Looking Ahead

As I approach retirement, I thought it would serve me well to do some preparatory planning so that the physical and emotional transition from the work-a-day routine to retirement was not too severe and stressful to my psyche. So, for the past year, I have tried desperately to ease myself, mentally, physically and emotionally, into a more relaxed, laid back routine. I am happy to share my dreams and experience with my friends at OMSA who also find themselves nearing retirement. So, listen up, and sniff the roses, amigos.

When you enter the domain of retirement, if you are lucky, your loyal companion in life, your dear wife, will be by your side, a critical and reliable partner, as always, in your future years in la-la land. But, know this. Both you and she, out of necessity, will be facing significant changes in your lifestyle and it is important that you, as I did, recognize that your wife, as she has grown older, may not adapt to this new life style with the same attitude with which you or I might approach retirement. Let me share with you how I, during this secret “trial retirement period” over the past year have handled the situation.

When I began my “retirement experiment” a year ago, it became necessary for me to find my wife Joan a full-time job, both for extra income and for health insurance benefits that we will need to maintain. My wife had been a first class executive secretary when we met fifty some years ago. Though she was a little rusty, I was very fortunate to land her a job. But, it was shortly after she started working at this job that I noticed that she was beginning to feel and show her age.

I usually got home from fishing or hunting about the same time she got home from work. Although she knew how hungry I was, she almost always said that she had to rest for half an hour or so after work before she could start supper. I tried not to yell at her when that happened. This is important, guys. Trust me. I always told her to take her time. I understood that she was not as young and spry as she used to be. I just told her to wake me when she finally did get supper on the table. The problem did end not there, however. Before, she used to wash and dry the dishes as soon as we finished eating. Then I noticed she began to let them sit on the table or in the sink for several hours after supper. I did what I could to stabilize what was evidently becoming a serious deterioration in home service habits by reminding her several times each evening that the dishes weren’t cleaning themselves. I know she appreciated this, as it seemed to motivate her to get them done before she went to bed though I noticed that more and more dishes tended to wind up getting broken.

Nevertheless, it is important not to get to lax in these situations. We have a large house with several bedrooms and two baths upstairs. When she was younger, Joan used to be able to go up and down the stairs all day and not get tired. Now that she is older, she seems to get tired much more quickly. Some days, she would tell me she just could not make another trip up and down those steps. Now, I simply did not make a big issue of this. As long as she finished the cleaning upstairs and did the laundry the next evening, I was willing to overlook it. Not only that, but unless I needed something ironed to wear to an OMSA meeting or to Wednesday’s or Saturday’s Boure game, or to Tuesday’s or Thursday’s bowling or something like that, I’d always tell her to wait until the next night to do the ironing. This gave her a little more time to do some of those miscellaneous things like shampooing the dog, vacuuming, or dusting. Also, if I had had a really good day fishing, this would allow her to gut and scale the fish at a more leisurely pace. You have to take your time to avoid leaving bones in those filets.

Unfortunately, Joan eventually started to complain a little. Not often, mind you, but just enough for me to notice. For example, she would say that it was difficult for her to find time to pay the monthly bills during her lunch hour at the office. In spite of her whining, I continued to try to offer her encouragement. I would tell her to stretch it our over two or even three days. That way she wouldn’t have to rush so much. I also reminded her that missing lunch completely now and then wouldn’t hurt her any, if you know what I mean.

When doing simple jobs she seemed to think she needed more rest periods than she used to have to take. For example, a couple of months ago, she said she had to take a break when she was only half finished mowing the yard. Jeez! I tried to overlook comments like these because I realized it was probably just her age talking. In fact, I tried to not embarrass her when she needed these little extra rest breaks. I would tell her to fix herself a nice, big, cold glass of freshly squeezed lemonade and just sit for a while. Of course, I would tell her that as long as she was making one for herself, she might as well make one for me and take her break by the hammock so she could sit and talk with me until I fell asleep.

I could go on and on, but I think you know where I am coming from. And, No one knows better than I do how frustrating women can become, as they get older I know that I probably look like a saint in the way I have supported – and still support my good wife, Joan, on a daily basis. I’m not saying that the ability to show this much consideration is easy, and the fact is, many of you guys will find it too damned difficult to spend this much time and effort during your retirement coddling your wives, no matter how much they deserve it. In fact, some of you low class pond scum will probably find it impossible.

But my purpose in writing this is simply to suggest that you make the effort. (I realize that achieving the exemplary level of marital sensitivity and consideration that I have attained is out of reach for the average man). If, because of this article and the wisdom it embodies, you yell at your wife just a little less often during your retirement, I will consider that writing it and sharing my experience with you was worthwhile.

Since my retirement “experiment” is working out so well, as you can probably discern, I am really optimistic and looking forward, as is my wife, to my full retirement, which looms just ahead.

Editors Note: The above is a piece of pure fiction, written by Mr. Alario while he was under the influence of heavy medication. Experts in the field of retirement recognize this as (RMCS), “the retirement male chauvinist syndrome.” Those who know his wife are confident this virtual fantasy will never be realized, and that Mr. Alario may never know retirement, in fact, as he may not survive the publication of this article. Pray for him. This man is seriously delusional.

YOU OMSA FISHERMEN (OOPS – FISHERPERSONS) and Duck Hunters MAY BE INTERESTED…

During the recent OMSA Cajun Tropics Fishing Rodeo, we learned that there is a PRIME Repeat – PRIME – fishing and hunting ground and camp with extensive assets available for sale in the Leeville area, adjacent to the Fourchon property, on the Grand Isle side of the Fourchon entrance road. The lease involves approx. 1100 acres; the camp has three bedrooms (sleeps 9-11) has 2 separate baths, kitchen and dining area, entertainment room, back screened porch, outside covered porch, boat stalls, cabana, boat lift and three storage sheds. (Electricity provided by Entergy and water by Lafourche Parish Water District.

There is a yearly camp lease (with Greater Lafourche Port Commission) and a yearly hunting/fishing lease with LL&E). If you are interested, call OMSA (Mitzi Ray or Bob Alario).

OMSA
1ST ANNUAL LONE STAR MEMBERSHIP DRIVE

OMSA will hold its 1st Annual Lone Star State membership drive and golf tournament, Thursday, October 3rd at the BLACKHORSE Golf Club in Cypress, Texas (approximately 20 minutes from Houston). This first tournament will be open to OMSA members and non-members. An OMSA member who brings a guest (non-OMSA member) to play in the tournament and that guest joins OMSA before December 31st will be reimbursed the golf entry fee of the member.

Hotel Headquarters for the event will be the Sheraton Houston Brookhollow, 3000 North Loop West, Houston, TX 77092 (at Loop 610 and Highway 290, equidistant between Bush Intercontinental and Hobby Airports). OMSA Room rate is $85 for classic single/double rooms available from October 2nd thru October 4th. Please make your reservations by calling 1-800-688-3000 or 713-688-0100 by September 16, 2002.

Join us for a TEXAS STYLE BBQ to kick off our four man scramble tournament at 1:00 PM. Mulligans will be available for both the front and back nine. Awards will be held immediately after scores are available and tabulated.

If you are interested in sponsorships, providing ditty bag items or volunteering to help, please contact Mitzi Ray at (504) 734-7622 or mitzi@offshoremarine.org.

LOCATION:
Blackhorse Golf Club
12205 Fry Road
Cypress, TX 77433
PH: (281) 304-1747

LUNCH: 11:00 AM – 12:45

TEE TIME: 1:00 PM

GOLF FEE: $175 per duffer (includes green fee, food,beverages, drawing prize eligibility)

DRESS CODE: No jeans or cut-off shorts. Collared shirts or sport shirts are required. Also, this is a spikeless shoe facility. Inform your guests!

TO ACCESS THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION ON LEGISLATION LISTED IN THIS SECTION GO TO THE THOMAS LEGISLATIVE WEB PAGE AT HTTP://THOMAS.LOC.GOV/ AND ENTER THE BILL NUMBER IN THE ARTICLE

The Governor has signed a major maritime sales tax relief measure passed by the legislature without opposition. On May 30, Representative John Alario, (not the genius that works for OMSA, another genius) co-author of the measure, brought the bill to the House floor, where it passed 102-0. The move surprised both opponents and supporters, who had expected the bill to come up the following week. Representative Alario, one of the most experienced members of the legislature, correctly decided that bringing the bill up early would catch any potential opponents off guard. The bill had already passed the Senate without opposition and was signed by the Governor June 26th. The measure contains two provisions which have the effect of reversing State Supreme Court measures which had restricted sales and user tax exemptions for the maritime industry.

In the first ruling, the court had ruled that vessels which operate solely within the boundaries of Louisiana, such as fleet boats and ship-assist tugs, are not engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and, therefore, are not eligible for sales tax exemptions on purchases of fuel, supplies or repair services. The bill passed by the legislature clarifies state law to restore the exemption to these locally operated vessels.

The second court ruling would have restricted the current state sales tax exemption on new vessel purchases by forcing purchasers to pay tax on much of the component equipment added to the vessel. In other words, the vessel would have been exempt from sales tax, but equipment such as fire extinguishers, galley furnishings and other "non-essential" equipment would have been taxable. The legislature clarified state law to restore the exemption for equipment used in the normal course of operating the vessel.

The bill passed largely as the result of hard work by the shallow draft vessel and OMSA member shipbuilding community in the state. AWO, working in conjunction with the Louisiana Association of Waterways Operators and Shipyards (LAWS) and the Greater New Orleans Barge Fleeting Association, helped build a coalition of some 80 companies. Participants hired one of the top lobbyists in Baton Rouge, engaged in an intensive grassroots lobbying effort and packed hearing rooms for every hearing. For additional information or a copy of the bill go to the Louisiana Legislative web site http://www.legis.state.la.us/archive/02rs/02rs.htm and enter SB62 and SB70.

Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-LA), has been chosen to chair what is anticipated to be a lengthy and complex conference on comprehensive energy legislation (H.R. 4). Members are encouraged to track the progress of the legislation and send support to Congressman Tauzin.

The Senate and House recently appointed conferees to the pending conference on maritime security legislation. The conferees will work through the many differences between the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001 (S. 1214, as passed by the Senate on December 20, 2001), and the Maritime Transportation Antiterrorism Act of 2002 (S. 1214, as amended and passed by the House on June 4, see below). Also expected to be considered in the conference is Senator John Breaux's (D-LA) Ship, Seafarer and Container Security Act (S. 2329) article below. S. 2329 was approved by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on May 17 and is awaiting consideration by the full Senate. Senator Breaux has stated that his intent is to try to incorporate the bill in any House-Senate conference report on maritime security.

The Senate Commerce Committee last Friday signed off on S. 2329, the Ship, Seafarer and Container Security Act, a measure designed to provide better information about shipping and maritime threats, to allow better tracking of vessels and to provide a more secure marine environment. This legislation, introduced by Senators John Breaux (D-La.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), would require certain vessels to carry transponders and would require the Transportation Department to negotiate an international agreement in two years or to submit legislation to Congress to identify seafarers through a uniform identification system, provide greater transparency of vessel ownership, mandate stronger standards for containers, including anti-tampering and locking systems, and provide for better assessments of risks posed by certain vessels. Senator Breaux intends to add these provisions to legislation already passed by the Senate (S. 1214) when House-Senate conferees meet. House legislation (H.R. 3983) has been approved by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is scheduled to be considered on the House floor the week of June 3rd.
Bill Transferring Coast Guard to Homeland Security Department Approved.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure adopted an amended version of the Maritime Transportation Antiterrorism Act of 2002 (H.R. 3983). The measure also includes provisions from the Coast Guard Authorization Act.
Following is a summary of selected portions of the measure.

• USCG Jurisdiction and Authority. The Coast Guard will have statutory authority to require that advance notices of arrival be electronically submitted at least 96 hours prior to arrival. It will have broad authority to deny entry of a vessel for non-compliance with laws relating to marine safety, security, or environmental protection. The agency will have broad authority to direct vessel movement as necessary during hazardous circumstances (which is also broadly defined). Coast Guard authority to control vessels under the Espionage Act of 1917 will be expanded out to 12 miles from shore and a civil penalty provision will buttress the existing criminal penalty. Application of the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act would be extended out to 12 miles from shore.
  
• Port Security. The Secretary will be directed to conduct facility vulnerability assessments of major U.S. ports. He will also prepare a National Maritime Transportation Antiterrorism Plan (which seems to resemble the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan). The Coast Guard will then prepare Area Maritime Transportation Antiterrorism Plans (which seem to resemble Area Contingency Plans). Vessels and facilities that the Secretary believes may be involved in a catastrophic emergency will be required to prepare and submit antiterrorism plans (which seem to resemble tank vessel and facility response plans). The latter plans would require designation of a qualified individual to implement the plan and the availability, by contract or other approved means, of antiterrorism measures necessary to deter a catastrophic emergency.
  
• Cargo Security. The Under Secretary would be required to develop an antiterrorism cargo identification, tracking, and screening system for containerized cargo. He would also be required to develop performance standards to enhance the physical security of shipping containers, including standards for seals and locks. Vessels required to make entry under the customs laws would be required to electronically submit cargo information to the Secretary.
  
• Personnel Security. Transportation security cards would be required for individuals to enter an area of a vessel or facility designated as secure in an applicable antiterrorism plan. The Secretary would be charged with issuing transportation security cards to individuals unless they pose a terrorism security risk. For U.S. citizens, this largely means denial of such a card if the person has been convicted of a felony that could be a terrorism security risk. For non-U.S. citizens, this means persons who would be denied admission to the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act or otherwise pose a terrorism security risk.
  
• Foreign Port Assessments. The Secretary would be charged with assessing the antiterrorism measures at major foreign ports with respect to such things as screening of containerized and other cargo, access restrictions, vessel security, certification of compliance with security measures, and security management. For foreign ports found to not maintain effective antiterrorism measures, the Secretary would be authorized to prescribe conditions for entry into the U.S. of vessels arriving from the port or carrying cargo originating from or transshipped from that port.
  
• Vessel Security. In addition to preparation of the vessel antiterrorism plan and submittal of cargo information, operators would be required to electronically transmit passenger and crew manifests. Vessels subject to the Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1208), plus a few others, would be required to be equipped with an automatic identification system (AIS). The AIS requirement would be phased in.
  
• Miscellaneous Provisions. Maritime liens could be recorded with the Coast Guard with respect to any U.S. documented vessel, not just those with a recorded mortgage. The Coast Guard's emergency spending authority for oil spill response would be increased from $50 million to $100 million. The Coast Guard would be authorized to issue interim merchant mariner documents to certain individuals. New maritime user fees would be prohibited through 2006. Harbor safety committees would be enhanced and expanded. The Secretary would be required to develop a list of U.S. vessels capable of laying, maintaining, or repairing submarine cable. Only a vessel of the United States would be permitted, in U.S. waters, to perform vessel escort operations or towing assistance. The provision that commercial instruments filed electronically with the Coast Guard lose their effectiveness if the original instrument is not filed within 10 days thereafter would be deleted.

There is so much legislation and regulation in the pipeline relative to maritime and/or homeland security that it is practically impossible to follow it all. We will do our best and keep our members posted.

Our industry like all others is controlled by a myriad of Federal, State and Local law, regulation, policy and past practice. In this article I will give a short primer on how the Federal government does it. The controlling authority for all Federal government action is the law. Congress enacts laws for its various purposes. The law is sometimes very specific and sometimes general or even purposefully vague. The law is generally found in the United States Code. To implement the intent of Congress Federal Agencies publish regulations. While regulations should conform with the intent of Congress, in actuality they may reflect the needs or desires of the implementing agency. Regulations that implement the controlling law are found in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) for us business is more complex than the law or regulations can anticipate. To respond to the needs of industry (or the regulating agency) agencies create policy the “fill in the blanks”, to respond to unanticipated needs and to provide agency personnel with daily operating guidelines. In the case of the Coast Guard this guidance can be found in the form of the Marine Safety Manual (MSM). Unfortunately (or fortunately) for us the manual can not cover every circumstance, so to “fill in the blanks” the Coast Guard created Navigation Vessel Inspection Circulars (NVIC) to cover the gaps in the Marine Safety Manual. Unfortunately (or fortunately) NVIC’s don’t cover every business possibility. So the various branches of Coast Guard headquarters issued national policy letters. The National Maritime Center issues policy letters concerning licensing and certification of mariners, the Marine Safety Center issues policy for the design and admeasurement of vessels and so on. All of this; law, regulation, MSM, NVIC and national policy letters can not cover every eventuality, so the various Coast Guard District Offices (we’re located in the Eighth Coast Guard District) issue district-wide policy and finally local Coast Guard Marine Safety Offices issues local policy.

In short Congress enacts legislation and agencies publish regulations to implement the legislation. In the case of the Coast Guard the Marine Safety Manual (MSM) was created to interpret the law and regulation. The Coast Guard then issues NVIC’s to explain the MSM. Then they issue national policy letters to further explain the NVIC’s. Then they issue District policies to explain the national policies and finally local policies to explain the district policies. So when you get frustrated by the fact that you don’t seem to be able to get a straight answer, you’ll know why.

Thanks to computer technology you can access most Federal law, regulation and policy on the internet. Many states have also created web sites detailing state law and regulation. While there are a number of sites that give you access to the U.S. Code, our favorite starting spot is the Government Printing Office Internet Portal at www.access.gpo.gov. Simply click on the US Code, Code of Federal Regulations or Federal Register Quick Link and then the Browse button to be connected to a listing of all current volumes of the US Code, Code of Federal Regulations or Federal Register.

You can access most Coast Guard National information or policy through their Marine Safety Index at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/index.htm. The Marine Safety Center site is http://www.uscg.mil/hq/msc, and the National Maritime Center site is http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g%2Dm/nmc/web/index.htm. For Eighth Coast Guard District marine safety information or policy their web address is http://www.uscg.mil/d8/Divs/M/ccgd8M.htm. We strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the sites and their content.

Countries around the world (including the U.S.) have announced that they will strictly enforce the provisions of STCW ’95 when the agreed upon international grace period ends on August 1st. The United States, the Paris and Tokyo MOU Committees are the latest to have confirmed that when the IMO's period of grace ends on 1 August the provisions of the new STCW95 Convention will be strictly enforced by port States in the Regions. Ships issued with Letters of Warning since the Convention came into force in February 2002 will be given priority for inspection, but all ships inspected will be expected to comply.

In a moving ceremony conducted at the Southern Yacht Club, Admiral Stephen Rochon was relieved as Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard’s largest Marine Safety Unit by Captain Ronald W. Branch. Captain Branch received his commission from the Officer Candidate School in July 1979. He was originally assigned to USCG Headquarters, Officer of Reserve. In 1983 he was assigned to the Marine Safety Office Port Arthur, TX where he served as a Marine Inspector and later, as the Assistant Chief, Port Operations. Following his next assignment at the former Second Coast Guard District in St. Louis, MO, he reported to Marine Safety Office St. Louis, MO. In November 1990 Captain Branch was assigned to Temporary Duty in the Netherlands and Belgium to perform marine inspections on vessels supporting the buildup of forces for Operation Desert Shield. In January of 1991 he reported to Coast Guard Forces Middle East on board the USS LASALLE in Manama, Bahrain for Operation Desert Storm. There he served on the Multinational Maritime Interception Force enforcing the United Nations embargo against the country of Iraq.

Captain Branch returned to duty as the Chief of Vessel Inspections for MSO St. Louis where he was responsible for the inspection and certification of the first riverboat gambling vessels on the Mississippi River. During this tour of duty, he also served as the Operations Officer for Commander, Coast Guard Forces St. Louis in response to the Great Flood of 1993. He coordinated operational activities of over 900 active duty, reserve, and auxiliary personnel in Search and Rescue, flood protection and relief operations. Captain Branch has also served as Executive Officer, MSO Paducah, KY and Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Office, Cleveland, OH. Most recently, he served as Chief, Marine Operations and Compliance for the Ninth Coast Guard District where he was assigned Maritime Security responsibilities for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway System.

Captain Branch was born in Tulsa, OK. He earned his Bachelor of Science degree from Oklahoma State University and his MBA from Ashland University of Ohio.

OMSA hears routinely about difficulties and/or delays in processing of mariner’s applications for documents at regional REC’s, including REC NOLA. Some complaints about the REC’s are valid. Many times, however, we have met the enemy and “they is us.”

• Applications. If application is not completed, the application will be returned for correction. Three signatures are mandatory: Section III (Have you ever…? questions), Section V (consent of National Driver Registry check), and Section VI (application certification). Also when the “Applying for:” block is left blank or is incomplete the REC is left to guess what you want.
  
• Drug screen. A drug screen is often rejected because it does not contain the Medical Review Officer’s (MRO) signature, is a photocopy, or a company compliance letter is not written to meet the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations, title 46, part 16, section 220.
  
• Photographs. Merchant Mariner Documents (MMD) and STCW certificates cannot be printed without a photograph. Two passport size photos are needed when applying for a STCW or MMD, with the additional requirement of a thumbprint for a MMD (camera setup sheet).
  
• Physical Exam. If the Merchant Marine Personnel Physical Examination or Certification Report is not complete it will be returned for correction. Particular attention is paid to the competent, not competent, and needs further review boxes, which are frequently blank. Often the type of color vision exam given in section IV not indicated, or mariners who wear glasses and/or contacts submit exams without their uncorrected vision listed in section III.
  
• Original Certificates. Photocopies of essential documents, even if notarized, are not accepted. Only original signature, those signed by the issuing authority (such as course completion certificates) or official custodian (such as birth certificates), documents are acceptable. Original certificates will be returned when the evaluation is completed and the REC mails the newly issued credentials to the applicant.
  
• User Fees. No or incorrect fees are included with the application. Licensing user fees changed as of October 4, 1999. Current fees are published in the most recent Code of Federal Regulations, title 46, part 10, section 109.
  
• Current or Past License, Document, and/or STCW. A mariner who is holding, or has held, a license, MMD, and/or STCW certificate who does not indicate it in the history, section II, of the application or does not include a copy of their credentials (front and back) with the application package. This especially applies for renewals, and mariners with past transactions at other RECs.
  
• Sea Service. Missing or conflicting information on the sea service letter such as: not including tonnage or horsepower, the position listed does not agree with other documents in the application package, or conflicting waters. Service should be documented with: discharges, letters from marine employers, or small boat sea service forms. If a small boat service form is used, it must be certified and signed by the owner, or proof of individual ownership is required.
  
• Written Statement. If an applicant marks “Yes” in any block of Section III, a statement is required. Note that all questions begin with “Have you ever…” includes all past convictions, even ones that may have already been disclosed. Simply stating “on file” will not suffice, statements should include the what, when, where, and penalties assessed for each incident and if it has already been disclosed to the REC and if there have been any new incidents since. Even if all the information is there, the statement must be signed and dated by the applicant.
  
• Medical Condition. Additional medical information is required whenever a medical condition is identified on the Merchant Marine Personnel Physical Examination Report.

Source: CWO Lloyd Gorman, USCG REC New Orleans

We recommend that our companies (who are not already doing so) may want to attach this poop sheet to work applications distributed to those seeking employment or applying for documents.

The Coast Guard is currently investigating two recent sinkings, one involving an Offshore Supply Vessel and one involving a commercial fishing vessel. Preliminary findings have identified a breach in watertight integrity as a possible contributing factor to the both sinkings. Both incidents involved progressive down flooding of the engine rooms and other below deck compartments. In the case of the OSV, the aft exhaust stack doors appeared to have been left open. Heavy rainsqualls caused standing water on the aft deck, which entered the engine room through these open doors. Additional water intruded through these open stack doors as the vessel rolled in heavy seas. Progressive down flooding occurred. The situation on the OSV may have been exacerbated when a crewmember opened the hallway door to the engine room, thus initiating progressive flooding into many forward compartments. The vessel eventually capsized and sank.

Due to the events of 9/11 Coast Guard officers must personally check the identification of all candidates for licenses or documents. All applicants will be required to meet with a designated official who will examine and verify the candidates’ identification and administer the oath if necessary. Applications can still be mailed to the regional exam center for processing but they shall only be mailed by the designated official after the identification check. Prior to contacting one of the designated officials listed below, contact the Regional Exam Center so that they may inform the designated official to expect your call.

MSU BATON ROUGE
YN1 Rebecca Simer (225) 298-5400

MSD CINCINNATI
LCDR Bob Bowen at 513-921-9033.

MSO CORPUS CHRISTI
YN1 Frank Garcia (361) 888-3162
LT Robert Helton (361) 888-3162

MSU GALVESTON
BM1 Thomas Johnson (409) 766-5411
LT Robert Compher (409) 766-5424

MSU HOUMA
LT Richard W. Singley 985-851-1692
LTJG Edward A. Kesler 985-851-1692

MSO HUNTINGTON
LT Dave Sandahl (304) 529-5524 X104
LCDR Steve Wischmann X103

MSU LAKE CHARLES
LCDR Bruce Graham (337) 433-3765

MSO LOUISVILLE
LCDR Paul Mehler III (502) 582-5194 ext.41

MSO MOBILE
LT Collin Fagan 251-441-5683
ENS David Uhl 251-441-5997

MSO MORGAN CITY
LCDR Bill Drelling 985/380-5340
LT Scott Olson (985) 380-5371

MSO PITTSBURGH
LT Ulysses S. Mullins (412) 644-5808 x107
LTJG Thomas A. Ottenwaelder (412) 644-5808 X108
CWO Richard G. Smith (412) 644-5808 X109

MSO PORT ARTHUR
CWO2 Robert Russell (409) 723-6509 ext 251

MSU St. LOUIS
Mr. Jim Blum (314) 539-3091 ext. 260

The Coast Guard is seeking applications for appointment to membership on the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC). MERPAC provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard on matters related to the training, qualification, licensing, certification, and fitness of seamen serving in the U.S. merchant marine. The application form is also available on the Internet . Please submit applications on or before August 30, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Brian J. Peter, Executive Director of MERPAC, or Mr. Mark C. Gould, Assistant to the Executive Director, telephone 202-267-0229, fax 202-267-4570. The Coast Guard will consider applications for seven positions that expire or become vacant in January 2003. It needs applicants with one or more of the following backgrounds to fill the positions:

(a) Licensed deck officer;
(b) Managerial employee of a shipping company;
(c) Licensed engineer;
(d) Member of the public;
(e) Unlicensed member of the engine department; and
(f) Two marine educators.

Each member serves for a term of three years. No member may serve more than two consecutive three-year terms. MERPAC members serve without compensation from the Federal Government; however, they do receive travel reimbursement and per diem. In support of the policy of the Department of Transportation on gender and ethnic diversity, the Coast Guard encourages applications from qualified women and members of minority groups. If you are selected as a member who represents the general public, the Coast Guard will require you to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). Neither the report nor the information it contains may be released to the public, except under an order issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act [5 U.S.C. 552a].

The Coast Guard frequently issues interpretations of its regulations using a document called a Navigation Vessel Inspection Circular or NVIC (pronounced Navic). NVIC’s cover a range of issues dealing with vessel inspection, manning, licensing, port and facility safety and security. NVIC’s have been published since the 1950’s, with the oldest NVIC still on the books issued in 1956. You can read all of the active NVIC’s and get a subject index at www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nvic. Since our last newsletter the Coast Guard has issued three new NVIC’s with the most important being 06-02 discussed next in this section. Vessel and port facility managers should check these out on a regular basis for new interpretations of the regulations.

On May 20, 2002, the Coast Guard issued Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 6-02, 2000 Amendments to SOLAS Chapter II-2. This circular provides information for the application of the amendments to SOLAS vessels. Unless otherwise indicated in the document, the guidance, which is directed at USCG inspectors, applies to all SOLAS ships, regardless of flag. The amendments come into force for new ships on July 1, 2002. Several of the amendments are retroactive and apply to existing ships.

Significant new requirements include:

• A new Part E has been added that includes regulations for the operational readiness of fire protection systems.
• New requirements have been added to regulation 13 for emergency escape breathing devices (EEBDs) on most new and existing ships.
• Regulation 10 will require fixed local-application extinguishing systems to protect high hazard areas in the engine rooms of most ships in addition to the required area-wide fire extinguishing systems.
• SOLAS 2000 now includes a performance-based option that permits the use of engineering evaluations to justify ship specific alternative design and arrangements in lieu of complying with the prescriptive regulations.

There are five enclosures to the NVIC:

• Enclosure (1) discusses the regulations in the 2000 Amendments that apply to existing vessels.
• Enclosure (2) discusses EEBDs and USCG policy for implementation of the new requirements on U.S. flag vessels.
• Enclosure (3) reproduces new SOLAS regulation 17 for alternative design and arrangements.
• Enclosure (4) is IMO's MSC/Circ. 1002 containing guidance on the use and application of regulation 17. Enclosure (5) is a cross-reference list that shows where the SOLAS 1997 regulations appear in SOLAS 2000 and the Fire Safety Systems Code.

The NVIC can be accessed on the Coast Guard web site at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nvic/.

RADM Rochon will serve as the Secretary's National Security Advisor, analyzing, developing and coordinating departmental and national policies addressing national defense, border security, and transportation infrastructure assurance and protection issues. He will represent the Secretary at National Security Council (NSC) and the Executive Office of the President (EOP) forums to advance DOT's national security and national defense capabilities and interests. Admiral Rochon, as he did for the men and women of the Coast Guard throughout his distinguished career provide leadership throughout DOT in promoting cooperative efforts to enhance the secure movement of intermodal cargo and the security of the transportation infrastructure that supports it.

The good people of OMSA wish to express our congratulations to Admiral Rochon on his assignment to this most prestigious position, and wish him the best in these difficult times.

New regulations for certain size ships (see below) to carry voyage data recorders (VDRs) and automatic identification systems (AISs) enter into force (1 July 2002). The mandatory regulations are among a raft of amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) entering into force on 1 July 2002. In addition, under its second phase of implementation, the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (ISM Code) becomes mandatory for most ships trading internationally on 1 July 2002. The revised SOLAS chapter V (Safety of Navigation), which was adopted in December 2000, includes a number of important new requirements for ships, including those relating to carriage of VDRs and AIS and acceptance of electronic charts as meeting the chart carriage requirements.

• Voyage data recorders - Like the black boxes carried on aircraft, VDRs enable accident investigators to review procedures and instructions in the moments before an incident and help to identify the cause of any accident.
  
• VDR requirements - The following ships are required to carry VDRs, under regulation 20 of the new SOLAS Chapter V: Passenger ships constructed on or after 1 July 2002; ro-ro passenger ships constructed before 1 July 2002 not later than the first survey on or after 1 July 2002; passenger ships other than ro-ro passenger ships constructed before 1 July 2002 not later than 1 January 2004; and ships, other than passenger ships, of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards constructed on or after 1 July 2002.
  
• VDRs for existing cargo ships - In December 2000, IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) adopted a resolution on the carriage of VDRs on existing cargo ships, which calls for a feasibility study to be carried out to ascertain the need for mandatory carriage of VDRs on these ships. The aim is to finalize the study by 1 January 2004.
  
• Automatic Identification System (AIS) - Regulation 19 of the new Chapter V - Carriage requirements for shipborne navigational systems and equipment – sets out navigational equipment to be carried on board ships, according to ship type. Most equipment (gyrocompass, radar etc) was already required under the existing Chapter V, but the new regulation adds a requirement for carriage of automatic identification systems (AISs) capable of providing information about the ship to appropriately equipped shore stations, other ships and aircraft automatically. The regulation requires AIS to be fitted aboard all ships of 300 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards not engaged on international voyages and passenger ships irrespective of size built on or after 1 July 2002. It also applies to ships engaged on international voyages constructed before 1 July 2002, according to the following timetable: passenger ships, not later than 1 July 2003; tankers, not later than the first survey for safety equipment on or after 1 July 2003; ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 50,000 gross tonnage and upwards, not later than 1 July 2004; ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 10,000 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 50,000 gross tonnage, not later than 1 July 2005; ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 10,000 gross tonnage, not later than 1 July 2006. Ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 300 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 3,000 gross tonnage, not later than 1 July 2007; Ships not engaged on international voyages constructed before 1 July 2002, will have to fit AISs not later than 1 July 2008. A flag State may exempt ships from carrying AISs when ships will be taken permanently out of service within two years after the implementation date.
  

Recently, a seaman on a foreign ship in a U.S. port was sent to check the ring lifebuoy and smoke signal on the bridge wing. In the process of doing this, he started to move the signal out of its bracket. Since movement of only 10 mm is necessary to start ignition of the signal, it began to produce gas and smoke. The seaman apparently tried to stop the production of smoke by forcing the igniter mechanism back into the signal. This caused pressure to build up rapidly inside the body of the signal, and it exploded. The seaman died of his injuries. The Ikaros model Mk II Man-Overboard Smoke Signal (15-minute) made by Hansson Pyrotech AB of Sweden, is approved around the world for use on ring lifebuoys deployed from a ship’s bridge. In the United States, it holds Coast Guard approval no. 160.157/5/0. Hansson has developed and is producing a modified signal that includes a pressure relief mechanism. This new signal is designated as the MkIII.

For more information visit the Coast Guard Office of Investigation and Analysis Safety Alert page at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/moa/casualty.htm.

The Coast Guard established an alternative hull examination program for offshore supply vessels vessels. This rule establishes the option of alternating drydock examinations with underwater surveys for nautical school, offshore supply, passenger and sailing school vessels and also establishes an examination process that gives industry additional latitude in scheduling inspections and will create parity between passenger vessels and all other Coast Guard-inspected vessels. 67 FR 21062, (April 29, 2002), (USCG-2000-6858).

The Working Group on Regulation Review of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC), sponsored by the U.S. Coast Guard, will meet in Washington, DC on August 13 and 14, 2002. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss various issues relating to current Coast Guard regulations as they pertain to towing vessels. 67 Fed. Reg. 47595 (July 19, 2002).

We highly encourage your to visit their web site on a regular basis to look for new guidance.
The Coast Guard National Maritime Center is the controlling authority for Coast Guard licensing of merchant mariners. NMC policy letters can be found and downloaded from their web site at www.uscg.mil/STCW/m-policy.htm. Since our last newsletter the NMC has issued 8 new policies involving Electronic Submission of request for course approval, Validity of licenses for service on vessels of not more than 200 gross tons (GRT) valid for service on oceans, Employment of foreign nationals on U.S.-flag vessels, Verification of Identity of Students in Coast Guard Approved Courses, Conducting Assessments of Skills to Satisfy Requirements of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended, Endorsements on a Merchant Mariners Document (MMD) Issued to a Licensed Officer, and Qualification for deck and Engineering Ratings, the requirements for AB domestic only as compared to AB/RFPNW and QMED domestic only as compared to QMED/RFPEW.

Many of the policies that the National Maritime Center produces are the direct result of concerns voiced by industry and carried to the NMC by your trade organization OMSA. Policies of recent importance to you have been those such as the one year deferral in domestic enforcement of STCW and the newly published NMC Policy letters 14-02 regarding qualification as RFPNW and RFPEW and 10-02 regarding employment of foreign nationals on U.S. flag vessels. The full text of each policy letter can be viewed and downloaded from the NMC website http://www.uscg.mil/STCW/m-policy.htm. Policy 10-02 is discussed in detail below.

Until recently, the United States government/U.S. Coast Guard had refused to issue documentation that would be required under STCW provisions to foreign mariners (non U.S. citizens) that were employed on U.S. flag vessels operating non-domestically. The appropriate references that deal with this subject are Title 46 CFR Sec. 15.720 and the Regulation 1/10 of the STCW Convention of 1978 as amended.

OMSA has been successful in obtaining a policy letter that provides U.S. Flag State guidance to companies and their employees who are in charge of U.S. flag vessels that are operating in foreign waters.

The Coast Guard will not issue documentation but in essence have agreed, through this policy letter, to permit the Master of the vessel to determine whether the training and competence of the foreign national working aboard the U.S. flag vessel under his command possesses appropriate documentation from his country and whether the subject mariner possesses the skills and training adequate to perform the duties expected of him under the STCW Convention.

Policy Letter 10-02 can be downloaded or viewed at the National Maritime Center Policy web page http://www.uscg.mil/STCW/m-policy.htm.

Secondly, we strongly urge each and every one of our companies to place a copy of this letter along with 46 U.S. Code 8103, 2101(19) & 8101 which will help the Masters on these vessels to explain to any port state control officer what the policy of this government with respect to foreign nationals who are required to have STCW credentials that are employed onboard the U.S. flag vessel.

In general, OSV’s, MODU’s or other vessels engaged in support of exploration, exploitation and production of offshore mineral resources under U.S. law are permitted to operate in foreign waters with all crew other than the Master allowed to be foreign nationals. On OSV’s, or similar vessels engaged in support of offshore oil & gas operations (46 USC 8103) the limitation for foreign national crew to be replaced at the first available port (46 USC 8101) is not strictly applicable. However, it is important to take both this policy letter and the other rules in conjunction, one with the other.

OMSA has worked recently with the offshore operators committee and the USCG to provide guidance within the Eighth Coast Guard District on minimum requirements for use of a dynamic positioning system on an OSV for the purpose of “mooring” the vessel during oil and hazardous material “hazmat” transfers to and from an offshore facility or rig in water depths where compliance with the mooring requirements of 33 CFR 156.120 (A) became difficult and/or expensive.

According to the preamble of the draft policy the purpose is stated as follows: “This letter provides D8 guidance on minimum requirements for use of a dynamic positioning (DP) system on an OSV for the purpose of “mooring” the vessel during oil and hazardous material (HAZMAT) transfers to and from an offshore facility or rig, in water depths where compliance with the mooring requirements of 33 CFR 156.120(a) became difficult and/or expensive. This policy letter only allows oil and HAZMAT transfers by OSVs in DP mode while in deepwater regions of the Gulf of Mexico where the water depth exceeds 300 feet. In shallower waters vessels must fully comply with 33 CFR 156.120(a) using a suitable anchoring/mooring system. A summary of the guidelines put forth by this policy letter is provided in enclosures (1) and (2). This policy letter is only intended to apply to OSVs; and its application to such things as Floating Production, Storage, and Offload (FPSO) units and their supporting shuttle tankers is specifically excluded from this policy.”

The Coast Guard has presented to OMSA, the OOC and others the draft of their proposed policy for comment. Our committees, along with other interested parties, are reviewing the content of the Coast Guard draft letter at this time and expect to have its comments within the next few weeks. For the purpose of discussion, if you are interested in the draft policy, and wish to have a copy for review please contact Ken Parris at OMSA, ken@offshoremarine.org, for a copy.

The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard on matters affecting the offshore industry. Applications should reach the Coast Guard on or before September 30, 2002. You may request an application form by writing to Commandant (G-MSO-2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001; by calling 202 267-1181; or by faxing 202-267-4570. A copy of the application form is available from the Coast Guard's Advisory Committee Web page at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/advisory/index.htm. Send your application in written form to the above street address.

To be eligible, applicants should have experience in one of the following categories: (1) Offshore supply vessel services including geophysical services, (2) offshore operations, (3) construction of offshore facilities, (4) offshore production of petroleum, or (5) offshore drilling. Please state on the application form which of the five categories you are applying for. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal Government.

For further information on NOSAC and its importance to our industry contact Bob Alario or Ken Parris at the OMSA offices (504) 734-7622. The announcement in full is found in the August 2, 2002 Federal Register.

The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) and its working groups will meet on Wednesday, September 4, 2002, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and on Thursday, September 5, 2002, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. MERPAC will meet on both days at the Coast Guard Club of Cleveland, 1055 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH.

Two issues of extreme importance to the offshore industry are on the agenda, manning levels for vessels (two-watch vs. three-watch system) and the requirements for mariners desiring to become engineers. The announcement in full is found in the August 2, 2002 Federal Register.

Section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1916 requires prior approval of the Secretary of Transportation of U.S. vessel charters to persons who are not U.S. citizens. In 1992, the Maritime Administration (MARAD), issued regulations that granted general prior approval of time charters and other forms of temporary use agreements to persons who are not U.S. citizens. MARAD is requesting public comment on whether the policy of granting general approval of time charters should be changed.

Interested parties are requested to submit comments on or before September 3, 2002. Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2002-12842. Due to mail delays written comments should be submitted electronically via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. The MARAD point of contact is Edmund T. Sommer, Jr., Chief, Division of General and International Law, Maritime Administration, (202) 366-5181. The announcement in full is found in the August 2, 2002 Federal Register.

In a recent Marine Log article it was reported that a chief engineer of a foreign flag vessel recently pleaded guilty to three federal felony crimes and could face up to 33 months in prison under the terms of his plea bargain. The engineer admitted to keeping and presenting a false log book that concealed the dumping of waste oil and sludge from his ship. Obstructing a U.S. Coast Guard investigation and, Witness tampering by telling crewmembers to lie to a federal grand jury.

The moral of this story is that every one of our members must be extremely careful to instruct its crews that under no circumstances are they to discharge in port or offshore in violation of U.S. environmental laws. The consequences could be extremely serious.

The IMO safety committee working group on maritime security met in February of 2002 and put forward a series and recommendations relative to ship security. This movement was lead to a large extent by the U.S. delegation. The draft proposals would require all ships of 500 GT and above engaged in international voyages to carry ship security plans. Such plans would ultimately be incorporated in the ISM code. It was considered essential that the mandatory requirements relating to such plans should be development prior to the conference on maritime security scheduled for December of 2002. There would also be a requirement for a ship security officer and a company security officer in the code. The working group will recommend MSC 75 to incorporate a requirement for port facility security plans although this may not apply for small ports such as those that offshore supply vessels are familiar with. These are only a handful of requirements that will be imposed upon ship operators for ship security implementation. OMSA will follow developments in this area and keep its members informed.

Positive Identification Required To Enter Any Waterfront Facility
The U.S. Coast Guard issued what it refers to as a "clarification" of its existing regulation relating to identification credentials that it considers acceptable for access to waterfront facilities and to port and harbor areas, including the vessels and harbor craft in them. The basic identification credential regulations have been in existence since at least 1950, but lapsed into complete disuse. The Coast Guard is now reinvigorating those regulations, effective September 6, 2002. As of that date, every person (including passengers) entering a waterfront facility, or embarking on or disembarking from a vessel or harbor craft may be required to use an identification credential deemed acceptable by the Coast Guard. The credential must, at a minimum, be laminated (or otherwise secured against tampering), contain the full name and a current photograph of the person, and bear the name of the issuing authority. Acceptable credentials include: a military identification card; a badge for a federal employee such as DOT, DOD, FBI, CIA; a driver's license or official identification card issued by a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or a Motor-Vehicle Administration within the United States; a merchant mariner's document issued by the U.S. Coast Guard; a valid passport; a local law enforcement credential; an identification credential issued by a state or local port authority; and an identification credential issued by a company, union, or trade association. By its terms, this clarification will limit the ability of mariners arriving in a U.S. port to step onto the dock to transact business unless they have with them an acceptable identification credential. It will also impact truck drivers delivering or picking up containers and other cargo and anyone else with business on the waterfront. It is unclear who will be enforcing this clarification, since the U.S. Coast Guard does not attend every arriving vessel. DOT Docket Number 12917, Federal Register Notice August 7, 2002.

These articles are intended as a summary of issues, for general information purposes only and are not intended to be a substitute for legal consultation with respect to any specific matter. For such opinion or advice, you should contact legal counsel. See your OMSA membership directory for the names of member firms.

In the case Chevron USA v. Echazabal the Supreme Court ruled that the EEOC’s interpretation of the American’s with Disabilities Act permitted an employer to refuse to hire an employee with a disability which would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of the individual themselves.

Echazabal applied for a position in an oil refinery but was rejected because a pre-employment physical examination revealed that Echazabal's liver might be damaged by exposure to the solvents and chemicals present in the coker unit. Echazabal argued that he was discriminated against based on his disability. Chevron counter sued that Echazabal posed a direct threat to his own health and safety in the workplace based on a statutory section of the ADA that provides that an employer may impose a qualification standard that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace.

Chevron argued that this provision also applies to an individual's threat to one's own health or safety. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission supported Chevron's interpretation of the statute. Justice Souter, writing for the Court, said that the EEOC wanted a company to protect its employees and that the right balance was struck by Chevron between workplace paternalism and ignoring specific and documented risks to the employee. Employer celebrations should be tempered as the case has been remanded to the 9th Circuit where further rulings against employers are possible.

Source: BLR's Human Resources E-mail Newsletter July 10, 2002

In a 5-4 decision the court ruled that accommodations under the ADA do not preempt seniority rules. While the Court ruled that the precedence of an employer seniority system over the ADA is not automatically unreasonable, as above the case was remanded to the lower court for further review. While the Court is continuing to narrow the scope of the ADA, activists on all sides are continuing to bring suits under the ADA in an attempt to broaden the scope of “disabled” under the law.

In a 5-4 decision, a divided United States Supreme Court decided that an employer does not have to override its seniority system in order to accommodate the needs of a disabled worker (US Airways v. Barnett, 00-1250). The issue in the case was whether overcoming the employer's seniority system in order to make a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee was "reasonable" or would cause the company an "undue hardship."

Barnett loaded baggage for US Airways at the San Francisco International Airport. In 1990, he hurt his back and asked for a transfer. US Airways transferred Barnett to the mailroom, but other employees protested that their seniority entitled them to the position now held by Barnett. Under seniority rules, Barnett could be bumped to a less desirable position. Barnett was then limited to jobs that required him to stay in the cargo area. Barnett then sued arguing that a company could not use seniority rules to avoid accommodating a disabled employee.

The court majority found that where a requested accommodation conflicts with seniority rules the accommodation sought is not reasonable. In some cases, however, the employee may be able to present evidence that an exception to the seniority rule should be made that would be reasonable and would not cause the employer an undue hardship.

Source: BLR's Human Resources E-mail Newsletter May 8, 2002

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that a finding by the U.S. Coast Guard that a bridge over a navigable waterway constitutes an unreasonable obstruction to navigation does not invoke the Pennsylvania Rule and does not, on its own, rebut the Oregon Rule.

In the instant case, defendant's towboat and barges allided with plaintiff's bridge. Some months previously, the Coast Guard had issued an Order to Alter the bridge, based on a finding that the bridge constituted an unreasonable obstruction to navigation as defined by the Truman-Hobbs Act. The bridge had not been altered prior to the allision. The Oregon Rule provides that, when a vessel allides with a fixed structure, there is a presumption that the vessel was at fault.

The Pennsylvania Rule provides that, when a marine casualty involves violation of a safety regulation, there is a presumption that the violation caused the casualty. The court held that an Order to Alter is not a safety regulation. It further held that an Order to Alter does not, on its own, overcome the presumption of the Oregon Rule, but may be considered by the trier of fact in determining whether, based on all the evidence, the presumption has been overcome. There are 48 more states and several territories not yet cited, so debate may continue. Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Kirby Inland Marine, Inc.

Source: Haight Gardner Holland & Knight, Maritime Items, July 16, 2002

OMSA has received reports from mariners that the high level of vessel activity and congestion at the Port of Fourchon is creating a situation detrimental to mariner fitness for duty. At the request of Mr. Robert Alario, President of OMSA, the Coast Guard held a kickoff meeting to discuss the issue of increasingly crowded docks at Port Fourchon at the U.S. Coast Guard MSU in Houma. Attendees included Local, State and Federal Government Officials, vessel operators and OMSA staff.

It has been reported to OMSA that increased marine traffic at Port Fourchon is resulting in congestion and overcrowding at docks, causing vessel operators to move their vessels frequently with negative effects on mariner fitness for duty, crew safety and port efficiency. Operators estimate that approximately 120-180 vessels visit Port Fourchon daily, with as many as 3-4 stacked up at many area docks. Most of those vessels are standing by awaiting orders; with their presence is a main cause of the present congestion. As Fourchon continues to evolve with FPSO’s and the development of a 50 ft. channel, port congestion will probably only worsen. The port already has many diverse users – OSV’s, crewboats, liftboats, fishing vessels, towboats, and drilling rigs – with even more users expected to arrive as the port continues to expand. The Greater La Fourche Port Commission is limited in what it can provide in the way of mooring buoys. 3-pile cluster buoys cost in the range of $30K each with limited potential return on such investment, making it impractical to provide any more. Users cannot fund such improvements either.

OMSA proposed the development of a conceptual solution acceptable to end-users. Administrative procedures such as a voluntary VTS and operational enhancements such as designated anchorage areas for all users must be developed, then articulated publicly to enable buy-in from all. Suitable environmental study must be conducted to support the initiative. Finally, a governmental rulemaking project is anticipated, with public comment, to ensure a long-lasting and enforceable protocol is put and remains in place to improve safety and the port’s continued viability.

Your assistance in developing this plan will be essential. In the near future we will be conducting “Town Hall” style meetings to get input from the users of the port to develop the most widely acceptable solution to port congestion. We’ll need your participation to ensure the success of this initiative.

U. S. Deputy Secretary of Transportation, Michael P. Jackson, joined by U. S. Coast Guard Commandant Thomas H. Collins, today announced the award of a landmark contrac