End of the year MSIB

**Flyer69** · December 31st, 2011, 05:21 AM

Was surfing to the USCG NMC site, and saw this notice:
http://www.uscg.mil/nmc/announcement...0MSIB%2027.pdf

Tried to find what they were talking about on the regulation.gov website, but no luck.
Just curious what they are publishing "late on December 30, 2011" ??

**Capt Leigh** · December 31st, 2011, 11:31 AM

Isn't that absolutely up to the high standards that we all have come to depend on.......
Looks like they forgot to post it before taking the holiday, though they go into affect tomorrow !
Really makes you proud

**DVanNevel** · January 3rd, 2012, 05:48 AM

2011-33818.pdf Is a copy of the document available for public inspection on the Federal Register website. Not sure why it isn't showing up on regulations.gov.

**Capt Leigh** · January 3rd, 2012, 12:44 PM

Thanks for the link that works, interesting stuff.A friend talked to Mayte Medina this morning, and Ms. Medina says that there is no date for implementation of the final rules, and that if they did know the date they would not release it.Ms Medina says that she is the person of contact concerning the international regs. And that Mr. Luke Harden is the POC for domestic regs. I have never heard her name mentioned previously.I really expected them to publish something late last year, or very early this year.....Or perhaps we will encounter a supplemental supplemental notice to proposed rule making !;o)

**Flyer69** · January 3rd, 2012, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Capt Leigh

Ms. Medina says that there is no date for implementation of the final rules, and that if they did know the date they would not release it.

Its stuff like this that really chaps my ass.
Why would they feel they have to keep this a secret.
The administrators that make the rules have their jobs to do, but why cant there be co-operation with the people their policies affect? Instead of bullcrap like this?
I understand we need to have rules and regulations. Mariners should follow the rules and regulations. But, mariners are the ones out there working to produce the income and resultant tax revenue that is then used to pay the salaries of these administrators that feel the need to keep things a secret? What gives?

**jdcavo** · January 4th, 2012, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Flyer69

Its stuff like this that really chaps my ass.
Why would they feel they have to keep this a secret.
The administrators that make the rules have their jobs to do, but why cant there be co-operation with the people their policies affect? Instead of bullcrap like this?
I understand we need to have rules and regulations. Mariners should follow the rules and regulations. But, mariners are the ones out there working to produce the income and resultant tax revenue that is then used to pay the salaries of these administrators that feel the need to keep things a secret? What gives?

You're reacting to a second hand account of someone else's phone conversation (in legal terms, hearsay (times two) that is not admissible in court as it is unrelaible).

I would be extremely surprised if Ms. Medina actually said we "would not release it" instead of saying that we "COULD not release it." The Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S. Code Section 551 et seq.)) prohibits discussing rulemaking that is pending, proposed, or under development. If we feel "a need to keep things secret" it's because the law compels us to.

**cappy208** · January 4th, 2012, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by jdcavo

The Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S. Code Section 551 et seq.)) prohibits discussing rulemaking that is pending, proposed, or under development. If we feel "a need to keep things secret" it's because the law compels us to.

Funny doublespeak.

You discuss it in house, to further YOUR (USCG) aims. When in conference with certain stakeholders (wink wink) it is OK to discuss, but when outside your enclave 'mums the word', huh? Another fine mess you've gotten us into Ollie!

You must be a lawyer. You are speaking more and more like one. Too bad.

Hey: Did you hear the story about the plane full of lawyers that got hijacked?

The hijackers say they want 100,000,000 dollars ransom.

Or they are going to start throwing out one lawyer an hour.

**DVanNevel** · January 4th, 2012, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by cappy208

Funny doublespeak.

You discuss it in house, to further YOUR (USCG) aims.

Of course the CG discusses it in house. How else would the rule be written? Do you really think one person could write a rule? If you don't like the law, write your Congressional Representative and have it changed. If you have proof that people are violating the law, then you should provide that to your Representative too.

**BMCSRetired** · January 4th, 2012, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by cappy208

Funny doublespeak.

Cappy, settle down. He is not the enemy.
Mr. Cavo is doing his job AND educating us. Government is frustrating from the outside and just as bad from the inside.

**jdcavo** · January 4th, 2012, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by cappy208

... You must be a lawyer. You are speaking more and more like one. Too bad...

EX-lawyer. The "et seq." is a dead give away.

Originally Posted by cappy208

...Hey: Did you hear the story about the plane full of lawyers that got hijacked?...

No, but I have heard "What do you call a crash of a plane full of lawyers (a good start). Or the "good news/bad news" variation of it ("What's the bad news? There was an empty seat.") And also the lawsuit between and Heaven and Hell ("oh yeah, where you gonna find a lawyer?") or the shark and the lawyer ("professional courtesy") and the difference between a catfish and a lawyer (".. and the other's a fish") and why lawyers are better than lab rats...

**Flyer69** · January 4th, 2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by jdcavo

You're reacting to a second hand account of someone else's phone conversation (in legal terms, hearsay (times two) that is not admissible in court as it is unrelaible).

I would be extremely surprised if Ms. Medina actually said we "would not release it" instead of saying that we "COULD not release it." The Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S. Code Section 551 et seq.)) prohibits discussing rulemaking that is pending, proposed, or under development. If we feel "a need to keep things secret" it's because the law compels us to.

Good points.
Thanks for having patience and retaining your sense of humor when frustration gets the best of us.

**cappy208** · January 4th, 2012, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by DVanNevel

Of course the CG discusses it in house. How else would the rule be written?

I was specifically referring to the stakeholders 'wink wink' involved in NPRM, and SNPRMs who DO discuss this with the case officer (or civilian as it may be) I have been involved in three NPRM's and you guess who's point invariably wins out. Yup. USCG. Rarely does outside influence/intelligence or experience get a fair weight. Industry (AWO, Intertanko) have a HUGE say.

**Swampfox** · January 4th, 2012, 12:12 PM

Mr. Cavo is the man. He does us all a huge favor being on gCaptain by answering the hard questions.

He certainly doesn't need me defending him, I'm just saying...

Sent from my SeaPhone using gCaptain

**Capt Leigh** · January 4th, 2012, 05:35 PM

Ok, now as of today January 4th, there is an Info bulletin on Homeport with a link that works to the Federal Register's outline of the 2010 amendments concerning hours of rest and security training.Although it states that it still must be published in the CFR's before it becomes regulation, I suppose this is a required step for some reason.Obviously still no word on when the full implementation will be.......Sounding more and more like we can expect a Suplemental Suplemental Notice to Proposed Rulemaking, or perhaps it is just taking a while to organize and address all the comments to the current SNPRM....