[Federal Register: May 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 98)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29060-29071]
[DOCID:fr20my08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 104

46 CFR Parts 10 and 15

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

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

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0028 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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--
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

A. Submitting Comments

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

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

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

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

C. Privacy Act

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

D. Public Meeting

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

II. Acronyms

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

III. Regulatory Information

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

IV. Background and Purpose

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

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

V. Discussion of the Interim Rule

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

33 CFR 104.215

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

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

46 CFR 10.811

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

46 CFR 15.1113

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

VI. Regulatory Evaluation

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

A. Regulatory Analysis

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

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

    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.

                 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

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

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

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

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, 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 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

(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.

0
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

0
1. The authority citation for part 104 continues to read as follows:

    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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  104.215 by re-designating paragraph (c) as paragraph (e)
and adding new paragraphs (c) and (d).

Sec.  104.215  Vessel Security Officer (VSO).

* * * * *
    (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:
    (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 Guard-issued 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Guard-accepted 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 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.

    (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

0
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.

0
4. In Sec.  10.104, add the definition of Vessel Security Officer in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  10.104  Definitions of terms used in this part.

* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *

0
5. Add Sec.  10.811 to read as follows:

Sec.  10.811  Requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as vessel
security officer.

    (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 Sec.  10.205(d)(1)-(2) of this chapter.

PART 15--MANNING REQUIREMENTS

0
6. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

    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.

0
7. Amend Sec.  15.301 by adding paragraph (b)(10) and revising
paragraph (b)(11) to read as follows:

Sec.  15.301  Definitions of terms used in this part.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (10) GMDSS radio operator; and
    (11) Vessel Security Officer.
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  15.1101, add paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  15.1101  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.
* * * * *

0
9. Add Sec.  15.1113 to read as follows:

Sec.  15.1113  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


[Federal Register: March 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 11912-11913]
[DOCID:fr05mr08-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12632-000]

East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Scoping Meeting
and Soliciting Scoping Comments for an Applicant Prepared Environmental
Assessment Using the Alternative Licensing Process

February 28, 2008.
    a. Type of Application: Alternative Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 12632-000.
    c. Applicant: East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Cooperative).
    d. Name of Project: Lake Livingston Hydroelectric Project.
    e. Location: At the Lake Livingston dam, on the Trinity River, in
San Jacinto, Polk, Trinity, and Walker Counties, Texas. No federal
lands would be affected.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    g. Potential Applicant Contact: Edd Hargett, East Texas Electric
Cooperative, Inc., 2905 Westward Drive, P.O. Box 631623, Nacogdoches,
TX 75963;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    h. FERC Contact: Sarah Florentino, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: April 25, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    k. The proposed project would use the following existing
facilities: (1) The Trinity River Authority's (TRA) existing 14,400-
foot-long (approximate) Lake Livingston dam, having a crest elevation
of 145.0 feet mean sea level (msl), and consisting of a basic earth
embankment section, outlet works, and spillway; and (2) the 83,000-acre
Lake Livingston, with a normal water surface elevation of 131.0 feet
msl and gross storage capacity of 1,750,000 acre-feet. The proposed
project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) An intake
structure and headrace channel approximately 800 feet long; (2) three
steel penstocks, about 14 feet in diameter and 450 feet in length; (3)
a powerhouse containing three generating units, having a total
installed capacity of 24 MW; (4) an approximate 2,000-feet-long
tailrace channel; (5) an approximate 2.5-mile-long, 138-kilovolt
transmission line interconnecting the project with Entergy's existing
Rich substation near

Goodrich; and (6) an electric switchyard and other appurtenant
facilities. The project would have an estimated annual generation of
124.030 gigawatt-hours, which the Cooperative would sell at wholesale
to its constituent electric cooperatives.

l. Scoping Process

    The Cooperative will use the Commission's alternative licensing
process (ALP). Under the ALP, the Cooperative will prepare an Applicant
Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA) and license application for
the Lake Livingston Hydroelectric Project.
    The Cooperative expects to file with the Commission, the APEA and
the license application for the Lake Livingston Hydroelectric Project
by March 2009. Although the Cooperative's intent is to prepare an
environmental assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless,
this meeting will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective
of whether an EA or EIS is issued by the Commission.
    The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the opportunity to
participate in the upcoming scoping meetings identified below, and to
solicit your scoping comments.

Scoping Meetings

    The Cooperative and Commission staff will hold two scoping
meetings, one in the daytime and one in the evening, to help us
identify the scope of issues to be addressed in the APEA.
    The daytime scoping meeting will focus on resource agency concerns,
while the evening scoping meeting is primarily for public input. All
interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to
attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist the staff in
identifying the environmental issues that should be analyzed in the
APEA. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Daytime meeting                      Evening meeting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Wednesday, March 26, 2008            Wednesday, March 26, 2008
       1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.                  6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
    Central Standard Time (CST)                      CST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Community Meeting Room,
               Livingston-Polk County Chamber of Commerce,
                      1001 U.S. Hwy 59 Loop North,
                        Livingston, Texas 77351.
<PHONE_NUMBER>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To help focus discussions, Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines
the subject areas to be addressed in the APEA, was mailed to the
individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list and the
Cooperative's distribution list on February 27, 2008. Copies of the SD1
also will be available at the scoping meetings. SD1 is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Based on all written comments received, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2)
may be issued. SD2 will include a revised list of issues, as determined
by the scoping process.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the APEA;
(2) solicit from the meeting participants all available information,
especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage
statements from experts and the public on issues that should be
analyzed in the APEA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in
support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource
issues to be addressed in the APEA; and (5) identify those issues that
require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not
require a detailed analysis.
    Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meetings and to
assist the Cooperative and Commission staff in defining and clarifying
the issues to be addressed in the APEA. Please review the Cooperative's
Preliminary Application Document (PAD) and SD1 in preparation for the
scoping meetings. Instructions on how to obtain copies of the PAD and
SD1 are included above.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will become
part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.

Site Visit

    The Cooperative and Commission staff will conduct a site visit of
the project on Wednesday, March 26, 2008, following the afternoon
session of the scoping meeting.
    The site visit to Lake Livingston dam will take place at TRA's Lake
Livingston project headquarters. The physical address of the project is
5170 S. FM 1988, Livingston, Texas 77351. Access to the dam site is
secure, and all individuals wishing to participate in the site visit
must register and provide a copy of a photo identification in advance.
If you want to attend the site visit, please notify Brian Lawson, the
Cooperative's Project Manager, and send him a faxed or scanned copy of
a photo ID not later than March 19, 2008, using the following contact
information: Brian Lawson, Project Manager, GDS Associates, Inc., 1850
Parkway Place, Suite 800, Marietta, GA 30067, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:
770-426-0303<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-4223 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P