56600 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

membership or affiliation, biometric and 

other information collected to issue 

immigration cards evidencing receipt of 

immigration benefits and to conduct 

background checks and necessary to 

determine the existence of criminal 

history or other history necessary to 

make immigration decisions. Records in 

the system may also include case 

processing information such as date 

applications were filed or received by 

USCIS, application/petition status, 

location of record, FOIA/PA or other 

control number when applicable, and 

fee receipt data, and by application/ 

petition receipt number. 

SAFEGUARDS: 

Records in this system are 

safeguarded in accordance with 

applicable rules and policies, including 

all applicable DHS automated system 

security access policies. Strict controls 

have been imposed to minimize the risk 

of compromising the information that is 

being stored. Access to the computer 

system containing the records in this 

system is limited to those individuals 

who have a need to know the 

information for the performance of their 

official duties and who have appropriate 

clearances or permissions. The system 

maintains a real-time auditing function 

of individuals who access the system. 

Additional safeguards may vary by 

component and program. 

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: 

Electronic benefits information is 

archived and disposed of in accordance 

with the criteria approved by NARA. 

Electronic data pertaining to 

applications for naturalization will be 

deleted 15 years after the processing of 

the benefit being sought is completed. 

Information in the master file is 

destroyed 15 years after the last 

completed action with respect to the 

application. System documentation 

(e.g., manuals) are destroyed when the 

system is superseded, obsolete, or no 

longer needed for agency business. 

Electronic records extracted from 

immigrant and nonimmigrant benefits 

applications and petitions other than 

naturalization, asylum, or refugee status 

completed by applicants or petitioners 

is destroyed after the data is transferred 

to the electronic master file and verified. 

Information in the master file is 

destroyed 15 years after the last 

completed action with respect to the 

application. Daily reports generated by 

associated information technology 

systems are maintained for 15 years by 

the service center that generated the 

reports and then destroyed. 

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: 

The system manager is the Director, 

Office of Records Services, Department 

of Homeland Security, 111 

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Second 

Floor, Washington, DC 20529. 

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES: 

Individuals seeking notification of 

and access to any record contained in 

this system of records, or seeking to 

contest its content, may submit a 

request in writing to National Records 

Center, FOIA/PA Office, P.O. Box 

648010, Lee’s Summit, MO 64064–8010. 

Specific FOIA contact information can 

be found at http://www.dhs.gov/foia 

under ‘‘Contacts.’’ 

When seeking records about yourself 

from this system of records or any other 

USCIS system of records, your request 

must conform with the Privacy Act 

regulations set forth in 6 CFR Part 5. 

You must first verify your identity, 

meaning that you must provide your full 

name, current address and date and 

place of birth. You must sign your 

request, and your signature must either 

be notarized or submitted under 28 

U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits 

statements to be made under penalty or 

perjury as a substitute for notarization. 

While no specific form is required, you 

may obtain forms for this purpose from 

the Director, Disclosure and FOIA, 

http://www.dhs.gov or 1–866–431–0486. 

In addition you should provide the 

following: 

• An explanation of why you believe 

the Department would have information 

on you, 

• Specify when you believe the 

records would have been created, 

• If your request is seeking records 

pertaining to another living individual, 

you must include a statement from that 

individual certifying his/her agreement 

for you to access his/her records. 

Without this bulleted information, 

USCIS will not be able to conduct an 

effective search, and your request may 

be denied due to lack of specificity or 

lack of compliance with applicable 

regulations. 

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: 

See ‘‘Notification procedure’’ above. 

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: 

See ‘‘Notification procedure’’ above. 

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 

Information contained in this system 

of records is obtained from the 

individuals covered by the system. 

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

None. 

Hugo Teufel III, 

Chief Privacy Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. E8–22802 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[USCG 2006–25080] 

Medical and Physical Evaluation 

Guidelines for Merchant Mariner 

Credentials 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is 

to announce the availability of the final 

version of a Navigation and Vessel 

Inspection Circular. This NVIC contains 

revised guidelines for evaluating the 

physical and medical conditions of 

applicants for merchant mariner’s 

documents, licenses, certificates of 

registry and STCW endorsements, 

collectively referred to as 

‘‘credential(s).’’ 

The new NVIC is numbered 04–08, 

and it is entitled ‘‘Medical and Physical 

Evaluation Guidelines for Merchant 

Mariner Credentials.’’ It replaces NVIC 

2–98, which is cancelled as of the 

effective date of NVIC 04–08. 

DATES: NVIC 04–08 is effective on 

October 29, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: NVIC 04–08 is available on 

the internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, under this docket 

number [USCG 2006–25080]. It is also 

permanently available on the 

HOMEPORT internet Web site at: 

http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ 

ep/browse.do?channelId=-25023. 

The Department of Transportation 

Docket Management Facility maintains 

the public docket for this notice. All 

materials related to this NVIC are part 

of this docket and are available for 

inspection or copying at the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Copies of the 

docket may also be viewed on the 

Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on this notice or on NVIC 04– 

08, e-mail or call Captain Matthew D. 

Hall, MD, USPHS at the National 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56601 

Maritime Center, 304–433–3551, e-mail: 

matthew.d.hall@uscg.mil. 

For questions on viewing the docket, 

contact Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, Office of 

Information Services, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Administration, 

Office of the Secretary, at M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 202– 

366–9826; e-mail: renee.wright@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 26, 2006, the Coast Guard 

published a notice announcing the 

availability of, and seeking public 

comment on, a draft Navigation and 

Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) to 

replace the existing NVIC 2–98, 

‘‘Physical Evaluation Guidelines for 

Merchant Mariner’s Documents and 

Licenses.’’ See 71 FR 56998. The 

contents of the draft NVIC (September 

2006 draft NVIC) were developed from 

recommendations and input provided 

by the Merchant Marine Personnel 

Advisory Committee (MERPAC), the 

Towing Safety Advisory Committee 

(TSAC), and experienced maritime 

community medical practitioners. The 

public comment period ended on 

November 27, 2006. 

The Coast Guard received comments 

from 46 mariners, 15 shipping 

companies, 6 pilots and pilot 

organizations, 2 government agencies, 

8 advocacy groups, and 4 maritime 

unions. 

The Coast Guard has made numerous 

changes to the draft NVIC based upon 

the public comments received, and 

further input provided by MERPAC and 

TSAC after the Notice of Availability for 

the draft NVIC published in the Federal 

Register. These changes have been 

incorporated into NVIC 04–08, entitled 

‘‘Medical and Physical Evaluation 

Guidelines for Merchant Mariner 

Credentials,’’ so as to create a guidance 

document that is more viable and 

responsive to the needs of the impacted 

community. 

Discussion of the Changes From the 

Draft NVIC 

We have revised the format of the 

NVIC to make it easier to understand 

and use, and we have added a direct 

link to the National Maritime Center 

(NMC) Medical Evaluations Web site on 

HOMEPORT. This Web site contains 

additional useful medical related 

information for credential applicants, 

such as recent articles and links to other 

relevant information. 

There are now six enclosures instead 

of five to reflect a stand-alone enclosure 

for medications, and we have added a 

separate index and table of 

abbreviations for the medical conditions 

in enclosure (3) for ease of reference. We 

have also clarified, in the main body of 

the NVIC as opposed to only discussing 

it in the enclosures, that the guidance 

contained in the NVIC applies to 

applicants for original, renewal and 

raise in grade credentials. 

Enclosure (1)—Medical Certification 

Standards 

Minor changes were made to 

enclosure (1) to clarify a few concerns 

expressed in some comments. It was 

clarified that mariners with short-term 

conditions, such as a broken arm, have 

numerous flexible options at their 

disposal. They can request the 

credential be issued if they want to 

immediately deposit it with the Coast 

Guard until such time as they are 

healed. They may also choose not to 

apply for the credential until their 

condition has improved, or they may 

renew the credential for continuity 

purposes only until such time as their 

condition improves. We also added a 

warning in paragraph 10 of enclosure (1) 

advising that, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, 

criminal prosecution may result if false 

information is submitted to the Coast 

Guard with respect to the credential 

application process, by either the 

applicant or the medical practitioner 

responsible for the exams, tests, and/or 

physical demonstrations. 

Finally, the information contained in 

the paragraphs of enclosure (1) was 

reorganized, at the recommendation of 

MERPAC, to make the enclosure flow 

more logically. Now, the first paragraph 

discusses original credentials, the 

second paragraph discusses renewals, 

the third paragraph discusses raises in 

grade, and the fourth and fifth 

paragraphs discuss STCW endorsements 

and certificates of registry, respectively. 

Enclosure (2)—Physical Ability 

Guidelines 

There were numerous changes made 

to this enclosure, starting with its title 

being changed from ‘‘physical ability 

standards’’ to ‘‘physical ability 

guidelines’’ at the request of TSAC and 

MERPAC. The physical ability 

guidelines listed in the table of 

enclosure (2) were significantly revised, 

based largely on input provided by 

TSAC. There were also three important 

changes made to the introductory text of 

the enclosure. 

First, in response to multiple 

comments from vessel owner/operators 

expressing safety concerns related to 

obesity, we stated that if the examining 

medical practitioner doubts the 

applicant’s ability to meet the 

guidelines contained within this table, 

and for all applicants with a Body Mass 

Index (BMI) of 40.0 or higher, the 

practitioner should require that the 

applicant demonstrate the ability to 

meet the guidelines. This does not 

mean, for example, that the applicant 

must actually don an exposure suit, pull 

an uncharged 1.5 inch diameter 50′ fire 

hose with nozzle to full extension, or lift 

a charged 1.5 inch diameter fire hose to 

fire fighting position. Rather, the 

medical practitioner may utilize 

alternative measures to satisfy himself 

or herself that the applicant possesses 

the ability to meet the guidelines in the 

third column. If an individual is unable 

to satisfactorily demonstrate the ability 

to meet these guidelines, a credential 

with appropriate limitations may be 

issued by the Coast Guard. 

Second, in response to comments 

from the towing, offshore, and small 

passenger vessel industries expressing 

concern that the table (which is largely 

based upon Regulation I/9 and Table 

B–I/9–2 of the International Convention 

on Standards of Training, Certification & 

Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 as 

(amended)) does not accurately reflect 

operating conditions on many ‘‘smaller’’ 

vessels, we clarified that applicants who 

cannot meet all of the physical ability 

standards contained in the table may 

propose suitable alternate standards that 

are reflective of their particular 

operating conditions. Such proposals 

will be given consideration by the Coast 

Guard on an individual case-by-case 

basis. 

No consideration is being given to 

excluding broad classes of credential 

applicants from the guidance contained 

in the table, because for the most part, 

credentials issued by the Coast Guard 

are not vessel specific. They provide 

authority to work on different types and 

sizes of vessels, with each vessel having 

its own equipment and operating 

conditions. 

Third, language was added to reflect 

the Coast Guard’s understanding that all 

medical practitioners may not have the 

equipment necessary to test all of the 

tasks as listed in the third column of the 

table. In such cases, equivalent alternate 

testing methodologies may be used. 

Various changes were made to the 

table itself to make compliance less 

burdensome for applicants. For 

example, the criterion listed in the third 

column of the table for ‘‘participate in 

firefighting activities’’ now states that 

the applicant should be able to pull an 

uncharged 1.5′′ diameter, 50′ fire hose 

with nozzle to full extension, and to lift 

a charged 1.5′′ diameter fire hose to fire 

fighting position. This criterion 

previously asked the applicant to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

56602 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

handle a 2.5′′ diameter fire hose for a 

distance of 400′. 

Enclosure (3)—Medical Conditions 

Subject to Further Review 

First, at the request of MERPAC and 

TSAC, the title of enclosure (3) was 

changed and now more clearly reflects 

the Coast Guard’s intended use of the 

information provided in enclosure (3). It 

is now called ‘‘Medical Conditions 

Subject to Further Review’’ instead of 

‘‘Potentially Disqualifying Medical 

Conditions.’’ We also added the word 

‘‘recommended’’ in front of ‘‘evaluation 

data’’ in the header of the table, so that 

it now reads ‘‘recommended evaluation 

data.’’ This change reflects the voluntary 

nature of this guidance document. 

Moreover, this enclosure, which is the 

central component of the NVIC because 

it lists the medical conditions subject to 

further review, underwent substantial 

revision. Technical comments were 

received on specific medical conditions 

and were presented to MERPAC for 

review and recommendations. Many of 

the comments were implemented into 

this revision of the NVIC. Some of the 

significant changes to enclosure (3) are 

described below. 

In the preface to enclosure (3), we 

clarified that the term ‘‘history’’ means 

a single previous diagnosis or treatment 

of a medical condition, even once in the 

applicant’s life, unless otherwise 

specified in the table listing the medical 

conditions. For example, condition 

number 131 in the enclosure (3) table 

states ‘‘history of invertebral disc 

surgery within the last 5 years.’’ This 

means that invertebral disc surgery six 

years ago is not considered a medical 

condition which needs to be reported 

for review for purposes of this NVIC. 

We also revised the discussion of 

evaluation data in the preface to 

enclosure (3). We clarified that all time 

frames specified in the table are 

measured from the date that the 

application is received by the Coast 

Guard. For example, if the table requires 

a medical test that is no more than 90 

days old, the test should have been 

completed within the 90 days prior to 

the date that the application for the 

credential is received by the Coast 

Guard. 

We also noted that for most 

conditions, the table does not contain a 

specific time frame as to how old a 

status report, evaluation report, or 

consultation (of whatever type) may be. 

For all active conditions, we added that 

the status report, evaluation report or 

consultation should have been 

completed no more than 1 year prior to 

the date the application is received by 

the Coast Guard. For conditions which 

are not active but for which the table 

indicates that a ‘‘history of’’ the 

condition should be reported, we added 

that the appropriate time frame depends 

on what is medically relevant given the 

individual circumstances of the 

applicant’s condition. Medical 

providers may contact NMC, listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, if they have any question 

about how recent a status report, 

evaluation report, or consultation 

should be. 

For example, an applicant with an 

acquired right bundle branch block 

(listed as condition number 54 under 

‘‘Heart’’ in the enclosure (3) table) 

should submit a cardiology consultation 

that is no more than a year old at the 

time of application. An applicant with 

a prior history of gastrointestinal 

bleeding who is not currently suffering 

from, or under current treatment or 

observation for, the condition (listed as 

condition number 96 under ‘‘Abdomen, 

Viscera and Anus Conditions’’ in the 

enclosure (3) table), may be able to 

submit an internal medicine or 

gastroenterology consultation that is 

more than a year old if the report 

confirms that the applicant is free of 

symptoms and that the bleeding source 

has healed. In such a case, there would 

be no need for the applicant to undergo 

another consultation just for purposes of 

applying for a credential. 

We also revised the respective 

evaluation data associated with the 

medical conditions to remove the word 

‘‘current’’ that formerly preceded many 

of status reports, evaluation reports or 

consultations in the table. We 

discovered that in some places, the 

word ‘‘current’’ preceded the evaluation 

data, while in others it did not. As 

pointed out by MERPAC, this caused 

confusion as to how old the evaluation 

data may be because there is no 

definition of the term ‘‘current’’ in the 

NVIC. 

We also clarified that medical 

providers may contact the NMC to 

discuss submitting acceptable alternate 

evaluation data to demonstrate that the 

applicant’s medical status is appropriate 

for his/her duties and the limited scope 

of the credential being sought. 

Finally, we added a paragraph 

explaining that the NMC may issue a 

letter specifying the extent of the 

evaluation data, if any, that should be 

submitted to the Coast Guard for any 

medical conditions that have been 

previously reported to, and evaluated 

by, the NMC. This means that an 

individual who has properly reported a 

medical condition, and provided the 

requisite evaluation data regarding it, 

may be excused from having to resubmit 

evaluation data for that condition in the 

future, but only if authorized by the 

NMC. 

With respect to the table of medical 

conditions in enclosure (3), a number of 

changes were made to reduce 

unnecessary evaluations and clarify 

ambiguous criteria. The former 

condition number 111, pylonephrosis, 

was consolidated with condition 

number 110 and number 111 was 

deleted from the table. The former 

condition number 150, allergic 

encephalomyelitis, was also deleted 

from the table after it was determined, 

at the recommendation of MERPAC, that 

this condition was unnecessary. 

A history of asthma symptoms was 

modified to episodes requiring 

emergency treatment in the past 2 years. 

A history of head trauma was revised to 

include only conditions within the last 

10 years, and history of seizure disorder 

was changed to exclude febrile seizures 

prior to age 5. The criteria for asthma 

was changed to include only clinically 

significant moderate to severe asthma. 

The supplemental evaluation 

information needed for cardiac 

conditions was clarified to include an 

exercise stress test versus a 

pharmacologic stress test. Mariners need 

to demonstrate adequate 

cardiopulmonary capacity to perform 

safety duties such as fire fighting and 

passenger evacuation. Pharmacologic 

stress tests evaluate coronary artery 

disease but do not provide information 

on cardiopulmonary capacity. 

The recommended evaluation data for 

sarcoidosis, at the urging of certain 

maritime labor unions, was restated to 

be less extensive. The table now simply 

asks for pertinent medical records, 

pulmonology consultations, and names 

and dosages of medications. 

In recognition of the distinction 

between substance or alcohol abuse and 

substance or alcohol dependence, 

conditions number 186 & 186a, 

respectively, in the enclosure (3) table 

were revised. Consistent with the 

medical diagnoses of these conditions, 

condition number 186 now covers 

history of substance or alcohol abuse, as 

defined in the current Diagnostic and 

Statistical Manual (DSM), within the 

last 5 years. Condition number 186a 

now covers history of substance or 

alcohol dependence, as defined in the 

current DSM, within the last 10 years. 

Reference to the Coast Guard standard 

of ‘‘cure,’’ which applies when 

credentials are subject to suspension 

and revocation but not necessarily when 

credentials are issued, has been deleted. 

The evaluation data for these 

conditions has been accordingly 

changed to request only a current 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56603 

evaluation report, including a 

determination that the individual is safe 

to return to work, from a DOT-qualified 

substance abuse professional (SAP), 

physician certified by the American 

Society of Addiction Medicine, or any 

other addiction specialist accepted by 

the Coast Guard, and reports from the 

rehabilitation clinic/center (if any). 

Documentation of at least 90 days of 

objectively measured and sustained 

total abstinence is also recommended 

evaluation data for dependence. 

It was further modified that, for 

applicants with a history of substance 

abuse, if they are renewal and/or raise 

in grade applicants who have been 

subject to the dangerous drug testing 

requirements in 46 CFR Part 16 for at 

least 3 years, and if they have no 

verified non-negative drug test results 

for the entire time that they have held 

the credential being renewed and/or 

raised in grade, they need not submit 

any evaluation data for substance abuse. 

Likewise, for applicants with a history 

of substance dependence, if they are 

renewal and/or raise in grade applicants 

who have been subject to the dangerous 

drug testing requirements in 46 CFR 

part 16 for at least 5 years, and if they 

have no verified non-negative drug test 

results for the entire time that they have 

held the credential being renewed and/ 

or raised in grade, they need not submit 

any evaluation data for substance 

dependence. 

This exception does not apply to 

alcohol abuse or dependence because 

there are no random, pre-employment, 

or periodic testing requirements for 

alcohol in 46 CFR Part 16 or 33 CFR part 

95. 

Enclosure (4)—Medications 

The newly renumbered enclosure (4) 

contains information about illegal 

substances and intoxicants, and a nonexhaustive list of potentially 

disqualifying medications that may be 

subject to further medical review in 

accordance with enclosure (6). This 

information was a subset of the larger 

enclosure (3) in the September 2006 

draft NVIC, but the Coast Guard agrees 

with the public comments and MERPAC 

input that there should be a separate 

enclosure dedicated to medications. 

The information was also reorganized 

to make it a more useful reference. A 

definitions section has been added to 

the enclosure, and a new prohibitions 

section dealing with illegal substances 

and intoxicants has been included. 

It was clarified that applicants, who 

complete a general medical exam, 

should report all prescription 

medications prescribed, filled or refilled 

and/or taken, and all non-prescription 

(over-the-counter) medications, 

including dietary supplements and 

vitamins, within 30 days prior to the 

date that they sign the CG–719K or 

approved equivalent form. The 

September 2006 draft NVIC stated that 

applicants should report all prescription 

and over-the-counter medications ‘‘at 

the time of application,’’ but the new 

language is much more precise in 

specifying what should be reported. 

The non-exhaustive list of 

prescription and over-the-counter 

medications that may be subject to 

further medical review was also revised, 

primarily to eliminate redundancies in 

the medications listed and to adjust the 

allowable time frames for usage of some 

of the medications. 

The use of motion sickness 

medications was also addressed to allow 

their use in accordance with directions. 

The use of anti-depressants for use in 

smoking cessation and other off-label 

indications was also allowed. 

The Coast Guard understands the 

complexities associated with over-thecounter (OTC) medications and has 

revised the NVIC to strike a balance 

between the medical needs of mariners 

and public safety in response to 

comments. The Coast Guard intends to 

publish a guide for mariners on the use 

of OTC medications. 

Enclosure (5)—Vision & Hearing 

Standards 

The newly renumbered enclosure (5), 

which was previously enclosure (4) in 

the September 2006 draft NVIC, 

contains the same, unrevised vision 

standards from NVIC 2–98, but notes 

that the Coast Guard has proposed 

revising its vision standards in an 

ongoing rulemaking. The proposed 

vision standards would require 

applicants to meet vision acuity 

standards in one eye only rather than 

both eyes under the current rule. See 72 

FR 3605, 3656 (Jan. 2007) (proposed 46 

CFR 10.215(b)). The proposed vision 

standards would become the new 

visions standards for NVIC 04–08 if the 

proposed rule becomes an effective, 

final rule. 

Color vision testing standards have 

also been clarified, with reference to the 

specific acceptable tests: 14 plate 

(which replaces the obsolete 16 plate), 

24 plate, or 38 plate Ishihara plates 

tests, Farnsworth Lantern, or an 

alternative test approved by the NMC. 

We have also added an express 

reference to the 46 CFR 10.205(d)(2) 

prohibition on using color sensing 

lenses to assist applicants with passing 

the color vision test. 

Finally, audiometer test hearing 

standards were adjusted from 20 

decibels or less in each ear (unaided) to 

30 decibels or less in the best ear 

(unaided). This allows for monaural 

hearing, provided the applicant has an 

unaided threshold of 30 decibels 

(unaided) in the ear. Applicants who are 

unable to meet the standards of the 

audiometer test, but who can pass the 

functional speech discrimination test, 

may be eligible for a waiver. 

Enclosure (6)—Medical Review Process 

Important changes were made to the 

newly renumbered enclosure (6), which 

was previously enclosure (5) in the 

September 2006 draft NVIC, in response 

to various public comments and 

MERPAC and TSAC input. Paragraph 2 

of this enclosure was revised to clarify 

that a waiver may be granted in all 

cases, not necessarily limited to 

situations ‘‘for a mariner with a 

borderline condition.’’ Language was 

added at the end of paragraph 5.f. to 

expressly state that recommendations 

from private employers (and 

government agencies) made on behalf of 

applicants will be given full 

consideration by the NMC when 

considering a waiver. 

Paragraph 7 was revised to clearly 

state that the NMC will review all 

information provided and make an 

appropriate determination as to one of 

the following outcomes: (a) Applicant is 

physically and medically qualified 

without any limitations, waivers and/or 

other conditions for issuance of the 

credential, (b) applicant is physically 

and medically qualified with limitations 

and/or other conditions for issuance of 

the credential, (c) applicant is not 

physically or medically qualified, but a 

credential may be issued with 

appropriate limitations, waivers and/or 

other conditions for issuance, (d) 

additional information is necessary to 

determine if applicant is physically 

and/or medically qualified, or (e) 

applicant is not physically and/or 

medically qualified. 

Paragraph 8 was revised to clarify that 

the NMC will inform the applicant of 

the results of their waiver review. The 

appellate rights of applicants, who are 

affected by a waiver determination, are 

now fully explained in this paragraph as 

well. Likewise, in paragraph 9, the 

appellate rights of applicants who 

disagree with any conditions placed on 

their waivers are fully explained. 

A new paragraph 10 was added to this 

enclosure to state that the NMC will, on 

a case-by-case basis, consider individual 

proposals from applicants (and their 

employers) for credentials to be issued 

with appropriate limitations, waivers, 

and/or other conditions in order to 

address concerns associated with 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

56604 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

medical conditions (enclosure (3)) or the 

inability to meet the physical ability 

standards (enclosure (2)). This was 

added to articulate the Coast Guard’s 

flexibility and willingness to consider 

the unique needs and work 

environments of individual mariners 

who are otherwise unable to meet the 

medical and/or physical standards 

specified in the NVIC. 

Finally, at the request of both 

MERPAC and TSAC, a new paragraph 

11 was added to this enclosure 

authorizing—but not requiring—the 

Coast Guard to designate certain 

medical practitioners as ‘‘trusted 

agents’’ to perform physical 

examinations on mariners. Physical 

examinations conducted by these 

designated trusted agents and/or their 

recommendations may be given more 

weight by the Coast Guard. The Coast 

Guard would specify the criteria for 

designation as a trusted agent if/when 

the Coast Guard initiates this program. 

It is not anticipated that the NVIC will 

result in significantly higher rates of 

disqualification for mariners, nor in 

increased processing time for credential 

applications with physical and/or 

medical issues. To the contrary, the 

Coast Guard expects the process to be 

more consistent and less subjective, and 

that the application processing time will 

be reduced because all parties will 

know precisely what information is 

needed at the outset of the application 

process. 

The Coast Guard did receive some 

comments that the NVIC may increase 

costs. Based on consultation with 

medical practitioners and MERPAC, we 

determined exams and documentation 

addressed by the NVIC are commonly 

required by current medical practice 

and will not represent a significant 

additional cost to the individual. The 

NVIC guidelines apply if the applicant 

has an underlying medical condition. 

The majority of medical evaluations and 

tests specified in the NVIC will be 

provided by the mariner’s primary care 

provider or specialist as part of standard 

care. 

Potential benefits associated with 

adoption of this NVIC include decreased 

credential application processing time 

and clearer medical and physical 

guidelines for merchant mariners. We 

also anticipate that public safety will 

improve as result of this NVIC, since 

mariners and the medical community 

would be aware of complete policy 

guidance that is consistent with current 

industry health care practice when 

evaluating medical conditions. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial Regulations & 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. E8–22724 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Landmarks Committee of the National 

Park System Advisory Board Meeting 

AGENCY: National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act [5 U.S.C. Appendix 

(1988)], that a meeting of the Landmarks 

Committee of the National Park System 

Advisory Board will be held beginning 

at 1 p.m. on October 28, 2008 at the 

following location. The meeting will 

continue beginning at 9 a.m. on October 

29. 

DATES: October 28–29, 2008. 

Location: The 2nd Floor Board Room 

of the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Henry, National Historic 

Landmarks Program, National Park 

Service, 1849 C Street, NW. (2280), 

Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 

354–2216; e-mail Patty_Henry@nps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the meeting of the 

Landmarks Committee of the National 

Park System Advisory Board is to 

evaluate nominations of historic 

properties in order to advise the 

National Park System Advisory Board of 

the qualifications of each property being 

proposed for National Historic 

Landmark (NHL) designation, and to 

make recommendations regarding the 

possible designation of those properties 

as National Historic Landmarks to the 

National Park System Advisory Board at 

its subsequent meeting at a place and 

time to be determined. The Committee 

also makes recommendations to the 

National Park System Advisory Board 

regarding amendments to existing 

designations and proposals for 

withdrawal of designation. 

The members of the Landmarks 

Committee are: 

Dr. Larry E. Rivers, Chair, 

Dr. James M. Allan, 

Dr. Cary Carson, 

Ms. Mary Werner DeNadai, FAIA, 

Dr. Alferdteen Brown Harrison, 

Mr. E. L. Roy Hunt, J.D., 

Mr. Ronald James, 

Dr. William J. Murtagh, 

Dr. William D. Seale, 

Dr. Jo Anne Van Tilburg. 

The meeting will be open to the 

public. Pursuant to 36 CFR part 65, any 

member of the public may file, for 

consideration by the National Park 

System Advisory Board, written 

comments concerning the National 

Historic Landmarks nominations, 

amendments to existing designations, or 

proposals for withdrawal of designation. 

Comments should be submitted to 

J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register 

of Historic Places and National Historic 

Landmarks Program, National Park 

Service, 1849 C Street, NW. (2280), 

Washington, DC 20240; E-mail 

Paul_Loether@nps.gov. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

The National Park System Advisory 

Board and Its Landmarks Committee 

may consider the following 

nominations: 

Nominations 

Arizona 

• Sage Memorial Hospital School of 

Nursing, Ganado Mission, Ganado, AZ 

California 

• Steedman Estate/Casa del Herrero, 

Santa Barbara County, CA 

Colorado 

• Ludlow Tent Colony Site, Las 

Animas County, CO 

Connecticut 

• Richard Alsop IV House, 

Middletown, CT 

Florida 

• The Miami Circle at Brickell Point 

Site, Miami, FL 

Illinois 

• New Philadelphia Town Site, Pike 

County, IL 

Minnesota 

• Christ Church Lutheran, 

Minneapolis, MN 

Pennsylvania 

• Alfred Newton Richards Medical 

Research Laboratories and David 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES