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
<![CDATA[
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Miners is withdrawn from the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: https://
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
https://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
https://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 https://
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: https://
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: https://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: https://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: https://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 https://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 https://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 https://
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: https://
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: https://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: https://
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,
