U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–528 PDF 2011

CREATING U.S. MARITIME INDUSTRY JOBS 

BY REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS 

(112–32) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 24, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Cook, Rear Admiral Kevin S., Director of Prevention Policy, United States 

Coast Guard .......................................................................................................... 4 

Lederer, Calvin M., Deputy Judge Advocate General, United States Coast 

Guard .................................................................................................................... 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Cook, Rear Admiral Kevin S., and Lederer, Calvin M., joint statement, and 

chart entitled, ‘‘Coast Guard Rulemaking Actions Related to Outstanding 

Statutory Requirements (by Age)’’ ...................................................................... 45 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Request by Rep. Landry to submit written statement from Horizon Lines, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 35 

United States Coast Guard: 

Chart entitled, ‘‘Active Rules at Start of Fiscal Year’’ .................................. 6 

Chart entitled, ‘‘Final Rules Published’’ ......................................................... 8 

Correction to RADM Cook’s statement about the amount of additional 

billets hired ................................................................................................... 15 

Response to Rep. Larsen’s inquiry about the Coast Guard’s status on 

implementing the following provisions of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010: expanding the definition of ‘‘higher volume port area,’’ 

initiating negotiations with Canada to require tugboat escorts for all 

laden tank vessels transiting the northwest straits region of Puget 

Sound, and issuing recommendations for the full range of options for 

the management of maritime traffic and to enhance spill prevention 

and response systems ................................................................................... 21 

Response to Rep. Harris’s request to move the channel buoy at Rock 

Hall Harbor ................................................................................................... 23 

Response to Rep. Cravaack’s inquiry about fees associated with an Operator of Uninspected Passenger Vessels (OUPV) (‘‘Six-Pack’’) license ....... 24 

Response to Rep. Cravaack’s inquiry about the place closest to Minnesota 

at which Six-Pack license applications are accepted ................................. 24 

Response to Rep. Cravaack’s inquiry as to why the Coast Guard has 

determined that Mille Lacs Lake is a navigable waterway of the United 

States ............................................................................................................. 25 

Correction to RADM Cook’s response to Rep. Larsen’s inquiry about 

when the Coast Guard will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

on the Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act ............................................ 30 

Response to Rep. Landry’s request for a list of Members of Congress 

who have inquired about notice of arrival and the date of the inquiry ... 32 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 66528.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 66528.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 66528.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 66528.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 66528.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 66528.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 66528.007
(1) 

CREATING U.S. MARITIME INDUSTRY JOBS BY 

REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS 

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND

MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. The subcommittee will come to order. As you all 

know, there is a joint session scheduled for 11:00. Hopefully we will 

be finished prior to then, but if we are not through, say, by 10:45, 

I suggest that we recess and then come back here immediately 

after the joint session concludes. 

Chairman LoBiondo, by the way, had a conflict and asked me to 

stand in. So it is good to be with you, Mr. Larsen, this morning. 

It is good to have you all here. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to review the Coast Guard’s 

regulatory program to examine ways to improve the Service’s rulemaking process. We are also interested in the status of pending 

rules and the impact they will have on maritime safety and commerce. 

The Coast Guard has brought authority to regulate maritime 

commerce, including establishing and enforcing rules to ensure 

mariner safety, vessel and facility safety and security, and the protection of the environment. With such mass authority comes great 

responsibility to regulate industry in a fair and reasonable way. 

This hearing will focus on ensuring that Coast Guard rulemaking 

is just that, fair and reasonable. 

It is important to remember that the United States economy is 

fueled by maritime commerce. While regulations must address concerns relating to safety, security, and stewardship, they must also 

balance the importance of maintaining the free flow of maritime 

commerce. 

Domestic shipping alone is responsible for over 500,000 American jobs and $100 billion in annual economic output. Additionally, 90 

percent of all global trade and over 25 percent of our gross domestic product moves via sea. With the economy still in a fragile state 

and unemployment at record levels, it is imperative for the Federal 

Government to foster an atmosphere where our maritime industry 

can compete and expand. To that end, I am concerned about the 

cost and impact of several forthcoming Coast Guard rulemakings. 

2 

Specifically, rules requiring fishing vessel examinations, the purchase of automatic identification system for small vessels, and the 

installation of ballast water treatment systems aboard vessels 

could have tremendous impacts on the economy. If these and other 

rules are not done in a commonsense manner, I am concerned they 

could drastically increase operating costs for businesses, hamper 

growth, and kill jobs at a time when our Nation can ill afford economic setbacks. 

Finally, just as we are facing tough decisions on how to cut the 

deficit, these and other pending regulations will require additional 

personnel and funding for the Coast Guard. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the Coast Guard intends to find the 

resources to pay for the expansion of its regulatory mission as well 

as what steps it is taking to ensure rules are put forth in an efficient and commonsense manner. 

I thank you all for appearing today, and I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Washington for his opening statement. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. And 

thank you for convening today’s hearing to examine the status of 

major rulemaking activities by the U.S. Coast Guard and their impact on job creation in our domestic maritime industries and the 

overall economy. 

Revitalizing and growing our maritime economy is a high priority 

for me, and I want to thank you for taking interest in this matter 

this morning, Mr. Chairman. The Coast Guard is a multimission 

maritime military service of the United States. It is the principal 

Federal agency responsible for ensuring marine safety, preserving 

maritime and port security, enhancing maritime commerce, and 

protecting the marine environment. 

Not surprisingly, rulemaking is a prominent Coast Guard activity. In light of the Service’s broad portfolio, regulations issued by 

the Service affect and enhance virtually every sector of our domestic maritime economy. 

Mr. Chairman, we should examine whether regulatory burdens 

adversely affect job creation. In today’s economy we in Congress 

have no greater responsibility than to focus on protecting and creating jobs in the private sector. However, the Coast Guard is one 

agency whose regulatory portfolio can enhance jobs. 

The Coast Guard’s regulations ensure that vessels are safe, that 

workers in maritime-based industries are protected in their lives 

and in their livelihoods, that water-run commerce can move efficiently and, should an accident occur, that there will be an effective 

response. 

Without the certainty afforded by the Coast Guard, our maritime 

commerce and the economy would suffer. Our domestic maritime 

industry significantly impacts the overall U.S. economy. According 

to recent figures published by the American Maritime Partnership, 

the U.S. domestic maritime industry moves over 1 billion tons of 

cargo annually, with a market value of $400 billion; sustains 

500,000 jobs in total, including 74,000 jobs on vessels and at shipyards. It generates annually $100 billion in economic output and 

$11 billion in tax revenue, and pays $29 billion in annual wages. 

By any measure these numbers verify the importance of our reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:59 Nov 18, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\CG\5-24-1~1\66528.TXT JEAN
3 

sponsibility in Congress to ensure that the regulations issued by 

the Coast Guard are fair, are targeted, and support our maritime 

industries, which, by extension, will be good for job creation, good 

for the U.S. economy, and good for the American people. 

Of course, as with most Federal agencies, there are some instances where the Service’s rulemaking or lack thereof have created jobs. For example, as was noted in the recently released GAO 

report, efforts to issue regulations to fully implement the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, remain woefully 

behind schedule and over budget. Not only has this rulemaking 

process created uncertainty about the reliability and effectiveness 

of TWIC cards, it has spawned delays and frustration for mariners, 

boat operators, and longshore workers nationally as well as in my 

district. Because a TWIC card is a prerequisite for the issuance or 

a reissuance of a merchant mariner credential or license, overlapping administrative processes have increased costs, prompted 

delays, and created confusion in what otherwise should be a fairly 

routine process. Such inefficiencies are unacceptable. With the current need to get people back to work, we simply can’t afford to 

strand qualified, able-bodied people on the dock because the Federal Government has been unable to effectively and efficiently coordinate the TWIC and mariner credential programs, which are 

vital to port security and marine safety. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, we ought not to forget that under the 

present budget framework, budget cuts will impact the ability of 

the Service to promulgate regulations in a timely manner. As much 

as we might like the Coast Guard to do more with less, the reality 

is that the Coast Guard will be doing less with less in the current 

budget environment. 

According to the latest rulemaking summary issued by the Coast 

Guard in January, the Service reported that internal planning and 

administrative reforms implemented through its Marine Safety and 

Security Council and additional resources provided in fiscal years 

2008 and 2009 budgets enabled the Service to reduce its regulatory 

backlog by 35 percent by the end of 2010. Despite this progress, 

however, the Service unfortunately reports that recent efforts to 

work down the backlog may be offset this year by the approximately 20 new rulemaking requirements included in last year’s 

Coast Guard authorization, which passed this House of Representatives by unanimous consent, and by a new rulemaking to address 

safety shortcomings revealed by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 

among other new issues. 

Only time will tell, Mr. Chairman, if the Service’s forecast is accurate. Nevertheless, it does serve to remind us that before we look 

to cast blame on the Service for creating burdens, we may want to 

examine the requirements that we in Congress have imposed upon 

the Service. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman, for holding this morning’s hearing, and we look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. 

You mentioned doing more with less. I guess the Coast Guard, 

probably more than any other Federal entity known to me, has 

come close to mastering that technique. You have come close to 

making it clear that you can do more with less, and we hope that 

4 

won’t be too burdensome. Thank you, Mr. Larsen for your opening 

statement. 

Our witnesses today include Coast Guard Rear Admiral Kevin 

Cook, Director of Prevention Policy; and Mr. Calvin Lederer, who 

is the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the United States Coast 

Guard. We welcome the witnesses for participating today, and we 

appreciate your presence here. 

Admiral, if you and Mr. Lederer could, if you could confine your 

statements to on or about 5 minutes, that will assure us of meeting 

the deadline for the joint session. You will not be keelhauled if you 

go past the 5 minutes, however. 

We will start with you, Rear Admiral Cook. 

TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL KEVIN S. COOK, DIRECTOR OF 

PREVENTION POLICY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD; AND 

CALVIN M. LEDERER, DEPUTY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Admiral COOK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Larsen. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

have my written testimony entered into the record. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Admiral COOK. As you mentioned, I am joined here by Mr. 

Lederer, and I can assure you that we will be brief, sir. 

I would like to highlight two main points in my testimony today: 

first, the impact of Coast Guard regulations, and second, the results of investments that Congress and the Coast Guard have made 

to our regulatory development program. 

Regarding my first point, the impacts, the Coast Guard has and 

continues to focus on regulatory efficiency and effectiveness, which 

was reinforced with the recent publication of Executive Order 

13563. Of the 19 significant rules published since 2003, the median 

first-year cost was approximately $4.5 million. But upon closer review, we note that three of the rulemakings were required by the 

Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002, and these account for 

nearly 95 percent of those total costs. Therefore, typical Coast 

Guard rulemakings are far less burdensome on an industry due in 

no small part to the efforts that go into development, including 

maximizing the use of industry consensus standards, pursuing 

international regulations, the use of performance-based regulations, and other measures. 

Benefits of Coast Guard rulemaking are widespread, including 

enhanced safety for our mariners and the boating public, protection 

of our marine environment, and strengthened security of our ports 

and waterways. The Coast Guard will continue to seek new means 

of achieving regulatory benefits without undue burden on industry. 

Second, regarding the improvements made to the Coast Guard’s 

regulatory development program, I would like to start by thanking 

Congress for the investments made in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, 

as Congressman Larsen alluded to in his opening statement. This 

investment brought the number of personnel dedicated to rulemaking development to 82 full-time personnel, nearly a 50-percent 

increase. In addition, there are dozens who participate as subjectmatter experts in specific projects. 

5 

In conjunction with your congressional investment, the Coast 

Guard is undertaking a series of improvements, including refining 

overall processes using an ISO 9001-compliant framework, investment in information technologies to streamline planning and management, and in training. 

If I could have the first slide, please. 

As a result of these combined investments, the Coast Guard has 

significantly reduced the overall workload as shown in this chart. 

[The information follows:] 

6 


Insert offset folio 8 here 66528.008
7 

Admiral COOK [continuing]. While some of the reductions in 

backlog have been offset by congressional requirements from the 

authorization act, we are confident that the efficiencies we have 

gained will enable us to make similar reductions in the near term. 

Next slide, please. 

As an example of the efficiency, we have increased the rate at 

which final rules have been published since 2008. 

[The information follows:] 

8 


Insert offset folio 9 here 66528.009
9 

Admiral COOK [continuing]. The slide highlights our continued 

progress up to the present date. The increase in this rate has directly impacted our overall backlog. In addition, in fiscal year 2010, 

public milestones were achieved for 18 Coast Guard headquarters 

rulemaking projects, with all top 50 projects showing progress. 

Finally, since fiscal year 2009, we have reduced the average age 

of rules under development from 6.2 years to 5.3 years, with further reductions anticipated. 

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you, other 

members of the subcommittee, that the Coast Guard makes every 

possible effort to ensure that regulations we publish are timely, effective and efficient. I thank Congress again for the investments 

you have made in improving our capabilities and look forward to 

continued gains as a result of these. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Admiral Cook. 

Mr. Lederer. 

Mr. LEDERER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. 

Chairman and Mr. Larsen. 

In addition to the efforts described by Admiral Cook to reduce 

the impacts of our rules and improve our regulatory development 

processes, the Coast Guard has aggressively pursued rulemakings 

required by the 2010 authorization act. We have identified in the 

act 11 requirements that are self-executing, another 14 we are absorbing in existing projects, and 18 that require new rules, as Mr. 

Larsen was pointing out. We have started regulatory projects for 

all 18, and they are under way, and we are cognizant of the deadline specified by Congress. 

With the addition of these projects, our active rulemaking 

projects will number 78, up from 60. Half of them are statutorily 

driven. We take very seriously the direction provided by Congress, 

and that direction is a significant factor in the priorities we set 

among regulatory projects. 

While we work diligently to move all regulations along, those 

with higher priority, such as those with a statutory mandate, are 

addressed ahead of others and move more quickly. Statutorily mandated rules take an average of 1 year or less to move from concept 

to final rule than do discretionary regulations, which originate from 

sources such as our international work, accident investigations, 

risk analysis, and changes in technology. As Admiral Cook noted, 

we make a major effort to ensure that the regulations we promulgate are effective and an efficient use of societal resources. This is 

particularly important when so many of our partners in the industry and voting public are struggling in this current economic climate, as both of you pointed out. 

In our written testimony we highlight the series of layered reviews used by the Coast Guard and the administration to ensure 

that the regulatory policy we have is sound, feasible, and does not 

place undue burden on the regulated community. For significant 

rules, those are the ones that are reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, this includes a review of each document in 

the rulemaking process before they are published by the Marine 

Safety and Security Council, which brings together under the leadership of the Judge Advocate General every Coast Guard flag offiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:59 Nov 18, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\CG\5-24-1~1\66528.TXT JEAN
10 

cer and senior executive with substantial responsibility for rulemaking. 

The MSSC is a significant investment of flag officer and SES 

time and attention to ensure we get it right the first time. The review of rulemaking documents as rules progress is in addition to 

review by the MSSC at the outset of every regulatory project to improve the project in the first instance and placing it on the regulatory agenda. These reviews ensure that all the Coast Guard’s regulatory actions work holistically and without unduly burdening industry. 

President Obama’s January Executive Order 13563 requires a 

retrospective review of already issued regulations. DHS asked the 

public to identify regulations that should be included in the retrospective review. We were pleased that public comments only identified three about the Coast Guard, and only one comment described 

the regulations as overly burdensome, and that was the MTSA regulations that Admiral Cook referred to. We think that this is one 

indicator that Congress and the Coast Guard together have made 

sound rulemaking decisions. 

I also want to thank Congress for the investments made in improving our capabilities, which we see every day and look forward 

to the continuing gains as a result. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you both. 

Gentlemen, you have complied with the 5-minute rule. We thank 

you for that. 

Mr. Lederer, last year a coalition of U.S. flag vessel operators, 

maritime unions, and domestic shipbuilders petitioned the Coast 

Guard to initiate a rulemaking to clarify the extent to which a vessel can be rebuilt in a foreign shipyard and still at the same time 

maintain its eligibility under the Jones Act. When will the Coast 

Guard issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in response to this petition? 

Mr. LEDERER. Mr. Chairman, with respect to that, the petition— 

I would want to point out one thing at the outset. With respect to 

petitions for rulemaking, we have received around 50 of those since 

2002, and 9 out of the 50 actually resulted in a notice of proposed 

rulemaking, which is, I think, another indicator of the responsiveness of the Coast Guard to petitions from the public and from industry. 

With respect to foreign rebuilds, we put that petition out for public comment, and that period of public comment ends shortly, this 

week, I believe. So we will have to review the comments that have 

come in. So far we have received only one comment on it. We will 

have to assess at that point and decide whether or not if that 

makes sense to proceed with a notice of proposed rulemaking in response to the petition, which is principally sponsored by the Shipbuilding Association of America, and we will see where we go from 

there. 

I would point out that last fall, or last August actually, the 

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in a hotly litigated case concerning a foreign rebuild, and that case essentially 

sustained our current regulatory scheme. 

The Coast Guard is very supportive of the Jones Act scheme that 

Congress has given us to enforce in how we document vessels, but 

11 

at the same time one of the things that we have seen over the 

years, and particularly in these recent cases—and there were two 

cases that were litigated recently—is that these regulatory schemes 

are very difficult to construct in a way that is equitable and understandable by industry and then to actually make it work. So in 

terms of changing the current regulatory scheme, that is something 

we need to approach very, very carefully, and we will be doing that 

once the comment period closes. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Lederer. 

I have one more question, and then I will recognize Mr. Larsen. 

Admiral, the FAA and other Federal agencies allow private physicians to conduct examinations of licensed workers, such as airline 

pilots, and then determine if the worker meets the medical fitness 

requirements to be licensed by the Federal agency. The Coast 

Guard, however, I am told, has chosen to put in place a system in 

which a government health care bureaucrat does not conduct the 

medical examination of the worker, but nonetheless makes the 

medical fitness determination. 

My question, Admiral, is why does the Coast Guard follow this 

process when other Federal agencies rely on the expertise of private physicians who have actually examined the worker in question 

to make final fitness determinations? 

Admiral COOK. Mr. Chairman, if I could start from—in our authorization act, we now have the authorization for a medical advisory committee, and that is going to be their first task. We have 

just gotten the appointments approved through the Department, 

and the Medical Advisory Committee will be meeting this summer. 

But if I could—and then I will go back and put it in perspective—we used to do all of the licensing through our 17 regional 

exam centers. We did not have a true medical component represented in each of those regional exam centers, so we had a wide 

variety of decisions that were being made based on mariners visiting their own doctors and making recommendations. So we 

thought that in centralization, as we have done with the National 

Maritime Center, that we would provide medical expertise to provide consistency across the Nation in continuing that practice, and 

we thought that that would lead to a significant improvement. 

And I think it has led to improvement as far as consistency, but 

what it has demonstrated is that the other modes that you have 

mentioned have something very viable in their program as they 

look at national consistency. So we are going to put it up to our 

Medical Advisory Committee and ask them to help us find a way 

to get to that solution. And in the interim we will continue to use 

our government doctors. 

We have added and we have a very significant staff now of three 

medical doctors, six physicians assistants all reviewing these. They 

are getting much more—I would say they are very agile now in discussing cases with the mariners’ doctors. So there is a number of 

hopeful signs even within the current system, but we do think that 

ultimately the registry of doctors will be the solution, and we will 

be working towards that. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

And I will recognize the distinguished gentleman from Washington Mr. Larsen. 

12 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lederer, lawsuits challenging proposed regulations are quite 

common, certainly at Federal regulatory agencies. For example, 

EPA has over 600 active lawsuits. NOAA has nearly 200 pending. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife reports over 100 lawsuits filed against the 

agency. How many lawsuits have been filed in Federal court challenging a proposed or final rule published by the Coast Guard? 

Mr. LEDERER. Sir, the last time we had a lawsuit challenging a 

regulation itself was a challenge to the MTSA, Maritime Transportation Security Act, provisions concerning searches or searches that 

were conducted pursuant to those regulations in 2006. 

We have no pending cases, and we have very few cases that challenge regulations directly. We have some litigation from time to 

time that will challenge application of regulations, such as the recent first circuit decision in the last couple of weeks involving the 

regulated navigation area in Buzzards Bay off of Massachusetts. 

But that is again how we actually apply regulations. So we don’t, 

fortunately, have the same experience other agencies like EPA does 

where policymaking is done to a large degree through litigation. 

And we have no cases currently pending challenging any regulations. 

Mr. LARSEN. It sounds like you said one. 

Mr. LEDERER. One, sir, yes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. I think that does show the work that 

the Coast Guard does with the industry partners to try to craft 

something, and sometimes they are pretty tough, but the industry 

partners make their way through it as well. 

In my opening comments, I mentioned TWIC. And as part of last 

year’s authorization, the Coast Guard, Congress included section 

809 to clarify the requirement to carry a TWIC card would not 

apply to licensed captains of passenger vessels who are not required to have a Coast Guard security plan, or to persons holding 

a Coast Guard document who are not authorized to have 

unescorted access to a designated secure area of vessel or the facility. 

It has been 7 months since that provision became law, but nothing has happened. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the 

Coast Guard’s National Maritime Center is still telling mariners 

they need to get a TWIC before they can be issued Coast Guard 

credentials. 

Mr. Lederer, is it the Coast Guard’s interpretation of this provision that it is self-executing? 

Mr. LEDERER. Sir, our belief is that it is not self-executing, and 

that does require a rulemaking because of the structure of the 

original Maritime Transportation Security Act as the basis for it. 

Mr. LARSEN. So the next question is when does that start? When 

does the rulemaking start? Why is there still confusion out there 

among mariners? 

Mr. LEDERER. If I may defer that to Admiral Cook. 

Admiral COOK. Mr. Larsen, I think that the fundamental issue 

is our need to have mariners enroll and provide their identification 

information so we can do safety, suitability, or in some cases security checks. So the system, in order to gain efficiencies, was revised 

13 

so that the TWIC enrollment centers would be the location where 

that would be done. 

I know I am doing a retrospective, but eventually I will get to 

the point. 

So we now have 130-some enrollment centers versus 17 regional 

exam centers where mariners can go, and the equipment that we 

were using at that time, even when the TWIC enrollment center 

was being stood up, was not really compatible with our new electronic way of producing mariner credentials. So that is a key input 

to our system, the information is gained, the picture that is taken 

at the enrollment center, those items. 

So what we are trying to do is to move forward in kind of a 

three-stage way: first, some policy relief where we think we have 

the ability to do that, and it is being closely coordinated with TSA 

and with the Screening Coordination Office at DHS. The direction 

of that policy would enable mariners who already have been enrolled in TWIC, they wouldn’t have to revisit an enrollment center. 

They could just get a new credential if they serve on a vessel that 

doesn’t have a security plan. So, for example, a small passenger 

vessel captain, when his TWIC expires, he can still go ahead and 

get a new credential. It wouldn’t be required. But if we added 

somebody new into the system where we don’t have that baseline 

information security, we still need them to go to the enrollment 

center and provide that information so that we can issue their initial transportation worker identification card. So there is some relief, but, you know, not as much as we would like as far as providing instantaneous relief. 

And then we wanted to look at the cost that the mariner incurs. 

We are going to consider whether we can reduce some of that cost 

through regulatory changes. And, of course, those have to be approved all the way through. We would like to do that. 

And then there has to be a fundamental change of regulations 

with TSA so that the enrollment center can become a more 

versatile place that enrolls people for different purposes, charges 

fees that are appropriate. 

It is really a three-staged approach, the policy relief that we can 

give for folks that are already in the system; regulations that we 

will try to promulgate which will impact and reduce costs; and then 

thirdly, a more comprehensive regulation package which would 

provide the ability to hit the various levels of enrollment. 

Mr. LARSEN. That is fine. But I am sure you can understand the 

gist of my question being some of frustration being reflected back 

to us from mariners about the uncertainty here. And the point 

being, it has been 7 months since the provision has been passed, 

but what has been done since in order to decrease some of the uncertainty that the lack of regulation has caused to the industry? 

From what I hear you saying is that you have a plan. I am even 

more excited to see that get implemented. 

Admiral COOK. I understand that, Congressman. I certainly understand the committee’s impatience. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Chairman, I see other Members here, and I 

didn’t have a clock on, so I will yield back to you. I have another 

set of questions for the second round. 

14 

Mr. COBLE. Admiral, if you would pull that mic a little closer to 

you. 

We have been joined by the distinguished gentleman from New 

Hampshire and the distinguished gentleman from Maryland. I 

think Mr. Cummings came in first. 

Mr. Cummings, do you have any questions? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

all for calling this hearing. 

Admiral Cook, I apologize for not being here earlier. I am now 

the ranking member of a full committee, so it gets kind of busy 

here. 

According to documents provided by the minority staff, the Coast 

Guard published 26 rulemaking documents in fiscal year 2010. 

These documents pertain to 18 separate rulemaking projects. Utilizing the funding increases of additional personnel allowances provided to it in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, increases which I strongly 

supported, the Coast Guard reduces regulatory backlog by 35 percent, and that is pretty good. While the Service has a pending 

backlog of more than 60 rulemaking projects, that is far below the 

more than 90 pending projects back in 2007. I applaud your diligence in working through the backlog. 

Can you please comment on whether you now have the staff and 

resources necessary to work through the remaining backlog and to 

begin to tackle the rulemakings required by the 2010 Coast Guard 

authorization as well as cruise vessel safety legislation? 

Admiral COOK. Good morning, Congressman. I am disappointed 

also that you weren’t here for my opening remarks. As we are very, 

very thankful for the support that the committee gave us in 2008 

and 2009, and especially for the regulation-development staff, 

which really has increased about 50 percent, up to 82 full-time positions in addition to the various subject-matter experts that we 

bring in. So I think we are on a trajectory that will enable us to 

sustain that continued progress, sir. So I am confident that we 

have what we need in order to go ahead and meet the rules that 

you laid out. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

As you know, finalizing the towing vessel safety regulations required by the Coast Guard legislation in 2004 has long been a key 

priority for me. What is the status of that rulemaking process? Will 

the Coast Guard meet the October 15 deadline for issuing the final 

rule, given that the deadline for the NPRM was not met? 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, the rule is now under review at 

OMB, and typically that signals the final stages for us. So if they 

stick to the 90-day review time that they typically take, we should 

see that rule back to us in July. So assuming that we don’t have 

any additional work by nature of that review, we would see it published soon after that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, one of the changes I am going to do is I 

am going to, of course, consult with our chairman and our ranking 

member to do what we used to do, and that is set some deadlines 

for these things so that we can bring you back. Maybe in November, if we are here, so that we can follow up on these things, because, as you know, when we set these deadlines, it seems like we 

15 

get more done. So I will have to consult with them and see—you 

know, it is their committee, so we have to figure this out. 

Admiral COOK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. One last thing. As you know, during the 110th 

and 111th Congresses, we closely examined how the Coast Guard’s 

ability to carry out its traditional mission areas, such as marine 

safety, including both inspection and investigation activities and 

search and rescue, had been affected by the Service’s assumption 

of significant homeland security responsibilities after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Our examinations found that the 

Coast Guard’s expertise in highly technical traditional missions 

had frequently suffered as the Service struggled to balance these 

many mission demands with an end strength that had not expanded to accommodate the increased workloads created by the 

new missions. 

Against that background I am deeply troubled by the findings of 

the Coast Guard’s own post-Deepwater Horizon preparedness review, which indicates that many of the challenges we found, particularly in the marine safety program, also affect the Service’s implementation of the environmental response mission. Thus, the report states, and I quote, ‘‘It appears that the Coast Guard marine 

environmental response’’—‘‘preparedness and response programs 

have atrophied over the past decade, possibly as a result of competition with program development and resourcing challenges to 

meet the Service’s enhanced homeland security responsibilities.’’ 

It goes on to say, ‘‘Additionally, the move to the Coast Guard’s 

current Sector organization displaced the MER function from the 

legacy marine safety community into a new response community 

paired with law enforcement and search and rescue activities. This 

new construct created the unintended consequence of changing the 

existing MER community and placed many new people with little 

or no program experience into MER positions.’’ 

You see where I am going? Where are we? Because one of the 

things that I have said over and over again is that we cannot be 

lulled into a culture of mediocrity. There are too many people depending on us. And this is your own report. So I just want you to 

comment very briefly, and then I am finished. 

Admiral COOK. Well, Congressman, first off, I think the Coast 

Guard, we certainly are a learning organization. So the fact that 

we did that report and pointed out things we need to improve on, 

we are going to improve on it. A very concrete step, we are forming 

an incident management directorate within the headquarters. It is 

going to be headed up by a senior executive. That certainly demonstrates the organization’s commitment to improving that area. 

We have also got some additional billets this year, I think it was 

35, related to follow-on from Deepwater Horizon, but related for 

just incident management. 

CORRECTION: The Coast Guard was provided funding to 

hire 20 additional billets in fiscal year 2011 for marine environmental response and incident management purposes. 

Additionally, 33 billets were funded to support the marine 

safety program. 

16 

So the message internally is received, and we are starting to redirect our resources in order to make sure that we have the response and incident management skills that we need. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GUINTA. [presiding.] The gentleman from Minnesota Mr. 

Cravaack, do you have any questions? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Yes, Mr. Chair, I do. 

First off, I would like to thank Admiral Cook for being here today 

and Mr. Lederer thank you for being here today as well, and thank 

you for all of the great service those in the Coast Guard provide 

us each and every day. Thank you, sir. 

First off with that, sir, Coast Guard regulations have a tremendous and a negative impact on Minnesota. Admiral Cook, as you 

well know, the Coast Guard is requiring fishing guides on nonborder landlocked lakes deemed navigable by the Coast Guard to 

obtain Federal Operator of Uninspected Passenger Vessels license, 

otherwise known as a Six-Pack. This is incredibly burdensome, a 

requirement on a wide range of tourism-related jobs. Basically you 

are making high schoolers go out and get these licenses. 

Now, unfortunately, I have been unable to find out exactly how 

much these Six-Packs cost these young people that are looking for 

summer employment. And you have got to remember, in Minnesota, the summer is about 3 months long. So it is a very short 

period of time that they are going to require these licenses. To me, 

this is extremely unacceptable. 

The other aspect is I am very interested, sir—let us comment on 

that, sir. Could you comment on the Six-Pack for us? 

Admiral COOK. Well, Congressman, a number of inputs regarding 

the TWIC have been received, and they are a fundamental piece 

leading to the Six-Pack license. When we are looking across the 

board, though, we need to validate both safety and security, and in 

doing so, we continue to look for refinements of that. And we are 

in the process of refining the TWIC requirements. 

But as far as the licensing, all we can offer—and we continue to 

work with the locals—is a restricted license, which makes it easier 

for them to obtain it, but not less costly. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. TWIC and the Six-Pack are completely different 

things, so realize that. But I would like to just focus on the SixPack. Where is the closest place—can you tell me where the closest 

place you can get a Six-Pack license in Minnesota? 

Admiral COOK. Well, they are all done through the National 

Maritime Center in West Virginia. And if we are going to get a restricted license, they can work with their local OCMI, but the actual document is produced in West Virginia. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. As I understand it, the closest place you can 

apply for actually a Six-Pack is like in Ohio. So you are going to 

have a 17-year-old kid that wants to be a fishing guide in the summertime have to go to Ohio to get a Six-Pack license. As I understand it, that is how this is supposed to work. If I am wrong, please 

correct me on that. But as I understand it, you are making a kid 

who is going to be a boat guide for less than six people—has probably been fishing that lake all his life—go to Ohio to get a Six-Pack 

card. 

17 

My time is quickly depleting. But one of the big things I want 

to know, sir, is why has the Coast Guard all of a sudden in March, 

I guess, of last year decided to make Lake Mille Lacs now a navigable water when it is an inland lake and has had no Federal jurisdiction on those waters since God created it? Could you explain 

that, sir? 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, I understand that it was reviewed 

again recently, and it has historically navigable roots, and nothing 

has changed that. I know Mr. Lederer may have the background 

from a legal foundation standpoint, but essentially it had roots as 

a waterway. And the way the law goes—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. March 10 of last year, sir. Now you are putting 

Federal requirements on an inland lake, State lake, and, quite 

frankly, I find that a huge overreach of Federal authority on a 

State’s rights. This is not a navigable water. This has been a fishing—it is a large body of water. But I find that to be unacceptable, 

and I have asked the Coast Guard to also comment on that as well. 

I have not received anything from the Coast Guard yet. You are 

placing Federal restrictions on a lake that is a State lake. It is totally landlocked. It does not have any title tributaries, any mention 

like that. I think this is a huge overreach of the Federal Government. 2010, that lake has been in existence since God created it, 

and all of a sudden the Coast Guard deems it a navigable water. 

Could you explain that? 

Admiral COOK. Sir, I would like to defer to Mr. Lederer. I know 

we have discussed this previously. There is a legal foundation for 

this. 

Mr. LEDERER. Sir, very frequently, we are regularly around the 

country, there are bodies of water that may not appear to be navigable, the issue is raised to the local district. I don’t know what 

triggered it in the case of this lake. But this does happen from time 

to time, and then the local district must then look very carefully, 

and does look carefully, at the historical use of the body of water, 

and a navigability determination is based upon that. 

My understanding is that the ninth district went through that 

process and came to that conclusion. The best I can tell you is that 

this is not unprecedented or unusual. And in terms of the Coast 

Guard’s responsibilities, we have to take them very seriously. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chair, I am out of time, but I would like a 

second followup of questions later, sir. 

Mr. GUINTA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Landry. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Cook, with respect to your rules regarding a notice of arrival, could you tell me—I had sent a letter over to the Coast 

Guard concerning a notice of arrival, and a lot of my supply vessel 

owners are having difficulty trying to understand exactly what the 

official position is, I guess, of the Coast Guard. You all do a tremendous job down in Louisiana in regulating our offshore supply 

vessel industry. They always have compliments for you all. And it 

seems from the correspondence that I have gotten back and forth 

from you all and from industry, that this is an issue that you all 

agree is an unnecessary burden to the industry. 

18 

So I was wondering how you can take a step forward in showing 

the rest of these agencies around this city how you can take a regulation that is causing industry some pain, causing you some pain, 

and just clearing it out once and for all? Could you update me on 

that? 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, first off, the SAFE Port Act required us to institute the notice of arrival on the Outer Continental 

Shelf, consistent with other notice of arrival requirements that we 

have. So we went through the standard rulemaking process, and 

we did not receive any adverse comments to that docket, so we anticipated that the offshore industry would be ready for that. 

The reason that the Coast Guard looks at the rulemaking as a 

benefit is that it provides safety and security situational awareness 

for us, or maritime domain awareness out on the Outer Continental Shelf. But since the rule was published, the Offshore Marine 

Safety Association also came to us and asked us to reconsider different ways we could implement it that wouldn’t be burdensome to 

them, but would also provide us the additional maritime domain 

awareness that we think is important both from a safety and security standpoint. So we are working currently with OMSA to do 

that. 

Mr. LANDRY. How did you go from regulating foreign vessels to 

become a regulation against domestic vessels as well? It seems to 

me from the discussions that I have had, the way the regulation 

is set up, it is nearly impossible for our industry down in the gulf 

to comply with because they are going back and forth so often. 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, the U.S.-flagged vessels are exempt if they are—suppose they are leaving Port Foshan and are 

going out to work in a block and then coming back, there is no reporting required then. But there is reporting required when they 

go from block to block. And I think that is the point at which the 

industry is saying they can anticipate those moves. But the legal 

fundamentals were there to bring in other OSVs in order to accomplish the full visibility. 

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Lederer? 

Mr. LEDERER. Mr. Landry, the only thing I would add to that is 

that the SAFE Port Act requirement was to complete the rulemaking, and it did specify foreign vessels. The way we looked at 

that was that these notice of arrival provisions had to fit within the 

fabric of the notice of arrival regulations that we had at the time, 

because, again, in terms of protecting maritime security as well as 

marine safety, we need to have full maritime domain awareness. 

So we are relying not just on the SAFE Port Act provision, but on 

a preexisting Ports and Waterways Safety Act provisions that are 

the support for the preexisting notice of arrival regulations. 

So the bottom line is that we were working on our preexisting 

legal authorities to develop a notice of arrival scheme that would 

work across the board. 

Mr. LANDRY. How are we going to fix this problem? Because my 

mariners, I think, have always upheld themselves to work very 

well with the Coast Guard, and they are just saying this is simply 

something that they can’t comply with, and I agree. The traffic on 

the Gulf of Mexico amongst those offshore supply vessels is heavy. 

I mean, it is outstanding. I really wish we would bring this thing 

19 

to a head so that we can just continue to move forward in the work 

that they have to do down there without having to worry about an 

unburdensome regulation that no one can comply with and you 

can’t enforce. 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, I will commit that we are going to 

continue to work with OMSA, and we have a formal partnership, 

and we have a charter for this particular group. So it is recognized 

on both sides as an issue that needs to be resolved. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you. 

Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Cook, to the ballast water rule, the one major rule presently under consideration would amend the Coast Guard’s existing 

regulations on ballast water management. What is the timetable 

for completion of this rulemaking at this point? Is it possible to develop new standards that are technically feasible, economically viable, and environmentally effective? 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, if I could briefly answer that and 

then also ask Mr. Lederer to join in on part of the response. 

Mr. LARSEN. Absolutely. 

Admiral COOK. The timeline is certainly complicated by the technical nature of what we are trying to achieve and whether that 

technology actually exists and can be employed in the marine environment. So that makes it doubly challenging to commit to a 

timeline in addition to any of the administrative reviews, because 

there were—after we published the notice of proposed rulemaking, 

there were comments in the thousands. From 500 or 600 individual 

commenters, there are 2,000 or so comments. There is a wide range 

of opinions, and then beyond that there is also a range of scientifically supportable information that we have to factor into our overall rulemaking. 

Mr. LEDERER. Sir, with respect, there is a short answer and a 

long answer. I will give you the short answer in terms of just the 

timing. I think we are well positioned right now with respect to 

getting this out. Really a remarkable amount of discussion that has 

gone on within the executive branch to move this rule forward, and 

it has been very productive. So, one, more probably discussion on 

this rule than any I can recall in the last several years, and productive discussion. I think we have a way ahead, and I think you 

are going to see something published in the next several months. 

Mr. LARSEN. I will certainly task the staff to track that as well. 

Mr. Chairman, am I on the clock or not? I want to clarify. 

Mr. GUINTA. You are not on the clock, but I will allow you to continue. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. I will try to be expeditious then. 

With regards to vessel weight and stability requirements, the 

Coast Guard recently amended its regulations governing the maximum weight and passenger capacity on vessels. It is my understanding that some boat operators have expressed their concerns 

these new requirements have reduced the number of passengers allowed onboard, and that, in turn, could impact the profitability of 

their operations, thereby fitting right into the concerns of the heading of this particular hearing. 

20 

So, Admiral Cook or Mr. Lederer, can you explain various factors 

that have been taken into consideration by the Coast Guard when 

it establishes new weight and stability requirements? And could a 

rule have met its intended goal to enhance marine safety if it had 

not considered a factor of an assumed average weight per person 

factor? 

Admiral COOK. Well, Congressman, really that is the central 

piece. We went back with our national centers for disease and also 

looked at some of the other scientific data that showed—I mean, 

just generally, people are bigger. And the only thing that we can 

do as far as providing stability on these vessels is to take into account the weight that is already there from the vessel and then 

how it might be positioned in terms of people as they are located 

in different locations. So we have made it as straightforward as 

possible to have simplified stability tests where we go out and witness the weights being moved around so that the industry doesn’t 

have to go through a full inclining test, which is much more expensive. But ultimately, the amount of weight and where it is moved 

has to correspond to people and the growing size of Americans. 

Mr. LARSEN. As uncomfortable as that might be to say, is that 

a consistent approach? Has that been a consistent approach regardless of the year? The same approach in 2005, same approach in 

2000, same approach in 1995 that the Coast Guard takes to determine weight and stability requirements? 

Admiral COOK. The approach is consistent, although we had not 

raised the weight in a very large number of years. I can’t recall the 

exact number of years, but we have gone from an average weight 

of 140 to an average weight of 185. But we have built into the 

standard such that we will continue to be tied into the national 

database, and if weight goes up or down for average Americans, the 

rule will adjust. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question now, and 

then I will follow up, I am sure. But I will ask one more question 

now. And then, if you don’t mind, we will go to the other Members, 

if that is all right with you. 

Admiral Cook, two provisions were included in last year’s authorization act regarding the modification to oil spill emergency response activities and traffic management in the north Puget Sound 

region in Washington State, probably right outside my window. 

The first provision would expand the definition of ‘‘higher volume 

port area,’’ found in section 155–1020 of the Coast Guard’s regs, to 

now include the Strait of Juan de Fuca out to Cape Flattery. The 

second provision encourages the initiation of negotiations with 

Canada to require tugboat escorts for all laden tank vessels 

transiting the northwest straits region of Puget Sound. It would 

also require the Coast Guard to issue recommendations for the full 

range of options for the management of maritime traffic and to enhance spill prevention and response systems. 

So what is the status of the Coast Guard’s efforts to implement 

these provisions? And has the Coast Guard revised its definition of 

‘‘higher volume port area’’ as required? 

Admiral COOK. Mr. Larsen, I would like to be able to take that 

back and give you a detailed answer for the record, if that would 

be acceptable to you, sir. 

21 

Mr. LARSEN. That would be acceptable. 

Mr. LARSEN. What would be the timeline in terms of how soon 

you can get back with an answer? 

Admiral COOK. I will get back to you by the middle of June. 

Mr. LARSEN. The middle of June. How about June 15? That is 

my birthday on June 15. 

Admiral COOK. June 15 it is, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Great. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

The Coast Guard has initiated the rulemaking proceeding 

required by section 710 of the Coast Guard Authorization 

Act of 2010 to change the definition of the ‘‘higher volume 

port area’’ in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Regulatory 

Identification Number is 1625–AB75. 

The Coast Guard continues ongoing preparedness and response efforts with Canada under the Canada-United 

States Joint Pollution Contingency Plan and geographical 

annexes. For example, there is a pollution response exercise planned in June 2011 in Seattle that will focus on 

international cooperation. Additionally, in August there is 

a national level convening planned for the Joint Response 

Team, which will include regional participation and address national and regional issues. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you. 

Before I go to the next Member, Admiral, thank you very much 

for being here. 

And I had a quick question regarding the fishing vessel safety 

rulemaking. My district of New Hampshire is greatly impacted by 

any type of new or additional regulatory requirement placed on the 

industry. While we all agree that safety needs to be foremost in our 

minds, I wanted to follow up with you about the authorization act, 

section 604, regarding dockside fishing vessels requirement undergoing the safety examination every 2 years. The first question I 

have is this: Are you able to complete it by October 2012? 

Admiral COOK. A lot of it will depend, Congressman, on how the 

industry comes back to us. For example, you know, we have a program now that has voluntary exams, and probably in the neighborhood of 8,000 of those done each year. We anticipate that—although we don’t know for sure whether—the exact number of vessels that are going to fish 3 miles beyond the boundary line, so we 

anticipate that will be about 30,000 to 35,000. So just as kind of 

a test bed, we have done a lot of outreach, and then we have seen 

how many more voluntary exams we have gotten. So since we 

started the outreach in October, we have only got really about a 

10-percent increase in the number of voluntary exams. 

So I think it is going to be difficult to get the industry to the 

table. Our regulatory experience in significant rulemakings like 

this or changes in the dynamics of the way an industry is regulated 

is that they will wait until very near the end of a perceived deadline. So I think the challenge is going to be more from the industry 

side in getting them lined up so that we can do a systematic dockside safety program. 

22 

Mr. GUINTA. And if you are not able to complete all fishing vessels by that date, what would occur at that point? Would you prevent those vessels that had not been inspected from going out? Or 

how would you interpret the law in that sense? 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, I think, rather than give you like 

a very definitive answer like that today, what I would like to do 

is just commit to being in contact with the committee staff and let 

you know how it is going so that maybe you can help us avoid a 

situation like that where it is a showdown. But ultimately, if they 

are not in compliance with the law, that would be really the only 

sanction that we could provide is that they wouldn’t be able to go 

out and fish. 

Mr. GUINTA. Assuming both sides are diligently trying to meet 

this deadline, and just due to the number of vessels we have and 

the resources that you have doesn’t allow us to meet that deadline, 

would it be appropriate for us to consider an extension? 

Admiral COOK. I think an extension would enable us to be able 

to put in a more systematic way to reach the final goal. 

And as an added comment, this is a very significant thing to 

bring an industry in that has not previously been, in quotes, ‘‘inspected,’’ although this is called a compliance exam. So if you look 

at what we are doing with the towing vessel industry, we have a 

full bridging program that is based on voluntary examinations, and 

that is because those towing vessel organizations are just a little 

bit more systematically organized under the American Waterway 

Operators, who provided us that opportunity. 

But we need some kind of parallel structure that enables the 

fishing community to be more comfortable with the Coast Guard 

coming down, and our Coast Guard compliance inspectors understanding a lot of the issues that are facing the fishing vessel community as far as the particulars of their vessels, the different types 

of installations that are on the ships. So if there was an additional 

time, we would be able to develop a more systematic program. 

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. Harris, do you have any questions? 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you very much, Admiral Cook, for coming before the committee. 

Channel buoys probably aren’t your shop, but maybe you can get 

word back to them we are waiting for those channel buoys in Rock 

Hall Harbor to get moved so that we can get our tourism business 

going for the deep-draft vessels. 

Anyway, Admiral Cook, does the mariner medical fitness determinations, does that come under your jurisdiction in the rules? Let 

me ask you a question. Could you just outline to me—because my 

understanding is that it is conducted differently from FAA and 

highway folks how they do the medical examinations and get someone determined to be fit. How does the Coast Guard do it? 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, the way we do it is that the mariner goes to their own doctor and then provides that information 

to a medical review staff in our centralized mariner evaluations in 

West Virginia. 

What I would say, the thing I guess that I also want to add to 

the answer, is that we just got authorized for a mariner medical 

advisory committee from the authorization act, and we have just 

23 

now gotten departmental approval for membership. And that is 

going to be a prime tasking for that advisory committee to help us 

look at how we can bring the Coast Guard to view the physical 

exams, kind of a registry of doctors, the way the FAA does in particular. We like the way they do it. 

But the reason that we are using the current system goes back 

to the legacy of the 17 RECs all doing things differently, and we 

thought by centralizing and providing a robust medical staff that 

we could eliminate a lot of those issues. And many of them we 

have, but we still see that further progress could be made if we 

were to go down a different route. 

Dr. HARRIS. So when you say the medical staff, what is the level 

of the person who is making that determination? The centralized 

person. 

Admiral COOK. The head doctor is an occupational medical doctor. 

Dr. HARRIS. I know. But that doctor is not reviewing every examination, I take it; is that right? 

Admiral COOK. There are three medical doctors, six physician’s 

assistants, and then some medical techs. So it is a staff of just over 

20. 

Dr. HARRIS. Staff of over 20. And what you are suggesting is that 

you might go the way of the other administrations and actually 

just have a register of physicians whom, if they sign off on the individual, then they don’t have—you can kind of eliminate a lot of 

those 20 staff, I take it? 

Admiral COOK. Well, some of them, sir. But the challenge would 

be—you really have to do a lot of audits in a case like that. And 

FAA has a full staff of doctors on the FAA staff that go out and 

audit their registry of doctors to make sure that they are complying 

with the rules as the FAA understands them. 

Dr. HARRIS. But you are willing to look into that other option 

and actively investigate that? 

Admiral COOK. We are. 

Dr. HARRIS. Well, thank you very much, Admiral, again for appearing before the committee and getting word back about Rock 

Hall. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 

The channel buoy in Rock Hall Harbor was moved on June 

1, 2011. 

Mr. LANDRY. [presiding.] Mr. Cravaack. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Sorry to belabor this, but, Mr. Lederer, can you tell me how 

much a Six-Pack costs? 

Mr. LEDERER. I cannot, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. Can you tell me, a Minnesota kid goes up 

to be a fishing guide for 3 months in the Mille Lacs Lake, where 

he needs to go to get a Six-Pack license? 

Mr. LEDERER. I cannot, sir, but we will get that information to 

you. 

[The information follows:] 

24 

In accordance with the regulations in Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations 10.219, the fees associated with obtaining 

an original Merchant Mariner Credential with an officer 

endorsement as operator of uninspected passenger vessels 

(OUPV) are: 

Evaluation fee ..................................................................................................................................... $100 

Examination fee .................................................................................................................................. $95 

Issuance fee ....................................................................................................................................... $45 

Total ........................................................................................................................................... $240 

Other costs incurred by an applicant associated with obtaining an endorsement as OUPV include: 

TWIC Fee ........................................................................................................................................... $132 .50 

CPR/First Aid Training ...................................................................................................................... $60 

Physical Exam ................................................................................................................................... $100 

Drug Test .......................................................................................................................................... $49 

Total costs associated with obtaining an original credential 

as OUPV is $581.50 for a credential good for 5 years. 

Credentials issued by the Coast Guard expire 5 years from 

the date of issue. Finally, costs associated with the renewal of an endorsement as OUPV would include: the 

evaluation fee; issuance fee; physical exam; and drug test 

for a total of $244 for a 5-year credential. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. I was told by a Coast Guard Toledo, Ohio. 

So we have got to get a kid from Minnesota to Toledo, Ohio. 

Can you tell me, do applicants need to pick up their license in 

person? 

Mr. LEDERER. Let me pass that to Admiral Cook. 

Admiral COOK. They do have to pick it up in person, but it 

doesn’t have to be back in Toledo. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. Do you know, sir, where the closest Six-Pack 

license place would be to apply for a license in Minnesota? 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, I would like to get back for the 

record to you, because we have a number of electronic features that 

we offer now, and I am just not sure whether the Six-Pack license 

falls under that or not. 

[The information follows:] 

If an applicant for an officer endorsement as operator of 

uninspected passenger vessels has provided their biometric 

and biographic information through a TWIC enrollment 

center, they are able to apply for the endorsement through 

the mail. They may apply in person or through the mail 

to any of the Regional Examination Centers, per 46 CFR 

10.209(d). 

The two closest Regional Examination Centers to Minnesota are those located in Toledo, Ohio, and St. Louis, 

Missouri. For an original issued credential, an applicant 

would need to travel to a Regional Examination Center to 

25 

take the appropriate examination, unless they make alternative arrangements for a traveling examination team to 

proctor the exam at a closer location. 

TWIC enrollment centers are located in Duluth, Minnesota, and Roseville, Minnesota. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I was told they were not. So I was literally told 

that a kid from Minnesota has got to go to Toledo, Ohio, to pick 

up a Six-Pack. So just food for thought. That is where I am coming 

from. 

Admiral COOK. OK. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Now, let us get back, Mr. Lederer, you told me 

that because of the historical use of the waterway was why Region 

9 has gone ahead and deemed Mille Lacs Lake, right basically in 

the center of Minnesota, a navigable water. Can you expound upon 

that? 

Mr. LEDERER. Only to say, sir, that the historical use of a body 

of water is a significant factor in making a navigability determination. I have not seen the ninth district opinion that I understand 

has been written concerning this, and I will be glad to do that 

when I get back to the office, and take that for the record if I could 

as well. 

[The information follows:] 

As a result of the increased focus nationwide on passenger 

vessel safety including licensing of operators of 

uninspected passenger vessels, the Ninth Coast Guard District and Eighth Coast Guard District determined they 

needed a navigability determination for Mille Lacs Lake in 

Minnesota. Portions of Mille Lacs Lake are in both Coast 

Guard Districts so the navigability determination was coordinated between the districts with the Eighth Coast 

Guard District actually issuing the determination as the 

majority of the lake is within its boundaries. The navigability determination was made on March 3, 2010, with a 

copy attached along with the supporting memo. 

The foundation for Federal authority and subsequently 

Coast Guard jurisdiction over navigable waters of the 

United States traces back to the Commerce Clause of the 

Constitution and a series of cases decided by Federal 

Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Regardless of 

the State or the waterway, the Coast Guard has applied 

the same basic tests in determining navigability for the 

past 50 years, with the exception of jurisdictional issues 

involving the Clean Water Act which have continued to 

significantly evolve. Our test is published in the Title 33 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 2.36. 

§2.36 Navigable waters of the United States, navigable waters, and territorial waters. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, 

navigable waters of the United States, navigable waters, 

and territorial waters mean, except where Congress has 

designated them not to be navigable waters of the United 

States: 

(1) Territorial seas of the United States; 

26 

(2) Internal waters of the United States that are subject to 

tidal influence; and 

(3) Internal waters of the United States not subject to tidal 

influence that: 

(i) Are or have been used, or are or have been susceptible 

for use, by themselves or in connection with other waters, 

as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce, notwithstanding natural or man-made obstructions 

that require portage, or 

(ii) A governmental or non-governmental body, having expertise in waterway improvement, determines to be capable of improvement at a reasonable cost (a favorable balance between cost and need) to provide, by themselves or 

in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce. 

No Federal statute specifically addresses the navigability 

of Mille Lacs Lake, and no Federal court has made a specific determination of the navigability of this waterway. 

The navigability determination is based on the historical 

use of the waterway as a highway for interstate commerce. 

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, millions of feet of timber were towed across the lake to the Rum River by steamboats. At the time, the lake opened directly to the Rum 

River and the timber was then floated down the river to 

various sawmills. Consequently, in 1981, based upon the 

historic use of the lake, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

determined that Mille Lacs Lake is a navigable waterway 

of the United States. In 2010, the U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) came to a similar conclusion. 

27 


Insert offset folio 11 here 66528.010
28 


Insert offset folio 11 here 66528.011
29 


Insert offset folio 12 here 66528.012
30 

Mr. CRAVAACK. The State of Minnesota has been in existence for 

158 years, 153 years. So what I am trying to figure out is why all 

of a sudden now? Why all of a sudden is the Coast Guard coming 

in last year and deeming a body of water which is in the center 

of our State navigable waters when I—according to the records, I 

see no substantial—the word ‘‘substantial’’—interstate and foreign 

commerce on the Lake of Mille Lacs. So, sir, you are going to definitely have to justify those words to me because, quite frankly, 

again, this is bureaucratic overreach on a State’s lake. So could you 

explain, sir? 

Mr. LEDERER. Sir, we will definitely get back to you on that. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you very much. And with that and high 

hopes of hearing back, I yield back, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you. 

Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Cook, Congress passed the Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act last year to enhance the safety and personal security of 

all U.S. passengers aboard cruise ships. The Coast Guard was directed to develop regulations to implement several important provisions of this law, yet statutory deadlines have come and gone, and 

proposed rules have yet to appear. 

When can we expect to see the Coast Guard publish a notice of 

proposed rule on the Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act? 

Admiral COOK. Congressman, I want to assure you that we are 

working hard on that one and coordinating with the FBI and some 

other interagency coordination that we think is essential to the 

foundation of that rule. And it is our desire to have something published by the end of the year. 

Mr. LARSEN. By the end of the calendar year? 

Admiral COOK. Calendar year, yes, sir. 

CORRECTION: The Coast Guard plans to publish the notice of proposed rulemaking on cruise vessel safety by the 

end of 2012, not 2011 as implied in the witness’ response. 

Mr. LEDERER. And, Mr. Larsen, if I could also add, tomorrow 

there is a notice that will be going out to the public seeking available technologies, so you will see a publication in that respect in 

terms of forward motion. 

Mr. LARSEN. So that will be a step forward. But what steps is 

the Coast Guard taking with the FBI or any other law enforcement 

agencies to ensure that reporting and enforcement actions will be 

seamlessly coordinated? Have the agencies entered yet into any 

agreements that clearly articulate responsibilities and lines of communication? 

Admiral COOK. I am not aware of any formal agreement on that 

yet, Congressman, but I would anticipate, just the normal context 

of how we do business, it will be codified when the rule comes out. 

But from what I have been told by my staff, the FBI is working 

with us as a good partner, and they understand that that part of 

where U.S. citizens go out on cruise ships, you know, hasn’t really 

been charted very well before, and it is important to them to get 

it right, too. So I think you are going to see fruits of good cooperation and a rule that is both enforceable from a cruise ship standVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:59 Nov 18, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\CG\5-24-1~1\66528.TXT JEAN
31 

point and something that is meaningful from a law enforcement 

standpoint back here. 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, you know that in the past we have had hearings both in the subcommittee and in the full committee on the 

issue of cruise vessel safety and security, and members of this full 

committee and subcommittee who are extremely interested in seeing progress being made on this issue. 

Admiral COOK. Yes, sir. I think this is one where the progress 

is behind the scenes, but it is real. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right. Well, we will look forward to that end-ofthe-calendar-year movement. Thank you. 

Mr. LANDRY. Admiral Cook, I want to go back to my issue on 

the—that I talked about earlier, and I want to make sure that all 

of my colleagues understand the problem that we are having. I 

really enjoy pizza. I am a big pizza guy. I eat it all the time. I order 

it, the delivery guy. You have used pizza deliveries before, I am 

sure? All right. OK. Do you think that this morning if you called 

up your favorite pizza parlor, if you called the guy that delivers the 

pizzas to you, if he could tell you where he would be delivering pizzas to, you know, in case maybe you wanted one at your house? 

Admiral COOK. I don’t think he could do that, sir. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. That is the problem we are having in the Gulf 

of Mexico. You see, those supply vessels, it is hard for them to be 

able to forecast where they are going to be in that 24-hour window 

in order to make that reporting to the Coast Guard. It is not like 

a vessel coming in internationally which they know what ports it 

is going to, where the cargo is going to be unloaded, what cargo is 

going to be loaded onto it, and then leaving the country again. We 

have hundreds of vessels going back and forth from various ports 

all up and down the coast of Louisiana. So that I just wanted to 

make sure you understand the gravity of the problem. 

Do you think that we can fix this through the regulatory process, 

and that we don’t need to fix it legislatively? 

Admiral COOK. Well, we would like to be able to fix it through 

the implementation of the regulation. I don’t know if Mr. Lederer 

has any comments about that. No. 

Mr. LANDRY. So the regulatory fix is certainly more conducive 

than a legislative fix, because we would probably get it wrong up 

here, I am guessing. 

Admiral COOK. Well, I think in this case, Congressman, since we 

are aligned with OMSA in working this—you know, we are not 

aligned exactly what the solution is yet, but we are aligned that 

we both need to work on it. I think it would be fair to give us a 

good chance in the regulatory arena first. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. Great. 

Just one last thing. Could you provide for the record, just supplement, a list of the Members that have inquired about notice of arrival and when they may have made any inquiries so I can try to 

figure out who our friends are out there? 

Admiral COOK. We will do that, Congressman. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. Thank you so much. 

[The information follows:] 

32 

Member Request 

Received Notes 

Sen. Mary L. Landrieu ....... May 25, 2011 ..... Question for the Record following 

Secretary Napolitano’s May 25th 

hearing before the Senate Committee on Appropriations. 

Rep. Don Young ................ May 24, 2011 ..... Engaged RADM Cook and Mr. Calvin 

Lederer in a discussion regarding 

OCS Notices of Arrival during the 

same hearing. 

Rep. Jeffrey M. Landry ...... March 15, 2011 .. Letter citing specific concerns with 

the Coast Guard’s published regulation for Advanced Notice of Arrivals on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. 

Sen. David Vitter ............... July 21, 2010 ...... Question for the Record following 

ADM Papp’s July 21st hearing before the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo .... June 22, 2010 .... Letter regarding the rulemaking 

project for Notice of Arrivals on 

the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. 

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings June 22, 2010 .... Letter regarding the rulemaking 

project for Notice of Arrivals on 

the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. 

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings 

and Rep. Frank A. 

LoBiondo.

June 17, 2010 .... Both Congressmen engaged RDML 

Cook in a discussion regarding 

OCS Notices of Arrival during the 

hearing held this date. 

Mr. LANDRY. The chair now recognizes the Honorable Don 

Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is such an honor to see 

you sitting there. I think you have probably inquired in my main 

interest. 

Where did this regulation proposal come from, as far as the ships 

that go across 4 and 5 different—14 different plats? Whose bright 

idea was it? 

Admiral COOK. Well, Congressman, I will just say that it is rooted—the reason for the rule is rooted back in the SAFE Port Act 

and a requirement to align—— 

Mr. YOUNG. I wrote that rule. I was chairman of this committee, 

and that was to be applied only to foreign vessels that are in ports, 

never to the oil industry, the crew vessels, et cetera. Now, where 

did it come from? 

Admiral COOK. In trying to align it with the notice of arrival requirements that were already standing in our regulations, which 

was another part of the task. 

33 

Mr. YOUNG. Wait a minute. I am being argumentative right here, 

but never in the discussion that we wrote that bill was it to be applied to cruise ships, et cetera, that were doing the oil industry’s 

work. Never. Now, if you want to bet on that, I will bet $1,000 

right now. Now, where did it come from? 

The Coast Guard is getting like the other agencies now. You 

have got these little minions down there doing this type thing. 

Now, why was it put in there? 

Mr. LEDERER. Sir, I can’t tell you whose brain it came out of, but 

I can tell you that as we sit here today in 2011, and having talked 

with OMSA about the impact of it, the Coast Guard as an entity 

saw that rulemaking as part of the fabric of our notice of arrival 

system across the country, and that was an area that we thought 

was a gap that needed filling. And the SAFE Port Act language 

urged us to complete the rulemaking. 

And, yes, it did say ‘‘foreign vessels,’’ but the rulemaking that we 

were working on was broader than that and is based on the Ports 

Waterways Safety Act, consistent with our notice of arrival fabric 

that we have across the country, because the gulf was a major gap 

both for maritime security and for safety. 

Mr. YOUNG. If I am not mistaken, you know, you had to go to 

the TWIC program, right? Who are you protecting us from? Every 

crewman is already cleared by the Coast Guard. I mean, do you 

know how hard it is to get a TWIC card? 

Mr. LEDERER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. Very hard. And you made it harder, especially in 

Alaska. Yet now you are going to have a ship that is trying to do 

the job. 

See, my frustration—and I am a big supporter of the Coast 

Guard. I don’t believe you should be in this business. I really don’t. 

You have the TWIC. You have made sure these people can turn 

around and get cleared. And now you are imposing, as agencies 

have done in this administration, imposing the restriction on the 

development of our fossil-fuel industries. Now, tell me where is the 

justification for it? I mean, who is the threat here? 

Mr. LEDERER. Well, sir, the distinction is to be drawn between 

somebody, an individual mariner who holds a TWIC, and vessels 

that are operating in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. YOUNG. You clear that vessel. You have to clear the vessel. 

Mr. LEDERER. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. YOUNG. You have to clear the vessel before it sails, right? 

But you can’t have him clear when he crosses. Like you say, I am 

an oil rig, and I need some work right now. I need somebody to 

service me right now. He doesn’t know that, the guy running the 

ship. He has got to notify you 24 hours ahead of time? How are you 

going to do that? 

Mr. LEDERER. Sir, before you came in, we were discussing with 

Mr. Landry that question of how do we operationalize it, and I will 

defer that back to Admiral Cook. But the notion of having maritime demand awareness within the gulf to know who is there who 

is supposed to be there and who isn’t there who isn’t supposed to 

be there is what we are trying to get at there. And it is a significant concern. And we can see the kinds of things that happen in 

looking at Deepwater Horizon in terms of if an evildoer was to get 

34 

to a rig, and I think that is the concept behind it. And so that is 

what we are trying to get at. 

Mr. YOUNG. Don’t say ‘‘try.’’ Let us do it, because I don’t want 

to impose this type of restriction when I am on a rig and I need 

help right now, and he owns the ship, and he has to notify you 24 

hours or he could be possibly fined. You see the ridiculousness of 

the situation? They are there to service the rigs. 

So I still want to know what brainchild—there is no pregnancy 

without somebody being involved. Where did it come from? I would 

like to find out—in fact, I will make that an official request. What 

brainchild in the Coast Guard did it come from? Because that 

shows, for me, a lack of knowledge of what the industry is doing. 

That is my concern. 

You know, we charge you with search and rescue and drug interdiction, et cetera, and now you are involved, and I don’t see how 

you can possibly do it unless you change the regulation, or the proposed regulation. I don’t see how you have the manpower to do it, 

especially with this type of budget we are facing right now. I want 

you to put money in something that does the service that is necessary, and I don’t believe this is necessary. 

Mr. Chairman, I am over my time right now, but, you know, just 

do me a favor, guys. Don’t get caught into this bogged-down EPA, 

Corps of Engineers, the rest of this. We have got to get this country 

back on the role of industrial might again, and then we are stopped 

by regulations that do no good for anybody. You don’t need to do 

that. You are a better agency than that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LANDRY. All right. Are there any other further questions? 

I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from Horizon Lines. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

35 


Insert offset folio 13 here 66528.013
36 


Insert offset folio 14 here 66528.014
37 


Insert offset folio 15 here 66528.015
38 


Insert offset folio 16 here 66528.016
39 


Insert offset folio 17 here 66528.017
40 


Insert offset folio 18 here 66528.018
41 


Insert offset folio 19 here 66528.019
42 


Insert offset folio 20 here 66528.020
43 


Insert offset folio 21 here 66528.021
44 

Mr. LANDRY [continuing]. Before I thank you again, you know, I 

want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members 

for their participation. As you can see, look, I am a big proponent 

of the Coast Guard. I think you guys do a wonderful job. I think 

you all can do a little bit better of a job and lead here in Washington and show other agencies how we can get rid of some of these 

unnecessary regulations. 

And so with that, this subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

45 


Insert offset folio 22 here 66528.022
46 


Insert offset folio 23 here 66528.023
47 


Insert offset folio 24 here 66528.024
48 


Insert offset folio 25 here 66528.025
49 


Insert offset folio 26 here 66528.026
50 


Insert offset folio 27 here 66528.027
51 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 28 here 66528.028