625–AB26 Implementation of Vessel Security Officer Training and Certification Requirements—International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended Coast Guard, DHS. Interim rule with request for comments. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its regulations to implement the vessel security officer training and certification amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, and the Seafarers’ Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code. These amendments incorporate the training and qualification requirements for vessel security officers into the requirements for the credentialing of United States merchant mariners. The vessel security officer requirements would apply to all vessels subject to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, under current regulations. This includes all seagoing vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 15.1101, to mean self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the Boundary Line established by 46 CFR Part 7, except those vessels which have been determined to be otherwise exempt from STCW as per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and (f). DATES: This interim rule is effective June 19, 2008. Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before July 21, 2008. Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB on or before July 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG–2008–0028 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: (1) Online: http:// www.regulations.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. (3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366–9329. (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. For public submission of comments on collection of information, the subject line should reference the docket number and say Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Coast Guard, DHS. You must also send comments on collection of information to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure that the comments are received on time, the preferred method is by e-mail at oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or fax at 202–395–6566. An alternate, though slower, method is by U.S. mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim rule, contact Ms. Mayte Medina, Maritime Personnel Qualifications Division, Coast Guard, by telephone 202–372–1406 or by e-mail at Mayte.Medina2@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to the docket located at http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below. A. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2008–0028), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 20MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we are not be able to read your original submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this rule in view of them. B. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, click on ‘‘Search for Dockets,’’ and enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2008–0028) in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. C. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http:// DocketsInfo.dot.gov. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES D. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 II. Acronyms DOT Department of Transportation GRT Gross Registered Tons GT Gross Tons IMO International Maritime Organization ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Security Code MARAD Maritime Administration MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget QSS Quality Standards System REC Regional Examination Center SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 STCW International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 STCW Code Seafarer’s Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code VSO Vessel Security Officer III. Regulatory Information The Coast Guard is issuing this interim final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to these amendments because providing opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and would be contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard is implementing VSO training and certification requirements that the U.S. has agreed to as a party to the STCW. This will ensure consistency and harmonize U.S. and international standards for VSO training and certification while at the same time ensuring that the U.S. observes its international obligations. Because the STCW VSO training and certification standards are exhaustive and wellestablished, pre-publication notice and comment procedures are not necessary to further inform the rulemaking, which follows those requirements. This interim rule also enhances national maritime safety and security by ensuring careful vetting by the Coast Guard of the qualifications of individuals wishing to serve as VSOs. A delay in implementing this rule would be contrary to the public interest in national maritime safety and security. This interim rule will also permit mariners to continue working in the PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 29061 industry on U.S. seagoing vessels outside of U.S. territorial waters by bringing their training and certification into compliance with STCW requirements. This permits U.S. seagoing vessels to continue to travel to and operate in foreign waters and ports without being subject to possible detention for noncompliance with STCW requirements. The Coast Guard believes that permitting U.S. seagoing vessels to continue to operate internationally consistent with STCW VSO training and certification requirements, and without delay, is clearly within the public interest. For these reasons, it is unnecessary and would be contrary to the public interest to further delay implementation of these requirements. This interim rule will have a 60-day comment period and the rule will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Coast Guard will address comments received on this interim rule before and after the effective date as part of the final rule process. You may submit a request for a public meeting if you believe one would be beneficial. If you would like to request a public meeting, submit your request as described above in PUBLIC MEETING explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine a public meeting is necessary, the time and place of the public meeting will be announced by a notice in the Federal Register. IV. Background and Purpose On July 1, 2007, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee adopted the 2006 amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW) and the Seafarer’s Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code) related to training and certification requirements for a vessel security officer (VSO). These amendments support the security requirements in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) and International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, Amendments, adopted December 2002. The amendments to the STCW and STCW Code set certification and qualification requirements for VSOs. The STCW set forth qualification standards for Masters, officers and watch personnel on seagoing merchant ships. STCW entered into force in 1984 and the U.S. became a party to the Convention in 1991. As a party to the STCW, the U.S. is committed to implementing the adopted amendments. E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 20MYR1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES 29062 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations The STCW amendments became effective January 1, 2008. Under the STCW amendments, those persons who became vessel security officers (VSOs) on or after January 1, 2008, needed to comply with the new requirements as of January 1, 2008. Those persons who already worked as VSOs prior to January 1, 2008, need to comply with those new requirements by July 1, 2009. This rulemaking is being carried out as expeditiously as possible to ensure that mariners are issued the appropriate international certificates, therefore avoiding vessel detentions for noncompliance with the STCW requirements at foreign ports. Furthermore, the implementation of the rule at this time is meant to ensure there is time for training courses to be developed that comply with the proposed interim regulation and provide all new and existing VSOs with the opportunity to take the course and apply for a VSO endorsement prior to July 1, 2009. The STCW and STCW Code amendments include: 1. Certification by the Coast Guard of VSOs; 2. completion of sea service requirements; 3. VSO training in accordance with the STCW Code’s standard of competence; 4. approval of training courses by the Coast Guard; and 5. continuous monitoring by the Coast Guard through a quality standards system (QSS) of the training courses it accepts. The amendments also contain transitional provisions for persons already serving as VSOs that will expire on July 1, 2009. The STCW and STCW Code amendments were based on the IMO model course for Ship Security Officer. Currently, 33 CFR 104.215 requires VSOs to have maritime security knowledge which can be obtained through training or equivalent job experience, as self-certified by the owner/operator of the vessel employing the individual. The existing regulations do not require certification by the Coast Guard. This interim rule amends the current regulations to adopt the STCW and STCW Code amendments related to VSO training and qualifications. To address the primary STCW and STCW Code amendments, the Coast Guard is amending 46 CFR Part 10 to require owner/operators to employ a certified VSO on board each vessel subject to the STCW under current regulations. This includes all seagoing vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 15.1101, to mean selfpropelled vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the Boundary Line established by 46 CFR Part 7, except those vessels which have been determined to be otherwise VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 exempt from STCW as per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and (f). The Coast Guard will also add VSO training requirements in 33 CFR 104.215 to align the regulations with competence-based training requirements in STCW. The regulations currently require VSOs to have maritime security knowledge in a number of areas contained in 33 CFR 104.210 and in 33 CFR 104.215. The Coast Guard has determined that the VSO training requirements should be contained in one place and that the training requirements should be fully aligned with STCW. The Coast Guard will also add VSO sea service requirements in 33 CFR 104.215 to align the regulations with the STCW requirements. The existing regulations do not include sea service requirements. The Coast Guard will now require sea service of 12 months or, with knowledge of vessel operations, six months. The Coast Guard determined that these two options were necessary to account for traditional mariners and for other personnel, such as security experts, who already possess knowledge and experience of vessel operations. V. Discussion of the Interim Rule Section 104.215 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations currently requires VSOs to have maritime security knowledge. This knowledge can be obtained through training or equivalent job experience, as self-certified by the owner/operator of the vessel employing the individual. The existing regulations do not require certification. 33 CFR 104.215 In 33 CFR 104.215, the regulation will require Coast Guard certification in the form of a VSO endorsement for persons performing duties as VSOs on board vessels subject to the STCW under current regulations. This includes all seagoing vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 15.1101, to mean self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the Boundary Line established by 46 CFR part 7, except those vessels which have been determined to be otherwise exempt from STCW as per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and (f). Section 104.215 will also require that VSOs meet entry requirements such as: 1. Be at least 18 years old; 2. be able to speak and understand the English language sufficiently as related to VSO duties; 3. hold valid credentials; 4. complete VSO training; and 5. have approved sea service. The training requirements will include competencebased mandatory training in order to qualify for a VSO endorsement. VSOs will be required to be trained to meet six PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 competencies that fully align with the STCW Code, Table A–VI/5, Specifications of minimum standards of proficiency for ship security officers, which may be found in the docket [USCG–2008–0028]. The sea service requirements in § 104.215 will provide two options: 1. 12 months; or 2. 6 months with knowledge of ship operations. In addition to providing evidence of sea service, mariners seeking to qualify for an endorsement using the six-month option will also be required to furnish evidence of knowledge of basic ship operations. A list of ship operations areas is included in this rulemaking at 33 CFR 104.215(d)(3). The list was derived using input from merchant mariners and from maritime instructors. The STCW requires that all training be approved by the Coast Guard and that the training be continuously monitored through a quality-standard system to ensure achievement of defined objectives. To fulfill this requirement, VSO training courses will be approved and monitored by a Coast Guard-accepted Quality Standards System (QSS) organization acting on behalf of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard will not directly approve any VSO courses. Any fees charged by the Coast Guard-accepted QSS organizations will be the responsibility of the VSO course provider. As of the publication date of this interim rule, there are three Coast-Guard accepted QSS organizations that may approve and monitor training on behalf of the Coast Guard. The list of these organizations can be found on the following Internet Web site: http:// www.uscg.mil/STCW/mmicappcourses.htm. It is expected that courses accepted for VSO endorsement by the Coast Guard will be based on the IMO model course for ship security officer, or the MARAD VSO model course. Vessel Security Officer courses must also ensure that persons completing the course can successfully demonstrate proficiency in the basic competencies in 33 CFR 104.215(d)(2). Information on MARAD VSO full and refresher courses can be found on the following Internet Web site: http://www.marad.dot.gov/ MTSA/MARAD% 20Web%20Site%20for% 20MTSA%20Course.html. The Coast Guard will also accept courses approved by MARAD on behalf of the Coast Guard under section 109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107–295 as meeting the requirements of STCW for purposes of fulfilling the regulatory requirements in 33 CFR 104.215(d)(1)(iv) and (d)(2), as E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 20MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations referenced in 33 CFR 104.215(d)(6). Information on these approved courses can be found on the following Internet Web site: http://www.marad.dot.gov/ MTSA/MARAD% 20Web%20Site%20for% 20MTSA%20Course.html. The Coast Guard will also accept a QSS-approved refresher course for persons who can document six months of experience as a VSO, or have successfully completed a course on vessel security that was not approved by MARAD prior to the effective date of this interim rule. 46 CFR 10.811 Section 10.811 will require proof of compliance with the entry requirements in 33 CFR 104.215 for mariners seeking a VSO endorsement. It will also require the individual to meet the physical examination requirements in 46 CFR 10.205(d)(1)–(2). 46 CFR 15.1113 We are adding 46 CFR 15.1113 which will require that VSOs serving on board vessels subject to the STCW hold an endorsement as VSO. This includes all seagoing vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 15.1101 to mean self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the Boundary Line established by 46 CFR Part 7, except those vessels which have been determined to be otherwise exempt from STCW as per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and (f). VI. Regulatory Evaluation We developed this interim rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our analysis based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. A. Regulatory Analysis This rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under that Order. A combined Regulatory Analysis and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is available in the docket where indicated under the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ section of this preamble. A summary of the analysis follows: The interim rule would require vessel security officers (VSOs) serving on U.S.flag vessels subject to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 as amended (STCW) to complete training requirements consistent with STCW amendments on VSO training and qualifications. This would require existing VSOs and persons that intend to serve as VSOs to hold a Coast Guard-issued credential with a VSO endorsement. The affected vessels would be U.S.-flag self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the boundary line as specified in 46 CFR part 15.1101. The Coast Guard does not plan to directly approve any VSO courses. Instead, VSO training must be Coast Guard-accepted. This means that the courses must be approved and monitored by a Coast Guard-accepted Quality Standards System (QSS) organization acting on behalf of the Coast Guard. Any fees charged by the Coast Guard-accepted QSS organizations will be the responsibility of the course provider. In addition, persons that have already completed a Maritime Administration (MARAD)-approved VSO course before the effective date of this rule would be considered in compliance with the training requirement and would only need to successfully meet the qualification requirements. Persons that have completed a non-MARAD training course before the effective date of this rule can meet the training requirement by completing a Coast-Guard accepted VSO refresher course. They would be able to serve as a VSO upon completion of the training and they would have 29063 until July 1, 2009, to complete the refresher course. After that time, they will be required to take a full VSO training course. There are four cost elements associated with this interim rule (1) A VSO refresher course cost, (2) a full VSO course cost, (3) a training provider cost from a Coast Guard-approved QSS, and (4) a VSO endorsement and travel cost to a regional examination center (REC). We estimate that approximately 716 VSOs would need refresher course training and approximately 237 would need to enroll in a full training course. During the first full year the rule is in effect, or 2009, about 1,769 VSOs will incur a cost associated with an REC, and annually, about 190 VSOs will incur the REC cost (we chose 2009 as the first year of the analysis period since most VSOs would complete the required training during that year). The total population of VSOs potentially affected by this interim rule is approximately 1,974, depending upon the training requirement. Under the current rule, VSO training is optional. The number of training providers affected is dependent upon when the training provider courses expired and the renewal date. We estimate the interim rule to affect about 879 U.S.-flag seagoing vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the boundary line as specified in 46 CFR part 15.1101. We present the costs of this interim rule in 2007 dollars and discount these costs to their present value (PV) over a 10-year period of analysis, 2009–2018, using both seven and three percent discount rates. We estimate the annuitized costs of this interim rule over the 10-year period of analysis to be about $1.5 million at both seven and three percent discount rates. We estimate the total 10-year (2009–2018) present discounted value or cost of this interim rule to industry to be between $10.5 and $12.3 million at both seven and three percent discount rates, respectively. Table 1 below summarizes the costs of the interim rule. TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TOTAL DISCOUNTED COSTS OF INTERIM RULE [2009–2018, 7 and 3 percent discount rates, 2007 dollars ($millions)] Discount rates Cost item jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES 7 percent Coast Guard-approved QSS VSO Training Provider Cost ......................................................................................... VSO Refresher Course ................................................................................................................................................ VSO Full Course .......................................................................................................................................................... VSO Travel Cost to REC ............................................................................................................................................. Total Interim Rule Cost ........................................................................................................................................ Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 20MYR1 3 percent $0.25 1.9 6.6 1.9 $0.32 2.0 8.0 2.1 10.5 12.3 29064 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations From our Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, we estimate the interim rule to affect about 879 U.S.-flag vessels. Based on guidance from industry representatives, we were able to obtain the number of crews per vessel class assuming one VSO per crew. Based on our discussions with industry representatives, we found that, on average, there are two vessel crews per vessel in a specific vessel class (freight ships have three crews per vessel). See Table 2 below. The column labeled ‘‘VSOs in Compliance’’ presents the number of VSOs that have completed the MARAD (Maritime Administration)-approved training and would be in compliance with this interim rule. The last column of Table 2 labeled ‘‘Requiring Refresher Training’’ shows the number of VSOs in each vessel class that would require refresher training. We assume these persons that would like to serve as VSOs qualify for the refresher course training, either because they have recently served at least six months as a VSO or because they have completed non-MARAD-approved VSO training. Table 2 below summarizes the number of vessels affected per class of vessels, the number of VSOs affected per class of vessel, and the number of VSOs that would need the required training. TABLE 2.—VSOS AFFECTED BY MARITIME SECURITY TRAINING REQUIREMENT SERVING ON U.S.-FLAGGED SOLAS VESSELS U.S.-flagged SOLAS vessels Vessel service class Freight Ship .......................................................................... Offshore Supply Vessel ....................................................... Towing Vessel ...................................................................... Passenger (Inspected) ......................................................... Tank Ship ............................................................................. Other .................................................................................... 216 197 179 132 73 82 Total ....................................................................... VSOs Crews per vessel VSOs 518 197 179 53 117 98 130 197 179 211 29 66 1,974 879 Requiring refresher training 648 394 358 264 146 164 3 2 2 2 2 2 VSOs in compliance 1,162 812 Source: Based on MISLE and industry data. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES We assume that VSOs would incur different travel and lodging costs depending upon whether a VSO commuted daily to the training site, drove to the training site city and took lodging during the training period, or flew to the training site city and took lodging. We used a loaded hourly wage rate of $61 for all VSOs. A loaded labor rate is what a company pays per hour to employ the person, not what the person makes in hourly wages. The loaded labor rate includes the cost of benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). We also used this hourly wage when we estimated the opportunity cost of a VSO’s time when a VSO engages in duties or activities in order to comply with the requirements of this interim rule. Furthermore, the Coast Guard has found that VSOs perform maritime security training on their employer’s time. Therefore, we made the conservative assumption that VSOs’ compliance activities related to obtaining the required training would be performed on their employers’ time. As a result, we applied the $61 loaded hourly wage to these activities rather than the unloaded hourly wage rate of $44. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 Our estimation of costs that VSOs would incur as a result of this interim rule must take into account costs associated with travel to the training site and is dependent upon the distance VSOs live from available training sites. We estimated this distance using the regulatory analysis that supports the Coast Guard’s interim rule ‘‘Validation of Merchant Mariners’’ Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner’s Licenses and Certificates of Registry’’, published on January 13, 2006 (71 FR 2159). In that analysis, the portion of mariners that reside within 50 miles and 100 miles of their RECs was determined. Given the location of the training sites from the various RECs, and assuming that the distribution of VSOs from their RECs is directly proportional to the distribution of mariners from their RECs, we estimated the portion of VSOs who reside within 50 miles and 100 miles of the training sites. There are 17 RECs located throughout the country and 22 training sites or schools. There are only seven RECs that have training schools within their geographic vicinity. If we draw 50 and 100-mile radius circles around the 17 REC cities and the 22 training provider sites, we would find PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 that these circles do not neatly overlap one another. However, for the seven RECs that have a training site within their geographic area, some mariners who reside 100 miles from the REC reside within 50 miles of the training site. We based our calculations for all VSOs on these seven RECs in order to determine the share or percentage of VSOs that call a particular REC their REC and that would need to travel to an associated training facility for the required training. Schools are close enough in proximity to these seven RECs in order for us to estimate the share of VSOs that would need to commute, drive and lodge, or fly and lodge. Based on mariner address information from the Coast Guard’s National Maritime Center (NMC) and the regulatory analysis that supports the Coast Guard’s interim rule ‘‘Validation of Merchant Mariners’’ Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner’s Licenses and Certificates of Registry’’, published on January 13, 2006 (71 FR 2159), we used the percentages presented in the regulatory analysis for that rule as listed in Table 3 below. E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 20MYR1 29065 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 3.—VSO TRAVEL SHARE BASED ON 50 AND 100-MILE RADIUS CIRCLES AROUND RECS Travel mode Commute Share ............................................................................................................... In order for us to obtain the share or percentage of VSOs requiring training that would commute, drive/lodge, and fly/lodge around the country for training, we utilized the law of cosines to determine how much of an REC’s 50mile radius circle and 100-mile radius Drive/lodge Fly/lodge Total 60.0% 30.0% 10.0% 100.0% circle overlaps a school’s 50-mile radius circle or 100-mile radius circle. We performed this exercise and calculations for all of the seven RECs that have schools in their geographic vicinity. The relevant REC cities are Baltimore, MD; Miami, FL; New York, NY; Oakland, CA; Seattle, WA; New Orleans, LA; and Portland, OR. Based on our calculations, we arrived at the share or percentage of VSOs that would attend the required training schools by travel modes listed in Table 4 below. TABLE 4.—TOTAL NATIONAL SHARE OR PERCENTAGE OF VSOS THAT WILL COMMUTE, DRIVE/LODGE, AND FLY/LODGE Commute share (%) REC cities Drive/lodge share (%) Fly/lodge share (%)* Baltimore ................................................................................................................................ Miami ...................................................................................................................................... New York ................................................................................................................................ Oakland .................................................................................................................................. New Orleans .......................................................................................................................... Portland .................................................................................................................................. Seattle .................................................................................................................................... 4.9 7.7 4.4 1.0 2.5 2.3 3.7 1.95 2.9 1.8 2.0 5.0 1.2 1.8 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.1 2.7 0.4 0.6 Total ................................................................................................................................ 26.5 16.7 7.5 + 49.3 = 56.8 Note: The remaining 10 REC cities have no schools associated with them; therefore, we added together the share or percentage of VSOs that call those cities their respective REC for a total of 49.3 percent. VSOs that attend schools in these cities would fly and lodge; therefore, we added these percentages to the fly/lodge category. From our calculations of the seven REC cities, we found the percentage of VSOs that would fly/lodge to be about 7.5 percent. Therefore, the total share or percentage of VSOs that will fly/lodge is about 56.8 percent (0.493 + 0.075). Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. From Table 1, there are 1,974 VSOs that serve on U.S.-flag SOLAS vessels under STCW. To obtain the number of VSOs that will need refresher training, we must subtract from the total number of VSOs (1,974) those VSOs that have completed MARAD-approved training (1,162) to obtain 812 VSOs that will need refresher training (1,974 ¥ 1,162 = 812 VSOs). We also introduce an annual industry turnover rate of 0.12 or 12 percent. This turnover rate measures the annual flow of personnel leaving and entering the water transportation industry, rather than the flow of personnel leaving or entering the average firm in this industry. We assume that existing VSOs also leave at this rate and that all persons replacing these VSOs would be required to enroll in the full course training. We now multiply the number of VSOs requiring refresher course training from Table 1 (812) by 0.88 (the complement of the turnover rate, which is the retention rate) to obtain 716 or the number of VSOs that would need refresher course training. Cost for a refresher course is an initial-year cost only. To obtain the number of VSOs that would need to enroll in a full course, we multiplied the total number of VSOs (1,974) by the turnover rate (0.12) to obtain about 237 VSOs who would need to enroll in a full course annually. Full course training is an annual recurring cost. To obtain the number of VSOs by mode of travel, we simply multiplied the final percentages in Table 4 by the number of VSOs that require refresher course and full course training, respectively. For example, we calculated the total percentage of VSOs that would commute to be about 0.265 or 26.5 percent. The number of VSOs that would need full course training is about 237, so we multiplied 0.265 by 237 to obtain 63. Restated, the number of VSOs that will need full course training and will commute to the training school is about 63. See Table 5 below for the remaining population figures. TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF VSOS BY TRAVEL MODE AND BY TRAINING TYPE VSOs by travel mode Training type Commuting jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES Full Course Training ........................................................................................ Refresher Training ........................................................................................... Drive/lodge 63 190 39 120 Fly/lodge 135 407 Total 237 716 Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Readers should refer to the regulatory analysis in the docket for a summary of VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 all of the individual VSO costs associated with the full training course. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Next, we multiplied the total costs per VSO by the population figures for full E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 20MYR1 29066 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations course training in Table 5 to obtain a total initial and annual cost (nondiscounted) for VSOs who take the full training course of $934,476. We performed the same analysis for the refresher course and obtained a total initial-year cost (non-discounted) of about $2,008,822 for VSOs that need refresher course training. Again, readers should refer to the regulatory analysis in the docket for all of the individual VSO costs associated with the refresher course. We estimate the total present discounted value or cost for the training requirements of the interim rule to be between $8.4 and $9.9 million at both seven and three percent discount rates, respectively. The training requirement is the most costly element of the interim rule. The third cost element of this interim rule is the cost that a VSO will incur to obtain an endorsement on their Merchant Mariner Credential from an REC. A merchant mariner document expires every five years, so we assume that one-fifth (0.20 or 20 percent) of the VSOs every year would currently be required to make a trip to the REC to renew this document. Of the 1,974 VSOs in our population, 80 percent (1.00–0.20) of these VSOs in the initial year would be required to make an additional trip to an REC to get an endorsement, or about 1,579. During the initial year and annually, only VSOs that take the full course will be affected by this element of the interim rule. We estimate about 190 VSOs will be required to make an additional trip to an REC (237 × 0.80) each year to get an endorsement. Some VSOs would have to travel to an REC anyway once every five years to renew their merchant mariner document. We estimate that 395 VSOs out of the total number of VSOs would have had to travel to an REC anyway without the rule in place (1,974 × 0.20). From the number of VSOs that need to take the full course, we estimate that about 47 also would have had to travel to an REC anyway without the rule in place (237 × 0.20) in order to renew their merchant mariner document. Table 6 summarizes these figures below. TABLE 6.—DISTRIBUTION OF VSO TRAVEL TO AN REC FOR ENDORSEMENT Required to make an additional trip to an REC Time Not required to make an additional trip to an REC 1,579 190 395 47 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES Initial Year .................................................................................................................................... Initial and Annual Year ................................................................................................................ Individual VSOs that need to obtain an endorsement from an REC would also incur travel costs similar to those presented for the training requirements (readers should refer to the regulatory analysis in the docket for all of the individual VSO costs associated with the endorsement requirement). We estimate VSOs would incur an initialyear cost of about $1.2 million (nondiscounted) and an annual cost of about $0.13 million (non-discounted). We estimate the total presented discounted value or cost to be about $2.0 million at both seven and three percent discount rates over the period of analysis. Lastly, the final cost element associated with this interim rule is the cost that training providers will incur for security training course evaluation and oversight. Since the Coast Guard does not approve VSO training courses, the onus is on the training provider to pay a Coast Guard-approved Quality Standards System (QSS) organization to evaluate its VSO course for approval. Approval from a QSS organization would constitute Coast Guard acceptance of the course. Currently, MARAD pays one of the Coast Guardapproved organizations to approve courses on behalf of MARAD and the Coast Guard. Under this interim rule, the cost burden for course approval and oversight shifts to the training provider. There are 22 training providers throughout the U.S. The cost per course evaluation is about $7,500 and is valid VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 for five years. We estimate the total present discounted value or cost of the interim rule to training providers to be about $0.30 million at both discount rates over the period of analysis. Readers should refer to the regulatory analysis in the docket for a detailed analysis of the costs associated with this interim rule. The interim rule has several qualitative benefits associated with it. The current training regime requires the designation of a VSO, but it does not require formal training, instead it allows owners/operators to self-certify their VSOs as having the security training. Under this regime, the expertise and knowledge varies from person to person and from vessel to vessel. This regime has proven to be less effective since there in no consistency in the attainment of the knowledge throughout the industry. Development of mandatory training requirements is necessary to ensure consistency of training in support of the domestic and international security regime. Seafarers constantly transfer from vessel to vessel; therefore, mandatory training would ensure consistency no matter where they serve. A course approval process in support of the mandatory requirements would lead to a higher quality of security training. The STCW requires that the Coast Guard issue a certificate of proficiency to the mariner. An endorsement to the STCW certificate would serve as proof PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Total 1,974 237 that a VSO has met the certificate of proficiency requirement and would eliminate the issuance of a separate Coast Guard-issued document. Issuance of endorsements is also beneficial for U.S. vessels trading worldwide, since they would not be subject to detentions for noncompliance with the STCW. These new requirements would provide a systematic and verifiable program of certification and oversight, providing effectiveness, sufficient rigor, and consistency to maritime security education and training. The absence of a systematic and verifiable program of external certification and oversight, insufficient rigor, and a lack of consistency may render maritime security education and training less effective than it should be. B. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This interim rule does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 20MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this interim rule is exempt, we have reviewed it for potential economic impact on small entities. From the Coast Guard’s MISLE database, there are 879 vessels, owned by 157 entities, impacted by the interim rule. For the purpose of this initial analysis, we estimate average impacts per owner. Discussions with industry revealed that there are approximately 245 VSOs leaving the industry each year, requiring the average vessel owner to hire (245 VSOs/879 vessels) 0.3 new VSOs per vessel each year. In addition, an average of about one (716 VSOs/879 vessels) partially trained VSO per vessel would be required to take a refresher course. Using data from the two business databases, we researched all 157 companies and found annual sales and employment information for 56 of them. We identified 43 of these 56 entities as small businesses (about 77 percent) using the SBA’s criteria and assumed the 101 companies with no revenue data were also small for a total of 144 of 157 of the entities (92 percent). 29067 To estimate the impact on small entities, we multiplied the cost for full and refresher VSO courses by the average number of VSOs per vessel attending training each year. Vessel owners would incur a first-year cost for the refresher course and an annually recurring cost for the full course. We estimate the full course cost per vessel to be about $1,331 ($4,435 × 0.3 VSOs per vessel) and the refresher course cost per vessel to be about $3,326 ($3,326 × 1.0 VSOs per vessel). Table 7 summarizes the costs for a full VSO course and the shorter refresher course. TABLE 7.—PER VESSEL COST FOR VSO TRAINING (NON-DISCOUNTED) Total course cost *** Course VSO Full Course * ........................................................................................................................ VSO Refresher ** ......................................................................................................................... VSOs per vessel $4,435 3,326 Total 0.3 1.0 $1,331 3,326 * The full course cost is an annually recurring cost based on the industry VSO turnover rate. ** The VSO refresher cost is a first-year cost for partially-trained VSOs. *** To be conservative, we used the higher cost estimates for mariners that fly in order to reflect the maximum potential economic impact on a given small business. The cost includes tuition, opportunity costs, transportation costs, etc. We estimate the revenue impact as the total cost per vessel multiplied by the number of vessels each affected entity owns. In the first year, vessel owners would incur the cost for the refresher course and the full course. Using publicly available and proprietary data on owner revenue, we estimate the impact to small entities as a percentage of revenue. The first year cost of the interim rule would have less than a 3 percent impact on 72 percent of the small entities. Table 8 presents the number of small entities in the sample and the estimated range of the initial year impact on revenue as a result of the interim rule requirements. The percentage of small entities in each impact range in the sample is then projected to the total estimate of small entities. TABLE 8.—INITIAL YEAR IMPACT TO SMALL ENTITIES (NON-DISCOUNTED) Number of small entities with known revenue data Percent impact on annual revenue Percent of small entities with known revenue data (percent) Total small entities 0% to 1% ..................................................................................................................................... >1% to 3% ................................................................................................................................... >3% to 5% ................................................................................................................................... >5% to 10% ................................................................................................................................. Above 10% .................................................................................................................................. 31 0 5 5 2 72 0 12 12 5 104 0 17 17 7 Total ...................................................................................................................................... 43 100 144 Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. After the initial year of the rulemaking, the annual impact on small businesses is lower because vessel owner and operators would no longer incur the cost of the refresher course for VSOs. We found that annual costs would have less than a 3 percent impact on 79 percent of small entities. Table 9 below presents the estimated annual impact on small entities. TABLE 9.—ANNUAL IMPACT TO SMALL ENTITIES (NON-DISCOUNTED) Number of small entities with known revenue data jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES Percent impact on annual revenue 0% to 1% ..................................................................................................................................... >1% to 3% ................................................................................................................................... >3% to 5% ................................................................................................................................... >5% to 10% ................................................................................................................................. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 31 3 3 5 20MYR1 Percent of small entities with known revenue data (percent) 72 7 7 12 Total small entities 104 10 10 17 29068 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 9.—ANNUAL IMPACT TO SMALL ENTITIES (NON-DISCOUNTED)—Continued Number of small entities with known revenue data Percent impact on annual revenue Percent of small entities with known revenue data (percent) Total small entities Above 10% .................................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 Total ...................................................................................................................................... 43 100 144 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. To the extent that new courses open after publication of the interim rule, there would be a reduction in the travel costs associated with the preliminary cost estimates in the RA. However, the revenue impacts provide a conservative estimate of the impact to small entities. Training providers would incur a cost for security training course evaluation and oversight. The NAICS codes for training providers were varied with 541618—Other Management Consulting Services—being the only code to appear more than once. The SBA annual revenue threshold for this NAICS code is $6,500,000. Most training providers do not offer all types or progressions of training discussed in this interim rule. Based on Coast Guard data, we identified 22 maritime training providers that offer some type of Coast Guard-approved training and could be affected by this rulemaking. Of the 22 training providers that offer training impacted by the interim rule, we were able to collect revenue data for 12. Of the 12 with revenue data, 10 are small entities as defined by the SBA and we assume the remaining 10 to be small, for a total of 20 of the 22 entities being classified as small. Of the small entities with revenue data, we found five (50 percent) would incur an impact of less than 1 percent of annual revenues in the year a course was registered and the remaining five (50 percent) would incur a cost of less than 3 percent of annual revenues. We anticipate that new or existing training providers that do not currently offer the training described in this rulemaking would only begin to offer the training described if they expect it to be net-beneficial. To the extent that training providers are able to pass the cost to mariners, the impact would be less than estimated above. Lastly, the onus of obtaining an endorsement from an REC is on an individual VSO. The interim rule does not require a VSO’s employer to pay for this endorsement. We note that for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act an individual is not considered to be a small entity. However, previously in this small entity impact analysis, we VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 have shown the cost to the employer if the employer voluntarily chooses to incur or reimburse the employee for costs related to receiving the VSO endorsement. We are interested in the potential direct impacts of this interim rule on small businesses and we request public comment on these potential direct impacts. If you think that this interim rule would have a significant economic impact on you, your business, or your organization, please submit a comment to the Docket [USCG–2008– 0028]. In your comment, explain why, how, and to what degree you think this rule would have an economic impact on you. C. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this interim rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the interim rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call the contact provided in For Further Information Contact above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this interim rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency’s responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). D. Collection of Information This interim rule calls for a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of information’’ comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar actions. The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection. Vessel Security Officers must meet minimum training requirements and receive an endorsement from a regional examination center (REC). Vessel Security Officers would be required to complete form CG–719B and deliver the form to an REC for endorsement. This collection is in addition to the current collection of information estimate for VRPs and FRPs [Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 1625–0040]. Title: Continuous Discharge Book, Application, Physical Exam Report, Sea Service Report, Chemical Testing, Entry Level Physical. OMB Control Number: 1625–0040. Summary of the Collection of Information: Vessel Security Officers would be required to obtain an endorsement on their merchant mariner document from an REC to prove a minimum level of training has been completed. Mariners currently complete form CG–719B every 5 years, but the interim rule would require many VSOs to obtain an endorsement prior to the expiration of their existing document. Need for Information: The information is necessary to show evidence that VSOs have completed the necessary training requirements to assess risk, threats, and vulnerabilities of a vessel. Use of Information: The Coast Guard would use this information to document that the VSO training level meets international requirements. Description of the Respondents: The respondents are the VSOs that would be required to complete form CG–719B. Number of Respondents: From Table 11, the number of respondents is 1,579 E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 20MYR1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations in the first year plus an additional 190 recurring annually, including the first year for a 3-year total of 2,149 [1,579 + (3 × 190)]. Frequency of Response: Respondents are required to complete form CG–719B every 5 years. The interim rule would require 1,579 new applications in the first year and an additional 190 new applications recurring annually. Burden of Response: Completing the information on CG–719B would take a VSO approximately 10 minutes. In the first year, 20 percent of VSOs are assumed to be completing the form due to the expiration of their merchant mariner document, but the remaining 80 percent detailed in the Number of Respondents section would incur the 10-minute burden. Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The existing OMB-approved total annual burden, as adjusted in July 2006, is 329,356 hours. This interim rule would increase the burden for 2,149 VSOs over a 3-year approval period by approximately 10 minutes. The total additional hours requested for this rulemaking is 358 [2,149 × (10 minutes/ 60 minutes)] and the average annual increase over the 3-year period is about 119 (358/3). The new annual burden as a result of this rulemaking is 329,475 hours. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this interim rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information. We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can minimize the burden of collection. If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit them both to OMB and to the Docket where indicated under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES in the interim rule. You need not respond to a collection of information unless we have published a currently valid control number from OMB for that collection in the Federal Register. Before the requirements for this collection of information become effective, we will publish notice in the Federal Register of OMB’s decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the collection. If OMB approves the collection, our publication of that control number in the Federal Register or the CFR will constitute VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 display of that number; see 5 CFR 1320.3(f)(3), as required under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(B). E. Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled, now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) Because the States may not regulate within this category, preemption under Executive Order 13132 is not an issue. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. G. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. H. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. I. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 29069 Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. J. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. K. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. L. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. M. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 20MYR1 29070 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 104 Maritime security, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Vessels. 46 CFR Part 10 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen. 46 CFR Part 15 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Vessels. I For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 104, and 46 CFR parts 10 and 15 as follows: TITLE 33 CFR—NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS PART 104—MARITIME SECURITY: VESSELS 1. The authority citation for part 104 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 104.215 by re-designating paragraph (c) as paragraph (e) and adding new paragraphs (c) and (d). I § 104.215 Vessel Security Officer (VSO). jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES * * * * * (c) Certification required. After July 1, 2009, persons performing duties as VSO on-board a seagoing vessel subject to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, must hold a valid Coast Guard-issued credential with a Vessel Security Officer endorsement. The Coast Guard will issue this endorsement only if the person meets the requirements in paragraph (d) of this section. This endorsement serves as proof that the person meets the ship security officer requirements of Regulation VI/5 of the STCW. (d) Requirements for Coast Guard Endorsement: (1) To qualify for a VSO endorsement, a person must: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 (i) Be at least 18 years of age; (ii) Be able to speak and understand the English language as would be relevant to the duties of a VSO; (iii) Hold any valid Coast Guardissued credential under the regulations specified in 46 CFR Subchapter B; (iv) Successfully complete a Coast Guard-accepted VSO course; (v) Sea Service. Fulfill one of the following: (A) Have approved sea service of not less than 12 months on any vessel subject to § 104.105 of this part, credited in accordance with 46 CFR 10.205(e), 10.211, and/or 10.213; or (B) Have approved sea service of not less than 90 days on any vessel subject to § 104.105 of this part, credited in accordance with 46 CFR 10.205(b), 10.211, and/or 10.213, and have knowledge of vessel operations. (2) To qualify as a Coast Guardaccepted course a VSO course under paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section must require candidates to demonstrate knowledge, understanding, and proficiency in the following competencies: (i) Maintaining and supervising the implementation of a vessel security plan; (ii) Assessing security risk, threat and vulnerability; (iii) Undertaking regular inspections of the vessel to ensure that appropriate security measures are implemented and maintained; (iv) Ensuring that security equipment and systems, if any, are properly operated, tested and calibrated; (v) Encouraging security awareness and vigilance; and (vi) Ensuring compliance with the TWIC program requirements. (3) Candidates meeting the knowledge of vessel operations requirement under paragraph (d)(1)(v)(B) of this section must provide evidence through training or equivalent job experience, in the following areas: (i) Basic vessel layout and construction: (A) Understanding layout, including decks, rooms and space numbering; and (B) Understanding of various vessel types; and working knowledge of nautical terms and definitions, especially those used to describe areas and parts of a vessel. (ii) Shipboard organization: familiarity with the various departments and related functions, the titles used for personnel, the roles and responsibilities of these persons, and the chain of command. (iii) Shipboard safety: (A) Understanding of the importance of creating and maintaining safe PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 working and living conditions for passengers and crew alike; (B) General shipboard safety rules, emergency alarms and signals, and responses to and reporting of accidents; (C) Proper usage of protective equipment and general knowledge of procedures for entering enclosed spaces; (D) Proper usage of lifesaving equipment and where such equipment is normally stowed aboard various vessel types; (E) Understanding of the operating principles of and proper use of watertight and fire screen doors; and (F) Understanding where it is safe to smoke and not safe to smoke on board and in port. (iv) Protection of the marine environment: (A) Understanding of vessel personnel’s responsibility to preserve the marine environment; and (B) Basic working knowledge of pollution prevention regulations and techniques. (v) Familiarity with key definitions, terminology, and operational practices employed in the maritime industry. (4)(i) Persons meeting the criteria in paragraphs (d)(4)(i)(A) and (B) of this section prior to the effective date of this regulation may successfully complete a refresher Coast Guard-accepted VSO course no later than July 1, 2009, to fulfill (d)(1)(iv) of this section. Persons must have: (A) At least six months of VSO experience during the preceding three years; or (B) Successfully completed a VSO course that was not approved by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) on behalf of the Coast Guard. Maritime Administration approves VSO courses under section 109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107–295. (ii) To be eligible to take a refresher Coast Guard-accepted VSO course, a person must present to the course provider documentary evidence that he or she meets the criteria in (d)(4)(i) of this section. (5) Vessel Security Officer courses meeting the training requirements in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(4) of this section are subject to Coast Guard acceptance under 46 CFR 10.309(a)(10)(ii). (6) Vessel Security Officer courses approved by MARAD on behalf of the Coast Guard under section 109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107–295 will be accepted by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR 10.309 as meeting the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) and (d)(2) of this section. E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 20MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations (7) Persons who hold a valid ‘‘Vessel Security Officer’’ endorsement may serve as vessel or company personnel with security duties (33 CFR 104.220), and as all other vessel personnel (33 CFR 104.225), without meeting any additional requirements. TITLE 46 CFR—SHIPPING PART 10—LICENSING OF MARITIME PERSONNEL 3. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows: Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, and 8906; Executive Order 10173; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 10.107 is also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507. 4. In § 10.104, add the definition of Vessel Security Officer in alphabetical order to read as follows: I * * * * * Vessel Security Officer (VSO) means a person onboard the vessel accountable to the Master, designated by the Company as responsible for security of the vessel, including implementation and maintenance of the Vessel Security Plan, and for liaison with the Facility Security Officer and vessel’s Company Security Officer. * * * * * I * * * * (b) * * * (10) GMDSS radio operator; and (11) Vessel Security Officer. * * * * * I 8. In § 15.1101, add paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows: General. (a) * * * (6) Vessel Security Officer (VSO) means a person onboard the vessel accountable to the Master, designated by the Company as responsible for security of the vessel, including implementation and maintenance of the Vessel Security Plan, and for liaison with the Facility Security Officer and vessel’s Company Security Officer. * * * * * I 9. Add § 15.1113 to read as follows: § 15.1113 Definitions of terms used in this Definitions of terms used in this * § 15.1101 I § 10.104 part. § 15.301 part. Vessel Security Officer (VSO). After July 1, 2009, on board seagoing vessel, all persons performing duties as VSO must hold a valid endorsement as Vessel Security Officer. Dated: May 6, 2008. Brian M. Salerno, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship. [FR Doc. E8–11225 Filed 5–19–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 5. Add § 10.811 to read as follows: § 10.811 Requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as vessel security officer. Copyright Office (a) The applicant for an endorsement as vessel security officer must present satisfactory documentary evidence in accordance with the requirements in 33 CFR 104.215. (b) All applicants for an endorsement must meet the physical examination requirements in § 10.205(d)(1)–(2) of this chapter. [Docket No. RM 2008–5] 37 CFR Parts 201 PART 15—MANNING REQUIREMENTS 6. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows: jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES I Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 3306, 3703, 8101, 8102, 8104, 8105, 8301, 8304, 8502, 8503, 8701, 8702, 8901, 8902, 8903, 8904, 8905(b), 8906, 9102, and 8103; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 7. Amend § 15.301 by adding paragraph (b)(10) and revising paragraph (b)(11) to read as follows: I VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 May 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 Late–Filed and Underpaid Royalties Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is amending its rules governing the payment of interest on late or underpaid royalty fees under the Copyright Act to clarify when interest for late and underpayments is due in light of the Copyright Office’s electronic funds transfer requirement. In addition, the Copyright Office amends the rules to add text that was inadvertently deleted by a previous rulemaking action. The Copyright Office also makes a technical correction to its satellite carrier requirements to recognize changes made to Section 119 in 2004. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2008. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 29071 Ben Golant, Assistant General Counsel, and Tanya M. Sandros, General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 707– 8366. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On August 10, 2006, the Copyright Office published a final rule requiring the submission of royalty fees to be made by electronic funds transfer (‘‘EFT’’). 71 FR 45739 (August 10, 2006). The purpose of this notice is to make technical amendments to Section 201.17(i) and other similar rules for satellite carriers and digital audio recording technologies to clarify when interest accrues for late and underpayments in light of the recent EFT requirement. In addition, we intend to re–insert regulatory text, originally contained in Section 201.17(i)(2), that was incorrectly deleted from Title 37 CFR when the EFT requirements were adopted. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Electronic Funds Transfer Requirement Under the new EFT regulations, 37 CFR 201.17(i), a number of changes were made regarding the payment of copyright royalties. The most important change was that payment could only be made through an electronic funds transfer. This change eliminates the options of payment by certified or cashier’s check, or money order. Most payors already use EFTs, and requiring the use of EFTs substantially enhances the efficiency of the collection process. The regulations also require that the parties submit specific identifying and linking information as part of the EFT, and/or as part of a ‘‘remittance advice’’ which accompanies Statement(s) of Account, and that the ‘‘remittance advice’’ be faxed or emailed to the Licensing Division. Failure to submit the EFT in accordance with the rules may require the remitter to resubmit the EFT correctly. Should this occur, the remitter will be responsible for any assessed interest charge that accrues as a result of a late payment or an underpayment. The rules now include a waiver provision for those situations where there may be circumstances which make it virtually impossible for a remitter to use the electronic payment option or imposes a financial or other hardship. Requests for a waiver must include a statement setting forth the reasons why the waiver should be granted and the statement must be signed by a duly authorized representative of the entity making the payment, certifying that the E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM 20MYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 20, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29060-29071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11225]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 104

46 CFR Parts 10 and 15

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0028]
RIN 1625-AB26


Implementation of Vessel Security Officer Training and 
Certification Requirements--International Convention on Standards of 
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as 
Amended

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its regulations to implement the 
vessel security officer training and certification amendments to the 
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and 
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, and the Seafarers' 
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code. These amendments 
incorporate the training and qualification requirements for vessel 
security officers into the requirements for the credentialing of United 
States merchant mariners. The vessel security officer requirements 
would apply to all vessels subject to the International Convention on 
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 
1978, as amended, under current regulations. This includes all seagoing 
vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 15.1101, to mean self-propelled vessels 
engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the Boundary Line 
established by 46 CFR Part 7, except those vessels which have been 
determined to be otherwise exempt from STCW as per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and 
(f).

DATES: This interim rule is effective June 19, 2008. Comments and 
related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before 
July 21, 2008. Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB on or before July 21, 
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket 
number USCG-2008-0028 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one 
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West 
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    For public submission of comments on collection of information, the 
subject line should reference the docket number and say Attention: Desk 
Officer for U.S. Coast Guard, DHS. You must also send comments on 
collection of information to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure that the comments 
are received on time, the preferred method is by e-mail at oira_
submission@omb.eop.gov or fax at 202-395-6566. An alternate, though 
slower, method is by U.S. mail to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim 
rule, contact Ms. Mayte Medina, Maritime Personnel Qualifications 
Division, Coast Guard, by telephone 202-372-1406 or by e-mail at 
Mayte.Medina2@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting 
material to the docket, contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 
Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, 
without change, to the docket located at http://www.regulations.gov and 
will include any personal information you have provided. We have an 
agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket 
Management Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0028), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each 
comment. We recommend that you

[[Page 29061]]

include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone 
number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we 
have questions regarding your submission. For example, we may ask you 
to resubmit your comment if we are not be able to read your original 
submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic 
means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the 
address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material 
by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them 
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, 
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and 
material received during the comment period. We may change this rule in 
view of them.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at 
any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number 
for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0028) in the Docket ID box, and click 
enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into 
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment 
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of 
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under 
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that 
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place 
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

II. Acronyms

DOT Department of Transportation
GRT Gross Registered Tons
GT Gross Tons
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Security Code
MARAD Maritime Administration
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
QSS Quality Standards System
REC Regional Examination Center
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
STCW International Convention on Standards of Training, 
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978
STCW Code Seafarer's Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code
VSO Vessel Security Officer

III. Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this interim final rule without prior 
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and 
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those 
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public 
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good 
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
with respect to these amendments because providing opportunity for 
public comment is unnecessary and would be contrary to the public 
interest.
    The Coast Guard is implementing VSO training and certification 
requirements that the U.S. has agreed to as a party to the STCW. This 
will ensure consistency and harmonize U.S. and international standards 
for VSO training and certification while at the same time ensuring that 
the U.S. observes its international obligations. Because the STCW VSO 
training and certification standards are exhaustive and well-
established, pre-publication notice and comment procedures are not 
necessary to further inform the rulemaking, which follows those 
requirements.
    This interim rule also enhances national maritime safety and 
security by ensuring careful vetting by the Coast Guard of the 
qualifications of individuals wishing to serve as VSOs. A delay in 
implementing this rule would be contrary to the public interest in 
national maritime safety and security.
    This interim rule will also permit mariners to continue working in 
the industry on U.S. seagoing vessels outside of U.S. territorial 
waters by bringing their training and certification into compliance 
with STCW requirements. This permits U.S. seagoing vessels to continue 
to travel to and operate in foreign waters and ports without being 
subject to possible detention for noncompliance with STCW requirements. 
The Coast Guard believes that permitting U.S. seagoing vessels to 
continue to operate internationally consistent with STCW VSO training 
and certification requirements, and without delay, is clearly within 
the public interest. For these reasons, it is unnecessary and would be 
contrary to the public interest to further delay implementation of 
these requirements.
    This interim rule will have a 60-day comment period and the rule 
will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. 
Coast Guard will address comments received on this interim rule before 
and after the effective date as part of the final rule process. You may 
submit a request for a public meeting if you believe one would be 
beneficial. If you would like to request a public meeting, submit your 
request as described above in PUBLIC MEETING explaining why one would 
be beneficial. If we determine a public meeting is necessary, the time 
and place of the public meeting will be announced by a notice in the 
Federal Register.

IV. Background and Purpose

    On July 1, 2007, the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 
Maritime Safety Committee adopted the 2006 amendments to the 
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and 
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW) and the Seafarer's 
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code) related to 
training and certification requirements for a vessel security officer 
(VSO). These amendments support the security requirements in the 
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) and 
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, 
Amendments, adopted December 2002.
    The amendments to the STCW and STCW Code set certification and 
qualification requirements for VSOs. The STCW set forth qualification 
standards for Masters, officers and watch personnel on seagoing 
merchant ships. STCW entered into force in 1984 and the U.S. became a 
party to the Convention in 1991. As a party to the STCW, the U.S. is 
committed to implementing the adopted amendments.

[[Page 29062]]

    The STCW amendments became effective January 1, 2008. Under the 
STCW amendments, those persons who became vessel security officers 
(VSOs) on or after January 1, 2008, needed to comply with the new 
requirements as of January 1, 2008. Those persons who already worked as 
VSOs prior to January 1, 2008, need to comply with those new 
requirements by July 1, 2009. This rulemaking is being carried out as 
expeditiously as possible to ensure that mariners are issued the 
appropriate international certificates, therefore avoiding vessel 
detentions for non-compliance with the STCW requirements at foreign 
ports. Furthermore, the implementation of the rule at this time is 
meant to ensure there is time for training courses to be developed that 
comply with the proposed interim regulation and provide all new and 
existing VSOs with the opportunity to take the course and apply for a 
VSO endorsement prior to July 1, 2009.
    The STCW and STCW Code amendments include: 1. Certification by the 
Coast Guard of VSOs; 2. completion of sea service requirements; 3. VSO 
training in accordance with the STCW Code's standard of competence; 4. 
approval of training courses by the Coast Guard; and 5. continuous 
monitoring by the Coast Guard through a quality standards system (QSS) 
of the training courses it accepts. The amendments also contain 
transitional provisions for persons already serving as VSOs that will 
expire on July 1, 2009. The STCW and STCW Code amendments were based on 
the IMO model course for Ship Security Officer.
    Currently, 33 CFR 104.215 requires VSOs to have maritime security 
knowledge which can be obtained through training or equivalent job 
experience, as self-certified by the owner/operator of the vessel 
employing the individual. The existing regulations do not require 
certification by the Coast Guard.
    This interim rule amends the current regulations to adopt the STCW 
and STCW Code amendments related to VSO training and qualifications. To 
address the primary STCW and STCW Code amendments, the Coast Guard is 
amending 46 CFR Part 10 to require owner/operators to employ a 
certified VSO on board each vessel subject to the STCW under current 
regulations. This includes all seagoing vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 
15.1101, to mean self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service 
that operate beyond the Boundary Line established by 46 CFR Part 7, 
except those vessels which have been determined to be otherwise exempt 
from STCW as per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and (f).
    The Coast Guard will also add VSO training requirements in 33 CFR 
104.215 to align the regulations with competence-based training 
requirements in STCW. The regulations currently require VSOs to have 
maritime security knowledge in a number of areas contained in 33 CFR 
104.210 and in 33 CFR 104.215. The Coast Guard has determined that the 
VSO training requirements should be contained in one place and that the 
training requirements should be fully aligned with STCW.
    The Coast Guard will also add VSO sea service requirements in 33 
CFR 104.215 to align the regulations with the STCW requirements. The 
existing regulations do not include sea service requirements. The Coast 
Guard will now require sea service of 12 months or, with knowledge of 
vessel operations, six months. The Coast Guard determined that these 
two options were necessary to account for traditional mariners and for 
other personnel, such as security experts, who already possess 
knowledge and experience of vessel operations.

V. Discussion of the Interim Rule

    Section 104.215 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
currently requires VSOs to have maritime security knowledge. This 
knowledge can be obtained through training or equivalent job 
experience, as self-certified by the owner/operator of the vessel 
employing the individual. The existing regulations do not require 
certification.

33 CFR 104.215

    In 33 CFR 104.215, the regulation will require Coast Guard 
certification in the form of a VSO endorsement for persons performing 
duties as VSOs on board vessels subject to the STCW under current 
regulations. This includes all seagoing vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 
15.1101, to mean self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service 
that operate beyond the Boundary Line established by 46 CFR part 7, 
except those vessels which have been determined to be otherwise exempt 
from STCW as per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and (f).
    Section 104.215 will also require that VSOs meet entry requirements 
such as: 1. Be at least 18 years old; 2. be able to speak and 
understand the English language sufficiently as related to VSO duties; 
3. hold valid credentials; 4. complete VSO training; and 5. have 
approved sea service. The training requirements will include 
competence-based mandatory training in order to qualify for a VSO 
endorsement. VSOs will be required to be trained to meet six 
competencies that fully align with the STCW Code, Table A-VI/5, 
Specifications of minimum standards of proficiency for ship security 
officers, which may be found in the docket [USCG-2008-0028].
    The sea service requirements in Sec.  104.215 will provide two 
options: 1. 12 months; or 2. 6 months with knowledge of ship 
operations. In addition to providing evidence of sea service, mariners 
seeking to qualify for an endorsement using the six-month option will 
also be required to furnish evidence of knowledge of basic ship 
operations. A list of ship operations areas is included in this 
rulemaking at 33 CFR 104.215(d)(3). The list was derived using input 
from merchant mariners and from maritime instructors.
    The STCW requires that all training be approved by the Coast Guard 
and that the training be continuously monitored through a quality-
standard system to ensure achievement of defined objectives. To fulfill 
this requirement, VSO training courses will be approved and monitored 
by a Coast Guard-accepted Quality Standards System (QSS) organization 
acting on behalf of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard will not directly 
approve any VSO courses. Any fees charged by the Coast Guard-accepted 
QSS organizations will be the responsibility of the VSO course 
provider. As of the publication date of this interim rule, there are 
three Coast-Guard accepted QSS organizations that may approve and 
monitor training on behalf of the Coast Guard. The list of these 
organizations can be found on the following Internet Web site: http://
www.uscg.mil/STCW/mmic-appcourses.htm.
    It is expected that courses accepted for VSO endorsement by the 
Coast Guard will be based on the IMO model course for ship security 
officer, or the MARAD VSO model course. Vessel Security Officer courses 
must also ensure that persons completing the course can successfully 
demonstrate proficiency in the basic competencies in 33 CFR 
104.215(d)(2). Information on MARAD VSO full and refresher courses can 
be found on the following Internet Web site: http://www.marad.dot.gov/
MTSA/MARAD%20Web%20Site%20for%20MTSA%20Course.html. The Coast Guard 
will also accept courses approved by MARAD on behalf of the Coast Guard 
under section 109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-295 as meeting the requirements of STCW for purposes of 
fulfilling the regulatory requirements in 33 CFR 104.215(d)(1)(iv) and 
(d)(2), as

[[Page 29063]]

referenced in 33 CFR 104.215(d)(6). Information on these approved 
courses can be found on the following Internet Web site: http://
www.marad.dot.gov/MTSA/MARAD%20Web%20Site%20for%20MTSA%20Course.html.
    The Coast Guard will also accept a QSS-approved refresher course 
for persons who can document six months of experience as a VSO, or have 
successfully completed a course on vessel security that was not 
approved by MARAD prior to the effective date of this interim rule.

46 CFR 10.811

    Section 10.811 will require proof of compliance with the entry 
requirements in 33 CFR 104.215 for mariners seeking a VSO endorsement. 
It will also require the individual to meet the physical examination 
requirements in 46 CFR 10.205(d)(1)-(2).

46 CFR 15.1113

    We are adding 46 CFR 15.1113 which will require that VSOs serving 
on board vessels subject to the STCW hold an endorsement as VSO. This 
includes all seagoing vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 15.1101 to mean 
self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service that operate 
beyond the Boundary Line established by 46 CFR Part 7, except those 
vessels which have been determined to be otherwise exempt from STCW as 
per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and (f).

VI. Regulatory Evaluation

    We developed this interim rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our 
analysis based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Analysis

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does 
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 
6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under that Order.
    A combined Regulatory Analysis and an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is available in the docket where indicated under 
the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this 
preamble. A summary of the analysis follows:
    The interim rule would require vessel security officers (VSOs) 
serving on U.S.-flag vessels subject to the International Convention on 
Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 
1978 as amended (STCW) to complete training requirements consistent 
with STCW amendments on VSO training and qualifications. This would 
require existing VSOs and persons that intend to serve as VSOs to hold 
a Coast Guard-issued credential with a VSO endorsement. The affected 
vessels would be U.S.-flag self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial 
service that operate beyond the boundary line as specified in 46 CFR 
part 15.1101.
    The Coast Guard does not plan to directly approve any VSO courses. 
Instead, VSO training must be Coast Guard-accepted. This means that the 
courses must be approved and monitored by a Coast Guard-accepted 
Quality Standards System (QSS) organization acting on behalf of the 
Coast Guard. Any fees charged by the Coast Guard-accepted QSS 
organizations will be the responsibility of the course provider.
    In addition, persons that have already completed a Maritime 
Administration (MARAD)-approved VSO course before the effective date of 
this rule would be considered in compliance with the training 
requirement and would only need to successfully meet the qualification 
requirements. Persons that have completed a non-MARAD training course 
before the effective date of this rule can meet the training 
requirement by completing a Coast-Guard accepted VSO refresher course. 
They would be able to serve as a VSO upon completion of the training 
and they would have until July 1, 2009, to complete the refresher 
course. After that time, they will be required to take a full VSO 
training course.
    There are four cost elements associated with this interim rule (1) 
A VSO refresher course cost, (2) a full VSO course cost, (3) a training 
provider cost from a Coast Guard-approved QSS, and (4) a VSO 
endorsement and travel cost to a regional examination center (REC). We 
estimate that approximately 716 VSOs would need refresher course 
training and approximately 237 would need to enroll in a full training 
course. During the first full year the rule is in effect, or 2009, 
about 1,769 VSOs will incur a cost associated with an REC, and 
annually, about 190 VSOs will incur the REC cost (we chose 2009 as the 
first year of the analysis period since most VSOs would complete the 
required training during that year). The total population of VSOs 
potentially affected by this interim rule is approximately 1,974, 
depending upon the training requirement. Under the current rule, VSO 
training is optional. The number of training providers affected is 
dependent upon when the training provider courses expired and the 
renewal date. We estimate the interim rule to affect about 879 U.S.-
flag seagoing vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond 
the boundary line as specified in 46 CFR part 15.1101.
    We present the costs of this interim rule in 2007 dollars and 
discount these costs to their present value (PV) over a 10-year period 
of analysis, 2009-2018, using both seven and three percent discount 
rates. We estimate the annuitized costs of this interim rule over the 
10-year period of analysis to be about $1.5 million at both seven and 
three percent discount rates. We estimate the total 10-year (2009-2018) 
present discounted value or cost of this interim rule to industry to be 
between $10.5 and $12.3 million at both seven and three percent 
discount rates, respectively. Table 1 below summarizes the costs of the 
interim rule.

       Table 1.--Summary of Total Discounted Costs of Interim Rule
  [2009-2018, 7 and 3 percent discount rates, 2007 dollars ($millions)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Discount rates
                  Cost item                  ---------------------------
                                                7 percent     3 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard-approved QSS VSO Training                $0.25         $0.32
 Provider Cost..............................
VSO Refresher Course........................          1.9           2.0
VSO Full Course.............................          6.6           8.0
VSO Travel Cost to REC......................          1.9           2.1
                                             ---------------------------
    Total Interim Rule Cost.................         10.5          12.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.


[[Page 29064]]

    From our Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) 
database, we estimate the interim rule to affect about 879 U.S.-flag 
vessels. Based on guidance from industry representatives, we were able 
to obtain the number of crews per vessel class assuming one VSO per 
crew. Based on our discussions with industry representatives, we found 
that, on average, there are two vessel crews per vessel in a specific 
vessel class (freight ships have three crews per vessel). See Table 2 
below.
    The column labeled ``VSOs in Compliance'' presents the number of 
VSOs that have completed the MARAD (Maritime Administration)-approved 
training and would be in compliance with this interim rule. The last 
column of Table 2 labeled ``Requiring Refresher Training'' shows the 
number of VSOs in each vessel class that would require refresher 
training. We assume these persons that would like to serve as VSOs 
qualify for the refresher course training, either because they have 
recently served at least six months as a VSO or because they have 
completed non-MARAD-approved VSO training. Table 2 below summarizes the 
number of vessels affected per class of vessels, the number of VSOs 
affected per class of vessel, and the number of VSOs that would need 
the required training.

     Table 2.--VSOs Affected by Maritime Security Training Requirement Serving on U.S.-Flagged SOLAS Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               VSOs
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Vessel service class         U.S.-flagged      Crews per         VSOs                          Requiring
                                   SOLAS vessels      vessel                          VSOs in        refresher
                                                                                    compliance       training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight Ship....................             216               3             648             518             130
Offshore Supply Vessel..........             197               2             394             197             197
Towing Vessel...................             179               2             358             179             179
Passenger (Inspected)...........             132               2             264              53             211
Tank Ship.......................              73               2             146             117              29
Other...........................              82               2             164              98              66
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................             879  ..............           1,974           1,162            812
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Based on MISLE and industry data.

    We assume that VSOs would incur different travel and lodging costs 
depending upon whether a VSO commuted daily to the training site, drove 
to the training site city and took lodging during the training period, 
or flew to the training site city and took lodging.
    We used a loaded hourly wage rate of $61 for all VSOs. A loaded 
labor rate is what a company pays per hour to employ the person, not 
what the person makes in hourly wages. The loaded labor rate includes 
the cost of benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). We also used 
this hourly wage when we estimated the opportunity cost of a VSO's time 
when a VSO engages in duties or activities in order to comply with the 
requirements of this interim rule. Furthermore, the Coast Guard has 
found that VSOs perform maritime security training on their employer's 
time. Therefore, we made the conservative assumption that VSOs' 
compliance activities related to obtaining the required training would 
be performed on their employers' time. As a result, we applied the $61 
loaded hourly wage to these activities rather than the unloaded hourly 
wage rate of $44.
    Our estimation of costs that VSOs would incur as a result of this 
interim rule must take into account costs associated with travel to the 
training site and is dependent upon the distance VSOs live from 
available training sites. We estimated this distance using the 
regulatory analysis that supports the Coast Guard's interim rule 
``Validation of Merchant Mariners'' Vital Information and Issuance of 
Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Licenses and Certificates of Registry'', 
published on January 13, 2006 (71 FR 2159). In that analysis, the 
portion of mariners that reside within 50 miles and 100 miles of their 
RECs was determined. Given the location of the training sites from the 
various RECs, and assuming that the distribution of VSOs from their 
RECs is directly proportional to the distribution of mariners from 
their RECs, we estimated the portion of VSOs who reside within 50 miles 
and 100 miles of the training sites. There are 17 RECs located 
throughout the country and 22 training sites or schools. There are only 
seven RECs that have training schools within their geographic vicinity. 
If we draw 50 and 100-mile radius circles around the 17 REC cities and 
the 22 training provider sites, we would find that these circles do not 
neatly overlap one another. However, for the seven RECs that have a 
training site within their geographic area, some mariners who reside 
100 miles from the REC reside within 50 miles of the training site. We 
based our calculations for all VSOs on these seven RECs in order to 
determine the share or percentage of VSOs that call a particular REC 
their REC and that would need to travel to an associated training 
facility for the required training. Schools are close enough in 
proximity to these seven RECs in order for us to estimate the share of 
VSOs that would need to commute, drive and lodge, or fly and lodge.
    Based on mariner address information from the Coast Guard's 
National Maritime Center (NMC) and the regulatory analysis that 
supports the Coast Guard's interim rule ``Validation of Merchant 
Mariners'' Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant 
Mariner's Licenses and Certificates of Registry'', published on January 
13, 2006 (71 FR 2159), we used the percentages presented in the 
regulatory analysis for that rule as listed in Table 3 below.

[[Page 29065]]



                 Table 3.--VSO Travel Share Based on 50 and 100-Mile Radius Circles Around RECs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Travel mode
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Commute        Drive/lodge       Fly/lodge          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share.......................................           60.0%            30.0%            10.0%           100.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for us to obtain the share or percentage of VSOs requiring 
training that would commute, drive/lodge, and fly/lodge around the 
country for training, we utilized the law of cosines to determine how 
much of an REC's 50-mile radius circle and 100-mile radius circle 
overlaps a school's 50-mile radius circle or 100-mile radius circle. We 
performed this exercise and calculations for all of the seven RECs that 
have schools in their geographic vicinity. The relevant REC cities are 
Baltimore, MD; Miami, FL; New York, NY; Oakland, CA; Seattle, WA; New 
Orleans, LA; and Portland, OR.
    Based on our calculations, we arrived at the share or percentage of 
VSOs that would attend the required training schools by travel modes 
listed in Table 4 below.

       Table 4.--Total National Share or Percentage of VSOs That Will Commute, Drive/Lodge, and Fly/Lodge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Commute share    Drive/lodge
                REC cities                        (%)          share (%)            Fly/lodge share (%)*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore.................................             4.9            1.95  0.8
Miami.....................................             7.7             2.9  1.2
New York..................................             4.4             1.8  0.7
Oakland...................................             1.0             2.0  1.1
New Orleans...............................             2.5             5.0  2.7
Portland..................................             2.3             1.2  0.4
Seattle...................................             3.7             1.8  0.6
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................            26.5            16.7  7.5 + 49.3 = 56.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The remaining 10 REC cities have no schools associated with them; therefore, we added together the share
  or percentage of VSOs that call those cities their respective REC for a total of 49.3 percent. VSOs that
  attend schools in these cities would fly and lodge; therefore, we added these percentages to the fly/lodge
  category. From our calculations of the seven REC cities, we found the percentage of VSOs that would fly/lodge
  to be about 7.5 percent. Therefore, the total share or percentage of VSOs that will fly/lodge is about 56.8
  percent (0.493 + 0.075).
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    From Table 1, there are 1,974 VSOs that serve on U.S.-flag SOLAS 
vessels under STCW. To obtain the number of VSOs that will need 
refresher training, we must subtract from the total number of VSOs 
(1,974) those VSOs that have completed MARAD-approved training (1,162) 
to obtain 812 VSOs that will need refresher training (1,974 - 1,162 = 
812 VSOs). We also introduce an annual industry turnover rate of 0.12 
or 12 percent. This turnover rate measures the annual flow of personnel 
leaving and entering the water transportation industry, rather than the 
flow of personnel leaving or entering the average firm in this 
industry. We assume that existing VSOs also leave at this rate and that 
all persons replacing these VSOs would be required to enroll in the 
full course training. We now multiply the number of VSOs requiring 
refresher course training from Table 1 (812) by 0.88 (the complement of 
the turnover rate, which is the retention rate) to obtain 716 or the 
number of VSOs that would need refresher course training. Cost for a 
refresher course is an initial-year cost only.
    To obtain the number of VSOs that would need to enroll in a full 
course, we multiplied the total number of VSOs (1,974) by the turnover 
rate (0.12) to obtain about 237 VSOs who would need to enroll in a full 
course annually. Full course training is an annual recurring cost.
    To obtain the number of VSOs by mode of travel, we simply 
multiplied the final percentages in Table 4 by the number of VSOs that 
require refresher course and full course training, respectively. For 
example, we calculated the total percentage of VSOs that would commute 
to be about 0.265 or 26.5 percent. The number of VSOs that would need 
full course training is about 237, so we multiplied 0.265 by 237 to 
obtain 63. Restated, the number of VSOs that will need full course 
training and will commute to the training school is about 63. See Table 
5 below for the remaining population figures.

                     Table 5.--Summary of Number of VSOs by Travel Mode and by Training Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        VSOs by travel mode
                  Training type                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Commuting      Drive/lodge      Fly/lodge         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Course Training............................              63              39             135             237
Refresher Training..............................             190             120             407            716
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    Readers should refer to the regulatory analysis in the docket for a 
summary of all of the individual VSO costs associated with the full 
training course.
    Next, we multiplied the total costs per VSO by the population 
figures for full

[[Page 29066]]

course training in Table 5 to obtain a total initial and annual cost 
(non-discounted) for VSOs who take the full training course of 
$934,476. We performed the same analysis for the refresher course and 
obtained a total initial-year cost (non-discounted) of about $2,008,822 
for VSOs that need refresher course training. Again, readers should 
refer to the regulatory analysis in the docket for all of the 
individual VSO costs associated with the refresher course.
    We estimate the total present discounted value or cost for the 
training requirements of the interim rule to be between $8.4 and $9.9 
million at both seven and three percent discount rates, respectively. 
The training requirement is the most costly element of the interim 
rule.
    The third cost element of this interim rule is the cost that a VSO 
will incur to obtain an endorsement on their Merchant Mariner 
Credential from an REC. A merchant mariner document expires every five 
years, so we assume that one-fifth (0.20 or 20 percent) of the VSOs 
every year would currently be required to make a trip to the REC to 
renew this document. Of the 1,974 VSOs in our population, 80 percent 
(1.00-0.20) of these VSOs in the initial year would be required to make 
an additional trip to an REC to get an endorsement, or about 1,579.
    During the initial year and annually, only VSOs that take the full 
course will be affected by this element of the interim rule. We 
estimate about 190 VSOs will be required to make an additional trip to 
an REC (237 x 0.80) each year to get an endorsement.
    Some VSOs would have to travel to an REC anyway once every five 
years to renew their merchant mariner document. We estimate that 395 
VSOs out of the total number of VSOs would have had to travel to an REC 
anyway without the rule in place (1,974 x 0.20). From the number of 
VSOs that need to take the full course, we estimate that about 47 also 
would have had to travel to an REC anyway without the rule in place 
(237 x 0.20) in order to renew their merchant mariner document. Table 6 
summarizes these figures below.

                         Table 6.--Distribution of VSO Travel to an REC for Endorsement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Required to    Not required
                                                                      make an       to make an
                              Time                                  additional      additional         Total
                                                                  trip to an REC  trip to an REC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Year....................................................           1,579             395           1,974
Initial and Annual Year.........................................             190              47             237
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individual VSOs that need to obtain an endorsement from an REC 
would also incur travel costs similar to those presented for the 
training requirements (readers should refer to the regulatory analysis 
in the docket for all of the individual VSO costs associated with the 
endorsement requirement). We estimate VSOs would incur an initial-year 
cost of about $1.2 million (non-discounted) and an annual cost of about 
$0.13 million (non-discounted). We estimate the total presented 
discounted value or cost to be about $2.0 million at both seven and 
three percent discount rates over the period of analysis.
    Lastly, the final cost element associated with this interim rule is 
the cost that training providers will incur for security training 
course evaluation and oversight. Since the Coast Guard does not approve 
VSO training courses, the onus is on the training provider to pay a 
Coast Guard-approved Quality Standards System (QSS) organization to 
evaluate its VSO course for approval. Approval from a QSS organization 
would constitute Coast Guard acceptance of the course. Currently, MARAD 
pays one of the Coast Guard-approved organizations to approve courses 
on behalf of MARAD and the Coast Guard. Under this interim rule, the 
cost burden for course approval and oversight shifts to the training 
provider. There are 22 training providers throughout the U.S. The cost 
per course evaluation is about $7,500 and is valid for five years. We 
estimate the total present discounted value or cost of the interim rule 
to training providers to be about $0.30 million at both discount rates 
over the period of analysis.
    Readers should refer to the regulatory analysis in the docket for a 
detailed analysis of the costs associated with this interim rule.
    The interim rule has several qualitative benefits associated with 
it. The current training regime requires the designation of a VSO, but 
it does not require formal training, instead it allows owners/operators 
to self-certify their VSOs as having the security training. Under this 
regime, the expertise and knowledge varies from person to person and 
from vessel to vessel. This regime has proven to be less effective 
since there in no consistency in the attainment of the knowledge 
throughout the industry.
    Development of mandatory training requirements is necessary to 
ensure consistency of training in support of the domestic and 
international security regime. Seafarers constantly transfer from 
vessel to vessel; therefore, mandatory training would ensure 
consistency no matter where they serve. A course approval process in 
support of the mandatory requirements would lead to a higher quality of 
security training.
    The STCW requires that the Coast Guard issue a certificate of 
proficiency to the mariner. An endorsement to the STCW certificate 
would serve as proof that a VSO has met the certificate of proficiency 
requirement and would eliminate the issuance of a separate Coast Guard-
issued document.
    Issuance of endorsements is also beneficial for U.S. vessels 
trading worldwide, since they would not be subject to detentions for 
non-compliance with the STCW. These new requirements would provide a 
systematic and verifiable program of certification and oversight, 
providing effectiveness, sufficient rigor, and consistency to maritime 
security education and training. The absence of a systematic and 
verifiable program of external certification and oversight, 
insufficient rigor, and a lack of consistency may render maritime 
security education and training less effective than it should be.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. 
This interim rule does not require a general notice of proposed 
rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the

[[Page 29067]]

requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this interim 
rule is exempt, we have reviewed it for potential economic impact on 
small entities.
    From the Coast Guard's MISLE database, there are 879 vessels, owned 
by 157 entities, impacted by the interim rule. For the purpose of this 
initial analysis, we estimate average impacts per owner. Discussions 
with industry revealed that there are approximately 245 VSOs leaving 
the industry each year, requiring the average vessel owner to hire (245 
VSOs/879 vessels) 0.3 new VSOs per vessel each year. In addition, an 
average of about one (716 VSOs/879 vessels) partially trained VSO per 
vessel would be required to take a refresher course.
    Using data from the two business databases, we researched all 157 
companies and found annual sales and employment information for 56 of 
them. We identified 43 of these 56 entities as small businesses (about 
77 percent) using the SBA's criteria and assumed the 101 companies with 
no revenue data were also small for a total of 144 of 157 of the 
entities (92 percent).
    To estimate the impact on small entities, we multiplied the cost 
for full and refresher VSO courses by the average number of VSOs per 
vessel attending training each year. Vessel owners would incur a first-
year cost for the refresher course and an annually recurring cost for 
the full course. We estimate the full course cost per vessel to be 
about $1,331 ($4,435 x 0.3 VSOs per vessel) and the refresher course 
cost per vessel to be about $3,326 ($3,326 x 1.0 VSOs per vessel). 
Table 7 summarizes the costs for a full VSO course and the shorter 
refresher course.

                           Table 7.--Per Vessel Cost for VSO Training (Non-Discounted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total course      VSOs per
                             Course                                  cost ***         vessel           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VSO Full Course *...............................................          $4,435             0.3          $1,331
VSO Refresher **................................................           3,326             1.0           3,326
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The full course cost is an annually recurring cost based on the industry VSO turnover rate.
** The VSO refresher cost is a first-year cost for partially-trained VSOs.
*** To be conservative, we used the higher cost estimates for mariners that fly in order to reflect the maximum
  potential economic impact on a given small business. The cost includes tuition, opportunity costs,
  transportation costs, etc.

    We estimate the revenue impact as the total cost per vessel 
multiplied by the number of vessels each affected entity owns. In the 
first year, vessel owners would incur the cost for the refresher course 
and the full course. Using publicly available and proprietary data on 
owner revenue, we estimate the impact to small entities as a percentage 
of revenue. The first year cost of the interim rule would have less 
than a 3 percent impact on 72 percent of the small entities. Table 8 
presents the number of small entities in the sample and the estimated 
range of the initial year impact on revenue as a result of the interim 
rule requirements. The percentage of small entities in each impact 
range in the sample is then projected to the total estimate of small 
entities.

                         Table 8.--Initial Year Impact to Small Entities (Non-Discounted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Percent of
                                                                     Number of    small entities
                Percent impact on annual revenue                  small entities    with known      Total small
                                                                    with known     revenue data      entities
                                                                   revenue data      (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0% to 1%........................................................              31              72             104
>1% to 3%.......................................................               0               0               0
>3% to 5%.......................................................               5              12              17
>5% to 10%......................................................               5              12              17
Above 10%.......................................................               2               5               7
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              43             100             144
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    After the initial year of the rulemaking, the annual impact on 
small businesses is lower because vessel owner and operators would no 
longer incur the cost of the refresher course for VSOs. We found that 
annual costs would have less than a 3 percent impact on 79 percent of 
small entities. Table 9 below presents the estimated annual impact on 
small entities.

                           Table 9.--Annual Impact to Small Entities (Non-Discounted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Percent of
                                                                     Number of    small entities
                Percent impact on annual revenue                  small entities    with known      Total small
                                                                    with known     revenue data      entities
                                                                   revenue data      (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0% to 1%........................................................              31              72             104
>1% to 3%.......................................................               3               7              10
>3% to 5%.......................................................               3               7              10
>5% to 10%......................................................               5              12              17

[[Page 29068]]

 
Above 10%.......................................................               1               2               3
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              43             100             144
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    To the extent that new courses open after publication of the 
interim rule, there would be a reduction in the travel costs associated 
with the preliminary cost estimates in the RA. However, the revenue 
impacts provide a conservative estimate of the impact to small 
entities.
    Training providers would incur a cost for security training course 
evaluation and oversight. The NAICS codes for training providers were 
varied with 541618--Other Management Consulting Services--being the 
only code to appear more than once. The SBA annual revenue threshold 
for this NAICS code is $6,500,000.
    Most training providers do not offer all types or progressions of 
training discussed in this interim rule. Based on Coast Guard data, we 
identified 22 maritime training providers that offer some type of Coast 
Guard-approved training and could be affected by this rulemaking. Of 
the 22 training providers that offer training impacted by the interim 
rule, we were able to collect revenue data for 12. Of the 12 with 
revenue data, 10 are small entities as defined by the SBA and we assume 
the remaining 10 to be small, for a total of 20 of the 22 entities 
being classified as small. Of the small entities with revenue data, we 
found five (50 percent) would incur an impact of less than 1 percent of 
annual revenues in the year a course was registered and the remaining 
five (50 percent) would incur a cost of less than 3 percent of annual 
revenues.
    We anticipate that new or existing training providers that do not 
currently offer the training described in this rulemaking would only 
begin to offer the training described if they expect it to be net-
beneficial. To the extent that training providers are able to pass the 
cost to mariners, the impact would be less than estimated above.
    Lastly, the onus of obtaining an endorsement from an REC is on an 
individual VSO. The interim rule does not require a VSO's employer to 
pay for this endorsement. We note that for the purposes of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act an individual is not considered to be a 
small entity. However, previously in this small entity impact analysis, 
we have shown the cost to the employer if the employer voluntarily 
chooses to incur or reimburse the employee for costs related to 
receiving the VSO endorsement. We are interested in the potential 
direct impacts of this interim rule on small businesses and we request 
public comment on these potential direct impacts. If you think that 
this interim rule would have a significant economic impact on you, your 
business, or your organization, please submit a comment to the Docket 
[USCG-2008-0028]. In your comment, explain why, how, and to what degree 
you think this rule would have an economic impact on you.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this interim rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
interim rule would affect your small business, organization, or 
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please call the contact provided 
in For Further Information Contact above. The Coast Guard will not 
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this 
interim rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This interim rule calls for a collection of information under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 
CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting, 
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar 
actions. The title and description of the information collections, a 
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate 
of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering 
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection.
    Vessel Security Officers must meet minimum training requirements 
and receive an endorsement from a regional examination center (REC). 
Vessel Security Officers would be required to complete form CG-719B and 
deliver the form to an REC for endorsement. This collection is in 
addition to the current collection of information estimate for VRPs and 
FRPs [Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 1625-0040].
    Title: Continuous Discharge Book, Application, Physical Exam 
Report, Sea Service Report, Chemical Testing, Entry Level Physical.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0040.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: Vessel Security Officers 
would be required to obtain an endorsement on their merchant mariner 
document from an REC to prove a minimum level of training has been 
completed. Mariners currently complete form CG-719B every 5 years, but 
the interim rule would require many VSOs to obtain an endorsement prior 
to the expiration of their existing document.
    Need for Information: The information is necessary to show evidence 
that VSOs have completed the necessary training requirements to assess 
risk, threats, and vulnerabilities of a vessel.
    Use of Information: The Coast Guard would use this information to 
document that the VSO training level meets international requirements.
    Description of the Respondents: The respondents are the VSOs that 
would be required to complete form CG-719B.
    Number of Respondents: From Table 11, the number of respondents is 
1,579

[[Page 29069]]

in the first year plus an additional 190 recurring annually, including 
the first year for a 3-year total of 2,149 [1,579 + (3 x 190)].
    Frequency of Response: Respondents are required to complete form 
CG-719B every 5 years. The interim rule would require 1,579 new 
applications in the first year and an additional 190 new applications 
recurring annually.
    Burden of Response: Completing the information on CG-719B would 
take a VSO approximately 10 minutes. In the first year, 20 percent of 
VSOs are assumed to be completing the form due to the expiration of 
their merchant mariner document, but the remaining 80 percent detailed 
in the Number of Respondents section would incur the 10-minute burden.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The existing OMB-approved total 
annual burden, as adjusted in July 2006, is 329,356 hours. This interim 
rule would increase the burden for 2,149 VSOs over a 3-year approval 
period by approximately 10 minutes. The total additional hours 
requested for this rulemaking is 358 [2,149 x (10 minutes/60 minutes)] 
and the average annual increase over the 3-year period is about 119 
(358/3). The new annual burden as a result of this rulemaking is 
329,475 hours.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this interim rule to OMB for its 
review of the collection of information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information 
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help 
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available 
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; 
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve 
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can 
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit 
them both to OMB and to the Docket where indicated under ADDRESSES, by 
the date under DATES in the interim rule.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless we have 
published a currently valid control number from OMB for that collection 
in the Federal Register. Before the requirements for this collection of 
information become effective, we will publish notice in the Federal 
Register of OMB's decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the 
collection. If OMB approves the collection, our publication of that 
control number in the Federal Register or the CFR will constitute 
display of that number; see 5 CFR 1320.3(f)(3), as required under 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(B).

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled, 
now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, 
and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, 
operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), 
as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which 
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's 
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the 
States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated 
cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 
120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) Because the States may not regulate 
within this category, preemption under Executive Order 13132 is not an 
issue.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular,