Foreign Officers soon to be on US Ships

[spin]

The comment period closes 10/27/2010. I'm against any foreign officers on any US flagged ships. I'm guessing the maritime academies would object as well.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-24154.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG–2010–0797]

Recognition of Foreign Certificates Under the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended, Regulation I/10 AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

SUMMARY: Regulation I/10 of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, (STCW) requires Parties to the Convention to establish procedures to recognize STCW certificates issued by or under the authority of another Party.

In order to start this process, the Coast Guard is developing a policy regarding the United States’ recognition of foreign certificates held by foreign maritime officers who may be employed on some United States flag vessels. The Coast Guard is soliciting comments from mariners, industry, and the public to assist in development of this policy. The Coast Guard is particularly interested in
identifying which United States flag vessels employ foreign citizens, the nationalities of these mariners, and the countries that issue their STCW certificates.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before October 27, 2010 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2010–0797 using any one of the following methods:

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.

(3) 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 20590–0001.

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366–9329.

To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this notice, call or e-mail Luke B. Harden, Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division (CG–5434), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1206, e-mail Luke.B.Harden@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing material in the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to submit comments and related material on the development of a policy regarding the recognition of foreign International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW) certificates held by foreign mariners who may be employed on United States flag vessels. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (USCG–2010–0797) and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu select ‘‘Notices’’ and insert ‘‘USCG– 2010–0797’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8c 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. Viewing the comments: To view the comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010–0797’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ column.

If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:01 Sep 24, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1 srobinson onDSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES 59282 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices
holidays.

We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act system of records notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316)

Background and Purpose STCW requirements: Regulation I/10 of the STCW requires Parties to the
Convention to establish procedures to recognize certificates issued to maritime officers by or under the authority of another Party. STCW also requires the flag state of a vessel to ensure that all officers serving on board hold properly recognized and endorsed credentials. Citizenship waiver provisions within the United States Code: Title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) allows the employment of foreign citizens aboard certain United States flag vessels. Specifically, 46 U.S.C. 8103(b)(3) establishes authority to waive the requirement for United States citizenship for:

(A) An offshore supply vessel or other similarly engaged vessel of less than 1,600 gross tons as measured under section 14502 of this title, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of this title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of this title that operates from a foreign port;

(B) A mobile offshore drilling unit or other vessel engaged in support of exploration, exploitation, or production of offshore mineral energy resources operating beyond the water above the outer Continental Shelf (as that term is defined in section 2(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(a)); and

(C) Any other vessel if the Secretary determines, after an investigation, that qualified seamen who are citizens of the United States are not available. Need for the policy: Recognition of seafarer competence certificates from other countries would ensure compliance with the STCW Convention requirements, be in accordance with the citizenship waiver requirements in 46 U.S.C. 8103(b)(3), and help ensure that
United States flagged vessels are not subject to detention in foreign ports due to allegations of improperly credentialed seafarers. It would also be done in anticipation of the regulatory changes that would be needed to bring the United States into compliance with the STCW requirements.

The Proposed Policy given this need, the Coast Guard is developing a policy to start establishing a process for the United States’ recognition of foreign certificates held by foreign officers who may be
employed on some United States flag vessels.

The Coast Guard is beginning to develop policy guidance for arrangements between parties to STCW
for recognition of certificates under STCW Regulation I/10. The policy would provide guidance for Coast Guard on how and when to recognize STCW certificates issued by other countries.

The policy would also provide a list of which countries’ certificates may be recognized and the process used to determine that list. As part of this policy, we expect that once the United States is satisfied that a certificate-issuing country complies with the STCW Convention requirements concerning standards of
competence, the issuing and endorsement of certificates, and record keeping, both countries could sign a written formal agreement establishing recognition of each country’s STCW certificates.

The proposed policy could also offer guidance for mariners and/or vessel operators/employers with regard to applying for and obtaining a United States-issued endorsement of their foreign certificates.

We welcome your comments on the above proposals. In particular, the Coast Guard is interested in the following information:
1. Which United States flag vessels employ foreign citizens?

2. What are the nationalities of foreign citizens working United States flag vessels?

3. What countries issue STCW certificates for foreign citizens working United States flag vessels?

We will review and analyze all comments received in order to develop the policy.

Authority: We issue this notice of under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 46 U.S.C. 8103(b)(3).
Dated: September 1, 2010. Kevin S. Cook, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy. [FR Doc. 2010–24154 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am]

[spin]

A friend of mine from MEBA copied a email he received regarding this issue and I have copied the how to comment section here on the forum. I suggest we all do this ASAP or we're all out of jobs.

You may submit comments identified by docket number <acronym title="United States Coast Guard">USCG</acronym>–2010–0797 using any one of the following methods:

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov.

a. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov or click HERE

b. Click the check box "open for comment/submission"

c. In the "Enter Keyword or ID:" box, type in <acronym title="United States Coast Guard">USCG</acronym>–2010–0797

d. Click‘‘Search’’

e. Scroll down the page to view comments already made, submit your comment by click submit a comment under the actions heading column.

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.

(3) 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 20590–0001.

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366–9329.

[seadawg]

Re: Recognition of Foreign STCW Certificates

the "bottom line" in regards to this issue..look for this proposal to "pass" with little or no concern for safe-guarding the jobs of the US mariner..any concerns will be an after the fact "reactive knee-jerk reaction" by the <ACRONYM title="National Maritime Center">NMC</ACRONYM> sponsored and sanctioned by "corporate"..if at all..we all should know by now how good the bureaucrats are at that!!

HOPE I AM WRONG ON THIS!!

view document and make comment here: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...00006480b60b34

contact our "for the people" government representatives here: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

**FROM ANOTHER THREAD HERE ARE MORE WAYS TO COMMENT..BTW WHEN I LAST CHECKED THERE WAS VERY FEW COMMENTS IN THE DOCKET FILE??

[Steamer]

..look for this proposal to "pass" with little or no concern for safe-guarding the jobs of the US mariner..any concerns will be an after the fact "reactive knee-jerk reaction" by the <ACRONYM title="National Maritime Center">NMC</ACRONYM>

Of course it will "pass." It would never have reached the NPRM stage if all the parties involved had not already cashed the checks and made their retirement plans.

Don't look for the NMC to do or say anything, that is not their job or even their concern. If anything it will increase their budget and number of employees. They will need to expand in order to "recognize" all those foreign certificates and to issue endorsements or CECs. Their power will increase, their leaders will have bigger staff. It's a bureaucrat's wet dream.

Don't look for any other branch of the CG to say anything either. They have no interest in American mariners other than as a source of funding and as potential security threats.

The wording of the proposed rule includes that delightful little paragraph;

"Any other vessel if the Secretary
determines, after an investigation, that
qualified seamen who are citizens of the

United States are not available."

Which implies that someone or some agency has the resources and will to investigate the claims made by shipping companies and crewing agencies that no qualified American seamen are available. They have never investigated any such claim in the history of the exemption, and if past performance related to the fishing industry and the OSV scams are any indication, never will.

There are more threats to American autonomy and freedom in lobbyists' offices around DC than in the caves of Bora Bora. The real threat to the American merchant mariner is not at sea, it is in the cash and benefits that flow from business interests to our union leadership, the admirals and the bureaucrats who adminster programs intended to protect American maritime security.

It may be too late to stop this act of treason but we can keep fighting. We need to demand that "the Secretary" actually investigates each claim that no qualified Americans have applied for those jobs that go to foreign workers. Contact your state employment department and demand that all jobs related to the federal waiver program are routed through them and all applications are recorded by them. Force government to maintain a paper trail. Too many of us are afraid to speak out or to demand that the rules of the waiver program are followed. Those of you who have been refused employment for those OSV or fishing boat jobs by a foreign company that claimed a waiver and who then gave up without a whimper should realize your silence is feeding this attack on the US.

American shipowners and foreign operators, with the cooperation and consent of Congress and the USCG will do more damage to the American merchant marine than any Middle Eastern terrorist or Somali pirate could ever dream of. We don't need to look to Iran or Afghanistan to find the real threat to our security, it's thriving on both sides of the Beltway.

[tengineer]

Well said. The congress of the US follows the golden rule. He who has the gold rules.
Lobbyists and the congressmen that work for them only have to worry about losing their jobs once every 4-6 years. The American worker has to worry about losing his or her job every day and as long the US worker keeps committing suicide by electing these criminals that rob from the poor and give to the rich it will only get worse. Give these politicians credit though. They've learned they can get by with grand theft and get elected year after year by using the code words; change, big government, national security, gays, abortion, raise taxes etc. They never DO anything about any of this stuff but that's not point now is it? It gets them elected and keeps them in office representing the lobbyists they work for.
I've given up on the lot of them and now vote based on mariner and fiscal responsibilty issues. Problem is it's hard to find anybody to vote for, so I fish a lot.

[c.captain]

I know I am sounding like a broken record but I cannot stop trying to get interest in an "American Professional Mariners Association" to represent ALL certified mariners regardless of which part of the industry they work. Deepsea, offshore, towing, passenger, union, non union...simply everybody who has any interest in maintaining our profession and stopping any measures by the Federal Government to end the long line of American mariners who have served this Nation from well before its founding! The mission statement of the association will be to collectively represent all mariners in all applicable Federal Govenment actions which effect us.

If such an association were formed, who here would join? Would you pay $100/year membership? If we could get 10000 mariners each contributing $100 we would have $1M year to spend in Washington. Of course, a drop in the bucket when compared to the other interests yet not chump change either. If we won one issue would that not make joining the association more attractive to other mariners to sign up? What if we got 50000 American mariners aboard? Then we really could get a voice in Washington and maybe a seat on the MERPAC and other USCG committees concerning the American Mariner and a voice to trestify in Congress if hearing were ever held.

Anyway, I probably will never see such an association ever get off the ground but sure do wish it could. I think it would make the difference of the American mariner withering away to dust or just maybe staying alive. Because we cannot join to fight, we are left watching in real time the final disenfranchisement of the American professional mariner!

[cappy208]

click here, and see if this is what you are looking for. it only costs 20 a year.

http://mtvassociation.com/

[spin]

Didn't take the companies long to comment, they were the first to do so. Shhh they are asking the US Coast Guard to speed up the process.

Look at this:

September 27, 2010

The Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA) is the national trade association which serves as the voice for the U.S. flag vessels that support the offshore energy sector. The association represents more than 250 companies that own and operate vessels, perform towing activities and provide services and
supplies in support of the production, exploration and development of offshore natural resources.

We welcome this US Coast Guard initiative to implement STCW Regulation I/10 and allow 46 USC 8103 to be fully utilized. We urge that maximum speed be used to allow at least a partial process of endorsing the mariner credentials of non-US mariners sailing on a US-flag vessel to prevent any additional vessel detentions. We understand that full implementation may require additional time.

To answer the first question posed, any vessel working in the offshore oil and mineral industry outside US waters is subject to local cabotage laws, similar to our Jones Act, which often requires that at least a portion of the crew be citizens of the country exercising jurisdiction over the outer continental shelf oil field. So this means an Offshore Supply Vessel (OSV) – which includes Supply Boats, Seismic Vessels, and Liftboats, crewboats/small passenger vessels, and towing vessels would commonly seek to use these endorsements. There may be additional classes of vessels not covered by OMSA membership.

We have asked the OMSA membership to provide the answers to your questions 2 and 3 directly to the docket. We also urged them to identify the one or two largest sources of mariner credentials in their vessel fleet to assist in prioritization of your efforts to establish agreements with other nations.

Again, we welcome this initiative and urge maximum speed in implementation of it.

Sincerely
Richard Wells
Vice President

[c.captain]

A clearer case cannot be found...OMSA the champion of the Jones Act offshore vessel fleet wants to hire foreign mariners! Period...plain and simple!

What utter corruption at every level...

join or die!

[seadawg]

association..we don't need no stinkin association!!

no suprise as far as OMSA http://www.offshoremarine.org/ is concerned it has always been an "association" by and for the companies..I once e-mailed them mainly for S&Gs to inquire if they were interested in what individual mariners had to say and if they might allow individual membership..they never responded..go figure??

other alternatives are NMA http://nationalmariners.org/ and MTVA http://www.mtvassociation.com/index.html ..both are great ideas that have in the past proven to be not very effective..they will welcome you membership and your money though!!

the unions are awfull quiet regarding this as well??

all this is probably just a "chicken little" over reaction??

myself..like another poster on here plan on doing alot of fishing!!

[c.captain]

association..we don't need no stinkin association!!

no suprise as far as OMSA http://www.offshoremarine.org/ is concerned it has always been an "association" by and for the companies..I once e-mailed them mainly for S&Gs to inquire if they were interested in what individual mariners had to say and if they might allow individual membership..they never responded..go figure??

other alternatives are NMA http://nationalmariners.org/ and MTVA http://www.mtvassociation.com/index.html ..both are great ideas that have in the past proven to be not very effective..they will welcome you membership and your money though!!

the unions are awfull quiet regarding this as well??

all this is probably just a "chicken little" over reaction??

myself..like another poster on here plan on doing alot of fishing!!

Then what do YOU propose Mr. seadawg? Just let THEM steamroller over us or don't you believe that is what THEY are trying to accomplish? Regarding chicken little overreactions...I think OMSA's support of this makes it all so pretty damn clear! Even you admit that. If they gave a shit for their US citizen mariners as much as they want protection for their US built and flagged OSV's then they would have taken a strong stand AGAINST this but NO, THEY DIDN'T! THEY want their vessels working in the GoM with low wage foreign mariners... Tell me how I am wrong believing this is what they seek?

[c.captain]

Check out the responses to the rulemaking on the docket's website at:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...USCG-2010-0797

A good number of very strong comments of protest from citizen mariners and only one PRO comment from OMSA! F'ng mafia scumbag bunch they are! Does anyone here need any more convincing that they are in NO WAY out to represent the interest of Amercian maritime labor? They just downright can't stand us and want to be rid of us as FAST as possible!

We have many comments from our side already but not nearly enough...we need many more American mariners to protest this NPRM. Please respond via mail, fax or via the internet but RESPOND! You have only until October 27th so time is fleeting...

You know that it is what needs to be done so why haven't you done it yet? COMMENT!

[cappy208]

There are only 18 responses from mariners. Even if you don't agree, do agree, or are sort of indifferent, respond. ( a hand written, scanned submission is probably NOT the most effective way) But write SOMETHING to let the powers the be know who, what and how this is going to affect MANY US citizens.

Talk at the Galley table about this, let it be known. Only a small percentage of people will respond. Make an effort to bring a couple of others along with you. If this goes through, the guys at your galley table will soon be from other countries, and eventually YOU will be outsourced too!

[c.captain]

There are only 18 responses from mariners. Even if you don't agree, do agree, or are sort of indifferent, respond. ( a hand written, scanned submission is probably NOT the most effective way) But write SOMETHING to let the powers the be know who, what and how this is going to affect MANY US citizens.

Talk at the Galley table about this, let it be known. Only a small percentage of people will respond. Make an effort to bring a couple of others along with you. If this goes through, the guys at your galley table will soon be from other countries, and eventually YOU will be outsourced too!

I saw that one in there and I sure wished the fellow had at least used lined legal paper to write his protest, but at least he sent in something and good on him for that!

[cappy208]

My personal view of the MTVA is it is the only independent, non labor oriented, non company specific tug industry organization out there. The more members it has will make it more muscle to whom ever they write too. It is certain that letters from you and I have little value (not no value, just little); but a letter from a several hundred strong organization does have some merit.

[spin]

I submitted mine last night and it has yet shown up in the comments

[SaltySailor]

association..we don't need no stinkin association!!

no suprise as far as OMSA http://www.offshoremarine.org/ is concerned it has always been an "association" by and for the companies..I once e-mailed them mainly for S&Gs to inquire if they were interested in what individual mariners had to say and if they might allow individual membership..they never responded..go figure??

other alternatives are NMA http://nationalmariners.org/ and MTVA http://www.mtvassociation.com/index.html ..both are great ideas that have in the past proven to be not very effective..they will welcome you membership and your money though!!

the unions are awfull quiet regarding this as well??

all this is probably just a "chicken little" over reaction??

myself..like another poster on here plan on doing alot of fishing!!

I also don't thibk this is going to change much. The Jones Act still applies and as MOST US vessels are in fact engaged in Jones Act trade those jobs (the vast majority) are "safe". I dunno about those deep-sea MSP ships, but they are all union manned vessels as far as I l know, so those jobs are also "safe".

As I read the proposed changes, it seems this is something that would mostly apply in cases such as using a US flagged OSV in foreign waters (Brazil, Africa, Asia) and while the master (perhaps the CE as well?) might be American the seamen might be local nationals while the vessel is on charter overseas. I have in fact heard of several such arrangements from having worked a bit down in the GOM myself.

The upside to this is that foreign equivalency for USCG issued MMC's should also be much easier for any US mariners that would like to have foreign endorsements (Panama anybody?).

I sure hope more mariners do indeed post comments to these proposed changes, as it's our right to do so. But the same can also be said about voting and look at how many US Merchant Mariners actually supported and voted for Mr. Mc Cain who's the same guy that has been gunning for the Jones Act for years and that (the repeal of the Jones Act) would be a far swifter death to the US Merchant Marine than these proposed rule changes by the USCG in regards to US endorsement of foreign STCW certs (I just want to make sure I can now get Panamanian, Liberian and Bahamian endorsements as well).

[anchorman]

SaltySailor,
You're about the only one that is making sense here. Fortunately, the Coast Guard has thought about this as well, and most of the complaints and/or comments that have been posted are pretty much disinformation that will not apply. Because of that, each and everyone will just be on the record for that sake only. I hate to say it, but it's true.

[Steamer]

The upside to this is that foreign equivalency for USCG issued MMC's should also be much easier for any US mariners that would like to have foreign endorsements (Panama anybody?).

It is not difficult now, it has not been difficult before now, and nothing the USCG or anyone else does to eliminate US officers on US ships will make it easier in the future. The wording on that NPRM is very cleverly crafted so as to lead people who know little about the "system" to believe it is simply an administrative "correction." Regardless of what a few apologists and industry sycophants want you to believe, it is a knife in the back of the American mariner.

The only "upside" to this accrues to shipping companies that will not have to pay retirement, training, or medical costs for employees. The US is the only industrialized nation that does not provide those social benefits to its citizens. Your replacement's salary will not reflect those costs, and he will not pay income tax or social security either so he is dirt cheap compared to you. Who do you think is the preferred employee?

If you want a foreign certificate of equivalent competency, or an endorsement all you have to do is fill out the application and send your money. The only one I have found to be difficult is the Mongolian chief engineer's ticket since you have to be employed on a Mongolian flag ship to apply ... and I'm in no hurry to do that. But, at the rate things are going, I will probably be working with folks who have one.

[Steamer]

... most of the complaints and/or comments that have been posted are pretty much disinformation that will not apply. Because of that, each and everyone will just be on the record for that sake only. I hate to say it, but it's true.

Well, anchorman, you have the floor. Rather than just chiming in once in a while to tell us all how wrong we are, how about telling us how right the NPRM is. Please describe the benefits that will accrue to US licensed mariners. Tell us how this will improve our careers and enhance our standard of living. Tell us how the US merchant marine will prosper under the benevolent oversight of the USCG with input from the patriots at OMSA and their ilk.

If all you can do is tell those of us who see this as a serious threat that we are wrong then save your breath, if you have nothing to contribute you are simply wasting bandwidth. If you can make a good argument for the proposed rule change then have at it, this is about as close as any of us will ever get to the "bully pulpit" and I, for one, am waiting to hear the other side.