PAGENO="0001" SEAMEN DOCUMENTATION AND TOWBOAT MANNING f~is. G0V7 D~~iTOR\1 HEARING I SUBCOMMITTEE CIN RUT~ 5 ~92 COAST GUARD AND NAVATI~IB~RJ OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 4394 A BILL TO EXPAND THE REQUIREMENT FOR MERCHANT MARINER'S DOCUMENTS FOR PERSONNEL ON TUGS H.R. 3942 A BILL TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR MANNING AND WATCHES ON TOWING VESSELS MARCH 17, 1992 Serial No. 102-67 Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 4M 53:Io2~tj7 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ~2(L~ I ~6 55-369 t WASHINGTON : 1992 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-038542-3 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES WALTER B JONES North Carolina Chairman GERR~( E STUDDS Massachusetts ROBERT W DAVIS Michigan CARROLL HUBBARD JR Kentucky DON YOUNG Alaska WILLIAM J HUGHES New Jersey NORMAN F LENT New York EARL HUTTO Florida JACK FIELDS Texas W J (BILLY) TAUZIN Louisiana HERBERT H BATEMAN Virginia THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania JIM SAXTON, New Jersey DENNIS M. HERTEL, Michigan HELEN DELICH, BENTLEY, Maryland WILLIAM 0 LIPINSKI Illinois HOWARD COBLE North Carolina ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware WALLY HERGER, California ROBIN TALLON, South Carolina JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma SOLOMON P ORTIZ Texas PORTER J GOSS Florida CHARLES E BENNETT Florida ARTHUR RAVENEL JR South Carolina THOMAS J MANTON New York SONNY CALLAHAN Alabama OWEN B PICKETT Virginia WAYNE P GILCHREST Maryland GEORGE J HOCHBRUECKNER New York JOHN T DOOLITTLE California STEPHEN J SOLARZ New York RANDY DUKE CUNNINGHAM California FRANK PALLONE JR New Jersey GREG LAUGHLIN Texas NITA M LOWEY New York JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GLENN M. ANDERSON, California JACK REED, Rhode Island WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa H. MARTIN LANCASTER, North Carolina LUCIEN E. BLACKWELL, Pennsylvania EDMUND B. WELCH, Chief Counsel MARY J. Krrsos, Chief Clerk GEORGE D PENCE Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND NAVIGATION W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Staff Director/Counsel RUSTY SAvolE, Professional Staff HARRY BURROUGHS, Minority Professional Staff JACK REED, Rhode Island WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey EARL HUTTO, Florida THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia GEORGE J. HOCHBRUECKNER, New York FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey GREG LAUGHLIN, Texas NITA M. LOWEY, New York GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GLENN M. ANDERSON, California GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts H. MARTIN LANCASTER, North Carolina WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina (Ex Officio) JACK FIELDS, Texas DON YOUNG, Alaska HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma PORTER J. GOSS, Florida SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland ROBERT W. DAVIS, Michigan (Ex Officio) (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Page Hearing held March 17, 1992 * 1 Text of HR 3942 43 H.R. 4394 46 Statement of Abercrombie Hon Neil a U S Representative from Hawaii 3 Prepared statement 3 Brady John F Executive Director of Congressional & Legislative Affairs District 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association-Association Mari- time Officers (prepared statement) ................................................................... 255 Faber, Gary, Vice President, Operations-Pacific, Crowley Maritime Corpo- ration 34 Prepared statement ................................................................................. 66 Farrell Joseph President American Waterways Operators 32 Prepared statement ................................................................................... 80 Fields Hon Jack a U S Representative from Texas 5 Gouveia John M Regional Director Inlandboatmen s Union of the Pacif ic (prepared statement) 70 Grady Captain Frederic J Chief Merchant Vessel Personnel Division U.S. Coast Guard ~ 5 Prepared statement ~ 51 Grill, Philip M., Vice President, Government Relations, Matson Naviga- tion Company (prepared statement) ............................................................. 252 Jones, Hon. Walter B., a U.S. Representative from North Carolina, and Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries ......................... 24 Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a U.S. Representative from Hawaii ............................... 48 Offshore Marine Service Association (prepared statement) 73 Sacco Joseph Vice President Seafarers International Union of North America AFL-CIO 26 Prepared statement 171 Studds Hon Gerry a U S Representative from Massachusetts and Chairman Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment 2 Tauzin Hon Billy a U S Representative from Louisiana and Chairman Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation 1 Walton John Executive Assistant to the President International Organi zation of Masters Mates and Pilots ILA AFL-CIO 29 Prepared statement 62 Additional material supplied Abercrombie Hon Neil Article by Christopher Neil They huffed and puffed but tug still stuck 264 Article by Christopher Neil Stranded tug awaits Saturdays tide 265 Court Case Civ No 89 609 RE in re Sause Brothers Ocean Towing 266 Farrell Joseph Compliance with Department of Transportation Coast Guard Drug Testing Rules an AWO Guide For Marine Employers 84 Grad?r Captain Frederic J (U S Coast Guard) Documenting Seamen on Uninspected Towing Vessels 10 "Oil Pollution Act Manning and Qualifications of Crew" ........................ 21 Cost of Expanding Requirements for Personnel 25 Inlandboatmen s Union of the Pacific Petitions in support of H R 3942 285 McSweeney, Daniel J.: Petitions in support of H.R. 3942 ................................ 258 Sacco, Joseph: Appendix A: Statistical annex 181 (III) PAGENO="0004" IV Page Additional material supplied-Continued Sacco, Joseph-Continued Appendix B: Newspaper articles 189 Appendix C: Summary of National Transportation Safety Board Acci- dent Reports 234 Appendix D: Characteristics of the U.S. Flag fleet, including Inland Waterway Vessels 240 Appendix E: Characteristics of the Inland Waterways 245 Communications submitted: Brower, Nicholas V.: Letter of March 12, 1992, to Hon. Jolene Unsoeld 284 Disley, Henry: Letter of January 17, 1992, to Hon. Nancy Pelosi 295 Franco, Joseph, Jr. (ILWU Local 142): Letter of February 24, 1992, to Rep. Neil Abercrombie 294 Haistead, Captain Raymond A.: Letter of March 13, 1990, to Sen. Brock Adams 278 Larson Captain Walter E Letter of March 7 1990 to Hon Brock Adams 271 Lowery, Captain William W.: Letter of March 8, 1990, to Rep. Jolene Unsoeld 277 Lundeberg, Gunnar: Open letter of January 24, 1992, on H.R. 3942 293 McSweeney, Daniel J.: Letter to Representative Tauzin with petitions 00 Rasmussen, Captain Birger R.: Letter of March 1, 1990, to Hon. Brock Adams 275 Letter to the Commander, 13th Coast Guard District 280 Rasmussen, John J.: Letter of May 29, 1990, to Hon. Brock Adams 276 Rodrigues Gary W Letter of January 15 1992 to Hon Daniel K Akaka 292 Saylor, Ron E.: Letter of March 12, 1990, to Hon. Robert Packwood 279 Schmidt Hardy Letter of September 17 1991 to Dear Sirs 282 Sorensen Viggo Letter of March 5 1990 to Hon Brock Adams 274 Williams, Perry L.: Letter of May 14, 1990, to Hon. Brock Adams 273 PAGENO="0005" SEAMEN DOCUMENTATION AND TOWBOAT MANNING TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1992 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND NAVIGATION, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. W.J. (Billy) Tauzin (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Members present: Representatives Tauzin, Laughlin, Anderson, Studds, Bateman, and Goss. Also Present: Representative Abercrombie. Staff present: Elizabeth Megginson, Staff Director; Rusty Savoie, Professional Staff; Bill Wright, Professional Staff; Laurie Wilker- son, Counsel; Catherine Gibbens, Clerk; George Pence, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel; Harry Burroughs, Minority Profes- sional Staff Margherita Woods, Chief Minority Clerk; Rebecca Dye, Minority Counsel; Sherry Steele, Minority Professional Staff Ed Welch, Chief Counsel; Cyndy Wilkinson, Counsel; Greg Lambert, Counsel; Melanie Barber, Counsel; Sue Waldron, Press Secretary; John Cullather, Professional Staff; and Jeffrey Pike, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the En- vironment. STATEMENT OF HON. BILLY TAUZIN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM LOUISIANA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND NAVIGATION Mr. TAUZIN. The Committee will please come to order. The Sub- committee meets today to receive testimony on two bills dealing with maritime safety and merchant mariner requirements. Among the many areas of oversight responsibility of the Subcom- mittee on Coast Guard and Navigation is Coast Guard enforced maritime labor standards. This Subcommittee takes very seriously the concerns of the industry regarding safety; the concerns of vessel operators and labor representatives alike. On March 5, 1992, Chairman Jones introduced H.R. 4394, a bill to expand the requirements of documented seamen. On November 26th, 1991, Congressman Abercrombie introduced H.R. 3942, a bill to establish requirements for manning and watch- es on towing vessels. (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 Currently, engineers, deck hands and cooks on vessels in the inland waterway system are not required to be licensed by the United States Coast Guard. Given the increased automation of pilot houses and engine rooms over the last two decades, standards of manning in both areas have lessened. We will hear testimony on both issues at today's hearing. We welcome representatives of the Coast Guard, the Seafarers International Union, the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, the American Waterways Operators, and Crow- ley Maritime Corporation. Additional testimony has been requested for the record from each of the other nationally organized mari- time labor groups and the Offshore Marine Service Association We are pleased today to welcome back a former Subcommittee Member, Congressman Neil Abercrombie I want to welcome you and offer my appreciation to all of you for your attendance today and appreciate those who are coming forward with testimony I un derstand Mr. Fields is not here but I am sure he has a statement for the record. Mr. Bateman. Mr. BATEMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our colleague, Mr. Fields, is being delayed in route from Houston He does have a prepared statement. I would ask unanimous consent that it be included. Mr TAUZIN Without objection, his statement and the written prepared statements of all Members will be filed into the record Congressman Studds STATEMENT OF HON GERRY E STUDDS, A U S REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS Mr. STUDDS. I want to thank you very briefly for holding the hearing. I am going to have to leave because of conflicting obliga- tions of my own. I do want to say that I think for the past decade, the full Committee and particularly this Subcommittee have worked very hard to improve maritime safety. We have done that to protect the public. The Oil Pollution Act is an example of where we really have made a genuine difference H R 4394 is intended to insure, as you know and as you said, the safe operation of tugs, boats and barges in the inland waterways I think what we are going to hear today is that, in spite of the ef forts involved in the industry, the vast majority of the casualties do seem to be attributable to personnel error, although the tests for drugs does not strike me as an unreasonable proposition in that setting. I thank the gentleman. I apologize again for not being able to stay. Mr TAUzIN Any more opening statements9 Mr. BATEMAN. No opening statement but like my colleague from Massachusetts, I am going to have to leave in a few minutes for another Subcommittee meeting. Mr. TAUZIN. You mean I got here just in time to say goodbye to you guys? Mr. BATEMAN. I will be here as long as I can, Mr. Chairman, but please excuse me when I have to leave. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Abercrombie. PAGENO="0007" 3 STATEMENT OF HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII Mr ABERCROMBIE Thank you very much, Mr Chairman It is a pleasure to be here. I have a statement which I will submit. I think under the circumstances we should get right to the testi mony Suffice to say, Mr Chairman, I do believe this is a question of the value we are going to put on people's lives Plain and simple that is what it comes down to and the value we put on the capacity of the human dimension to operate in what otherwise seems to be an era of technological marvel When we honestly believe that there is a substitute for a real human being constantly in charge while at sea, then these bills really aren't necessary If we actually think that the technology somehow will substitute for the human being then we needn't bother about it and if we think that we can permit the chance, the taking of a chance on anyone's life or lives, let alone the cargo and the ships themselves, then we needn't have the bills either. But if we consider both of them valuable, then I think we have to take up the issues embodied in these bills and if there are some problems and some difficulties in implementing them, we should deal with them forthrightly. If this is a question of cost, it is the question of the cost of human lives and I think if there is a value that can be put on that that anyone is willing to substitute themselves for, then they can step up and volunteer. But I have an idea that it would be very difficult for someone to indicate that someone else should take the chance on their lives while they stand in the background and wish them good luck. Thank you very much [The statement of Neil Abercrombie follows] STATEMENT OF HON NEIL ABERCROMBIE A U S REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII Mr. Chairman, thank YOU for permitting me to participate in today's hearing on tow boat staffing and merchant mariner documentation As a former Member of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee I can assure my interest in the man time industry has not diminished in the least since I left the Committee As a matter of fact the more I learn about the issues affecting the industry the more I want to work cooperatively with the various groups to ensure we have the strongest maritime in the world Mr Chairman on November 26 1991 I introduced legislation which addresses the serious abuse of marine safety As is the case in many areas the tow boats in the Hawaiian Islands are currently running with only one staffer on the bridge and at times no one in the engine rooms As you can imagine this can-and has-cre ated some hazardous situations Although the majority of boats are equipped with an automatic pilot these pilots can and often do malfunction In addition the person on watch in the wheelhouse has the responsibility to navigate the ship and transmit radio messages On some of these vessels the chart room and radio room are away from the bridge Consequently there are times when the person on watch has to leave his position Through reduced manning we have been forced into a position where our crews are reacting to emergencies rather than taking action to prevent them My legisla tion H R 3942 stems from my concern that a one person watch may not be suffi cient to comply with the lookout requirements under the navigation rules They state every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hear ing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of colli sion It is my firm believe that electronics were never meant to replace the exper tise of a qualified seaman Assist yes but replace no PAGENO="0008" 4 For the last several years, staffing of tow boats has been systematically reduced to the point of jeopardizing our crew and our environment. The Masters, Mates & Pilots stated before the Marine Board of the National Research Council, "It is our strong belief that reductions in manning have had and will have a direct negative effect on vessel operational safety... Automation onboard modern ships has not yet reached the point where the necessity for maintaining the three watch system no longer exists." Some owners believe the money saved by having smaller crews than required by law is greater than the cost of any violation penalty they may incur. However, what cost does one attach to the loss of a crew member's life? Please, let's work together to avoid such senseless and utterly avoidable incidents. I have read many letters from mates, captains, and engineers who have pleaded for changes to be made. I quote: J. Mortimer, 1st Mate Tug Moana Holo, "I am aware that adding another man to the crew adds a tremendous cost to the company, however, in my professional opin- ion as a seaman the possibility of loss of life and/or damage to company equipment far outweighs the added cost of an extra man onboard." Birger R. Rasmussen, Assistant Branch Agent of the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, Pacific Maritime Region, "No amount of schooling, training, safety seminars, or automation can prepare a person to act and make im- portant decisions when that person is overworked and fatigued. . . . The Coast Guard has, by accommodating the shipowners' wishes of not have (sic) manning rules for uninspected vessels, increased the risk of accidents, injury, and even death of seamen." Ron E. Saylor, licensed Deck Officer, ". . . we have to be very concerned about run- ning the vessel as safe as possible. That is why a three-way system was established in the first place. So that the Master and Mates (sic) decisions were not impaired by fatigue. Now to go backwards is ludicrous at best." Raymond A. Halstead, tugboat captain, "All of my peers feel as I do, that due to fatigue and undermanning an accident is now a great probability. For the first time in all my years in the industry, I now find myself wondering only when it will happen." William W. Lowery, tow boat captain, "Safe manning levels is the beginning toward safety on the oceans. . . . The MIND is the best weapon against accidents, and a rested mind is the best mind to make split second decisions that might avert a disaster." John J. Rasmussen, professional seaman, "It is sad that the companies now is (sic) competing by cutting down on the manning, and that will not be changed unless we get a manning law that clearly states how many people and in which capacity there must be manning the vessels." Viggo Sorensen Chief Mate we now have vessels plying the waters as time bombs waiting for a major accident to happen... Cuts in manning is (sic), in my opinion, not progress but gambling with the lives of seamen and with the environ- ment." Perry L. Williams, Chief Mate and Relief Captain, "Add up all the interruptions to our short rest periods and you will find that we are overworked and tired. We are required to make split-second decisions that can mean the difference between a suc- cessful maneuver or a major disaster." Walter E. Larson, Captain, "The companies (sic) rationale [to reduced manning] is that they would love to have fully manned vessels operating with the three watch system, thus everyone working eight hours a day but the demands of being competi- tive prevent this. The answer to me seems fairly obvious that we must have en- forced regulations, where all vessels have safe manning." Hardy Schmidt, Master, "I feel that it is more than coincidence that these acci- dents have occurred since towing companies have decided to man vessels in a sub- legal manner... I think the one thing that we all learned from the Exxon Valdez accident was that prevention is the best contingency plan." Let's listen to the wisdom of these professionals and put the priority back on our crew. Without them, there would be no industry. Mr. Chairman, I commend your efforts on behalf of the marine industry and thank the Subcommittee for its consideration of potential solutions to the current abuse of marine safety. Let's not rely on Murphy's Law any longer. Thank you. PAGENO="0009" 5 STATEMENT OF HON. JACK FIELDS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment you for scheduling this hearing on two pieces of legislation which are purportedly designed to help improve safety on our nation's waterways. While this is the first time we have conducted a hearing on either of these issues, it is clear that there is widespread support on this Subcommittee for doing whatever we can to ensure the safe transportation of our waterborne commodities. The first bill before us today, H.R. 4394, was recently introduced by the distin- guished Chairman of our Committee, the Honorable Walter B. Jones. This legisla- tion would require persons working on merchant vessels in excess of five gross tons to obtain an appropriate Coast Guard merchant mariners document.While it is un- clear how many people will be affected by this proposal, it is intended to improve safety by subjecting these seamen to periodic drug tests and criminal background reviews. During the course of this hearing, it is my hope that we can ascertain how many accidents are the direct result of "undocumented workers", how much it would cost to implement these new requirements and what is the rationale for moving this leg- islation before rather than after the Coast Guard completes a study to determine the need for new statutory provisions. Mr. Chairman, the second bill before us was introduced on November 26th by Congressman Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii. This measure, which is strongly support- ed by the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, would establish requirements for manning and watches on uninspected towing vessels. In their correspondence to me, the MM&P has noted that "the present manning levels in the towing industry are extremely dangerous and place every master and mate, who work long hours and are under considerable stress, in extreme jeopardy." Mr. Chairman, I look forward to receiving the Coast Guard's assessment of H.R. 3942 and I would remind my colleagues that one of the lessons we learned from the Exxon Valdez is that crew fatigue is an important factor in marine casualties. Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to hear from our distinguished witnesses and again compliment you for convening this hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. Any other opening statements? Before Chairman Studds leaves, let the chair also ac- knowledge the great work he has done as former Chairman of the Subcommittee and he continues to do on the Committee. His compliments to this Committee are returned in full measure and we will, as I said, carry this hearing on in your absence with the thoughts you have left us with. Mr. STUDDS. I can stay longer if you want to pursue that line. Mr. TAUZIN. We are pleased to welcome this morning our first witness, Captain Fred Grady, the Chief of the Merchant Vessel Personnel Division, United States Coast Guard. Captain, we look forward to your testimony. Your written statement is a part of our record and we would appreciate it if you would summarize for us so we can get into a discussion with you of the issues. Captain Grady. STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN FREDERIC J. GRADY, CHIEF, MER- CHANT VESSEL PERSONNEL DIVISION, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Captain GRADY. Thank you, good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am Captain Fred- eric Grady, Chief of the Merchant Vessel Personnel Division, at Coast Guard Headquarters. Accompanying me is Commander Chip Boothe, United States Coast Guard. He is Chief of the Vessel Man- ning Branch, Coast Guard Headquarters. United States Code, Section 8701 requires that vessels of 100 gross tons operating in oceans or harbors have merchant mariners aboard who hold merchant mariner's documents. Vessels of less PAGENO="0010" 6 than 100 tons on oceans or in harbor service do not have to have documented seamen, nor do tugs operating on rivers, regardless of their size. H.R. 4394 would require personnel on these smaller ocean and harbor tugs to hold merchant mariner's documents and will re quire those personnel serving on river vessels to hold merchant mariner's documents. All towing vessels over 26 feet, however, are required to be operated by licensed personnel, regardless of where the vessel is operating, whether it be oceans, harbors, or rivers Every towing vessel over 26 feet is operated by licensed person- nel All persons on tug boats, tow boats-depending upon the waters, the terminology varies-are required, whether they are documented or not, to be subject to pre employment drug testing, reasonable cause drug and alcohol testing, post casualty drug and alcohol testing, and random drug testing if they are in a safety-sen- sitive position Whether or not they hold a merchant mariner's document has no influence. The only difference between the undocumented seaman and the documented seaman is that when the individual who holds a document applies for a rating that is something above the entry level, the person is subject to a physical and that physi cal must include a drug test, which we call periodic drug testing If that individual were to renew that document, he would again be subject to a periodic drug test Again, a drug test accompanies a Coast Guard required physical Applicants for a merchant mariner's document must travel to a regional exam center, of which there are 17 throughout the coun try, and present themselves in order to apply for a merchant mari- ner's document. They must present evidence of citizenship and commitment of employment, or evidence of prior military sea serv- ice, and be fingerprinted so that we may use those fingerprints to obtain an FBI criminal record check. That criminal record check is used solely to determine whether or not a person has been involved in drugs. Other conduct and other convictions do not have a bearing on the issuance of a mer chant mariner's document So the record check is just used to de termine if there has been a conviction of violations of dangerous drug laws. Also, as a result of OPA-90 we now have access to the National Driver's Register (NDR) to see if there have been any convictions of any reportable offenses. H.R. 4394 would make criminal records available to us that we do not have access to in regard to the unli censed and undocumented seaman, make the availability of NDR records, and would provide sanctions through the Coast Guard's au- thority to suspend or revoke an issued merchant mariner's docu- ment. As far as statistics go, the statistics-I think some of the other witnesses are using Coast Guard statistics-indicate that 58 per- cent of the accidents on towing vessels are attributed to human fac- tors. However, the statistics do not discriminate between the li- censed people and unlicensed, so I don't know how many undocu- mented people may have caused or contributed to casualties. How- ever, the fact is 93 percent of the casualties occurred on board PAGENO="0011" 7 towing vessels that are required or at the time were required to have a licensed operator. The other 7 percent are miscellaneous casualties that we could not place in a category or were towing vessels that at the time of the casualty did not require a licensed operator to be on board, such as when it was moored or out of service, and then a few of these would be attributed to towing vessels less than 26 feet, which do not require licensed personnel. In the area of pollution, anybody that is involved in the transfer or handling of oil or hazardous material is currently required to be licensed or documented by the Coast Guard, so the requirements in the provisions of H.R. 4394 do not extend to those people because they are already required to be documented. The Coast Guard does not have any data that indicate a need to require undocumented personnel on towing vessels to be document- ed. That is not to say there is not a problem. We are just not aware of a problem and we don't know whether or not there would be a positive cost-benefit to requiring these people to be documented. Therefore, we suggest that a study be conducted to determine if there is a need for this requirement. In the area of H.R. 3942, that bill would impose new working conditions on personnel, increased manning on tow boats, and working requirements. 46 U.S.C. 8104 prohibits personnel on vessels over 100 gross tons from working alternately in the deck department and engine de- partment. H.R. 3942 would extend this prohibition to tugs and remove it from the other vessels over 100 gross tons. Coast Guard supports removing this prohibition against working between de- partments on all vessels. This prohibition, commonly referred to as the cross-over rule, is an obstacle to more efficient manning onboard merchant vessels in general. We support someone being onboard tow boats with engi- neering skills. Whether that person be licensed or unlicensed should be the subject of a review. In many cases it may not be necessary that they be licensed- having engineering skills may be quite adequate. To require engine rooms on all tow boats, regardless of their size, service, horsepower and arrangements, to be manned seems to be too broad. On some towing vessels, the general arrangement of the engine room is so confined that it would be nearly impossible to man the engine room. On other towing vessels, the propulsion machinery is less sophis- ticated than some automobiles. It is simply an engine sitting on some stringers with a shaft and a propeller, and there may not be a need to have somebody in attendance at all times.The majority of the tow boats have pilothouse control where the vessels can be op- erated from the pilothouse without anybody in attendance in the engine room. H.R. 3942 would also require three watches on all voyages of more than 200 miles. Again, the Coast Guard does not have infor- mation to indicate that there are problems with tow boats making voyages in excess of 200 miles and maintaining the two-watch system. The provision allowing a two-watch system on voyages up to 600 miles has been in existence since 1936 and again, we feel that we PAGENO="0012" 8 need a study to determine if there is, in fact, a problem that needs to be addressed. I would like to go back to the cross-over rule for a moment if I may. I think the negotiated contracts and work hour limitations and things of that nature provide adequate safeguards in regard to overwork, and that the prohibition against working between de- partments is something that is no longer necessary and that could be eliminated. That is a summary of my statement. My complete statement will be submitted for the record and I will answer any questions you have. [The statement of Captain F.J. Grady can be found at end of hearing.] Mr TAUZIN Thank you very much, captain Captain, has your office made any estimate of how many individuals would be affect- ed by the enactment of 4394. Captain GRADY No, we haven't We have made some inquiries but I don't know what the number will be. I saw a number of 3,000 vessels; if you assume that there are somewhere between four and seven undocumented crew members per vessel and maybe one-and- a-half crews per vessel, we could probably come up with some esti- mates of about 30,000 people, but that is just a- Mr. TAUZIN. Rough. Captain GRADY. Yes. Mr. TAuzIN. Obviously increased documentation requirements have a direct goal and a direct benefit. Would one of the collateral benefits be better record keeping regarding accidents and causes of accidents? Captain GRADY. I don't believe so. Mr. TAUZIN. You testified today that your records are very diffi- cult to read in terms of whether or not accidents were caused by documented or undocumented licensed or unlicensed personnel. You are assuming, I think probably correctly, that most of them were caused by actions of a licensed personnel since 93 percent oc- curred on vessels with a licensed man in charge, but your records obviously are short as to defining exactly that problem. Would you get better record keeping if there was greater docu- mentation? Captain GRADY. I don't think we would have better record keep- ing. We investigate all the accidents, whether the personnel in- volved are documented or not documented. The problem is that our forms and submissions in the past were not such that this informa- tion could be obtained. We are now revising our investigative pro- cedures and the information that we are gathering so that we can obtain this. It is just that it wasn't broken out in that form. Mr. TAUZIN. In terms of the argument regarding seamen who have been removed from their function because of some drug or al- cohol violation, do you have instances where they have been reem- ployed elsewhere within the industry? Do you have knowledge of that or is that just a concern? Captain GRADY. We have evidence of isolated incidents. As a matter of fact, we have a case at Coast Guard Headquarters involv- ing someone applying for administrative clemency, whose docu- ment was revoked with regard to drugs. During the revocation PAGENO="0013" 9 time, this person obtained employment on a fishing vessel which does not require documented seamen, I am sure there are other iso lated incidents. We don't have any statistics to show that there is a large number. Mr TAUZIN At the current time it is anecdotal only, but you know of instances Captain GRADY Yes, sir Mr TAUZIN Do you see any seamen that do not perform func tions or duties directly related to the safe operation of the vessel who are subject to random drug testing? Captain GRADY The Coast Guard did, in our original rule, re quire all personnel on merchant vessels to be subject to random drug testing The courts determined that an individual's right to privacy exceeded the necessity for random drug testing if they did not serve in safety-sensitive positions. So that is where we are today. Mr. TAUZIN. So that is where you are today. Captain GRADY. Yes. Mr TAUZIN Do you see any benefit in requiring the undocu mented mariners to be subject to a FBI criminal record check or check with the National Driver Registry without the. full gambit of licensing requirements? Captain GRADY. That would be would an advantage, yes, to deter- mine whether or not they had criminal records. Mr. TAUZIN. Absent full licensing requirements, would it be an advantage simply to require them to submit to the FBI criminal records check and to the National Driver Register? Captain GRADY Yes, there would because you wouldn't have to go through the full documentation procedure and the employer would be aware of whether or not that individual had a criminal record There would be an advantage Mr TAUZIN In your argument eliminating the cross over restric tions, you make the point that collective bargaining and similar ar rangements exist which would protect mariners in the absence of Federal guidelines What oversight does the Coast Guard have to insure that mariners are not overworked and therefore fatigued and therefore subject to human error in the absence of some Feder al guidelines in this area? Captain GRADY The cross over rule does not address fatigue or anything like that It simply says an individual who is assigned to the deck department may not go over and work in the engine de partment Mr TAUZIN Of course it is related to how much work an individ ual has on a vessel and it has some relevance to fatigue Captain GRADY. Yes, sir. There are statutes where maximum work hours are described For instance, in most cases, the individ ual may not be required to work more than eight hours In some cases, there are limitations such as those in the Oil Pollution Act, which imposes a 12 hour work limitation on all tank vessels, there are also regulations concerning proper watch standing So if the work hour limitations that are in place were adhered to and enforced, they would tend to reduce fatigue PAGENO="0014" 10 Mr. TAIJZIN. Finally, Captain, in your opinion, is the Coast Guard physically prepared to handle increased Merchant Marine docu- mentation? Captain GRADY. We would need some additional resources as- signed to the program to handle this, particularly if it was to be implemented in a single year. I estimated if it was phased in over five years, we would need a modest increase in resources. Mr. TAUZIN. One of the things we constantly are concerned about is the fact Congress continues to load Coast Guard down with new requirements and new jobs, new missions. And we never seem to provide enough resources for you to carry it out. I am concerned that you don't have an estimate yet of how many individuals would be affected and we don't have a real hard number to look at in terms of increased Coast Guard resources nec- essary to carry it out. I am sure you can't provide that off the cuff today but perhaps you could submit for the record for us at least some closer estimates if you don't mind on what it would-how it would impact Coast Guard resources, how many individuals you think would be affected, what are the effects on the Coast Guard given a one year, two-year, five-year implementation program of these increased requirements so we can get some idea of what we are loading you down with as we proceed. [The information follows:] DOCUMENTING SEAMEN ON UNINSPECTED TOWING VESSELS According to the best available information, documenting seamen of uninspected towing vessels upon inland waters will require the issuance of approximately 30,000 documents. Assuming this constant number of persons will be employed in the industry ap proximately 6,000 will be required to renew their documents each year on a five- year cycle. In order to accomplish this task, the Coast Guard estimates 14 additional billets or positions (12 for the field and 2 for Headquarters staff) will be required costing approximately $504,000 annually (14 staff x $36,000). The average issuance time for an original entry rating document and renewal is 2.2 staff hours. In addition, approximately 15% of all applicants will test for a quali- fied rating which will require 7.1 staff hours per transaction. Approximately 5% of the documents issued will be duplicated, requiring 2.1 staff hours per transaction. A major concern would be the period of time allocated to implement the program. If the program was implemented in conjunction with the five-year renewal cycle, the increase in billets and positions would remain 14 resources. If implementation was performed in a two-year period, the initial workload for that period would be 33 resources (29 for the field and 4 for Headquarters staff). If implementation was per- formed in one year, the initial workload for the period would be 65 resources (58 for the field and 7 for Headquarters staff). Each alternative imposes additional in- creases in costs. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 requires that ac- tivities conducted under Title II of 46 USC be subject to user fees. As these activities are conducted under Title II of 46 USC, we would have to impose user fees to offset the costs of the required resources. Captain GRADY. Yes, sir. Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, captain. Mr. Bateman, questions. Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Captain, one of the things that I am not sure that I have a very good handle on is the problem of if you don't have documentation on these people, how do you identify them in order to perform all of these checks that you say are required of the undocumented per- sonnel? PAGENO="0015" 11 Captain GRADY Concerning the checks I mentioned to you, are you referring to the testing while onboard the vessel or someone applying for a document? Mr. BATEMAN. You made reference to personnel who are undocu- mented being subject to drug tests and various other kinds of checks and tests. But if they are not documented, how do you know who to test? Captain GRADY That is the responsibility of the company The companies administer those programs, and the master of the vessel is directly responsible to the Coast Guard to see that it is done If we go aboard a vessel during a boarding program and find out the people on the vessel are not adhering to the drug program, we take action against the master's license. The companies are the ones that are administering the program. Mr. BATEMAN. So through your Coast Guard enforcement activi- ties, you do, in fact, check on whether or not undocumented per- sonnel are being tested for drugs and for the other factors that you mentioned? Captain GRADY. We don't have the personnel to go out and have an active boarding program on uninspected vessels The responsi bility rests with the master, and if we become aware of a problem in a particular area of the industry, we would investigate it, but we are not routinely boarding towing vessels looking for this Mr. BATEMAN. If you become aware? Captain GRADY. Yes. Mr. BATEMAN. You can get a handle on it? But you have no pro- gram in place to make sure that you are generally aware of prob- lems. Captain GRADY. Yes, people make us aware of the problem. Yes, sir Mr BATEMAN Thank you, Mr Chairman Mr TAUZIN Thank you, Mr Bateman Mr Abercrombie, do you have any questions9 Mr ABERCROMBIE Thank you Good morning, Captain Captain GRADY. Good morning. Mr ABERCROMBIE I am really pleased t~hat you are here Your record indicates that you are probably the best qualified person here to talk about safety I want to refer you to your text on page five and I hope you will indulge me a little bit because I think you are far more expert at~ this, and I am coming at it from a legisla tive point of view and I hope you understood from my opening re marks the context that I am concerned with has to do with safety from a lay person's point of view coming into this and trying to figure out what the right thing to do is legislatively You state there, "to the extent that this' -I make those prelimi nary remarks because I want you to know I am not trying to pull things out of context I am trying to get some amplification for con text, OK~ Captain GRADY Yes, sir Mr TAUZIN On page five you state in the second paragraph, "To the extent that this bill' -I am referring to 4392-.-' would lessen crew fatigue, the Coast Guard endorses its purpose" Then you go on in general to cite some of the instances where you feel that there may be some economic impact as such PAGENO="0016" 12 Laying that aside for the moment as to what the economic impact might or might not be does that sentence in effect summa- rize the Coast Guard's view of the bill from a safety point of view that it would lessen crew fatigue if the provisions of this bill were implemented? Captain GRADY. Well, in those areas of the bill that would actual- ly lessen fatigue, we certainly support that concept, yes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. OK. Let me go to the next paragraph then. You state as written, H.R. 3942 would apply this prohibition. This is again, seamen alternately working in deck and engine depart- ments. The prohibition of all towing vessels regards-would elimi- nate the prohibition of other classes of vessels. Now, you are in favor of this, right? Captain GRADY. We favor eliminating the cross-over prohibition across the board on all vessels, including not applying it to towing vessels. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Not applying it. Captain GRADY. Not applying it and eliminating it from other vessels, yes. Mr ABERCROMBIE I see When this was put together, I think, Mr Chairman, this could be considered an error at the time because we didn't want to get into those kind of waters, pardon the pun. I mean no pun intended, but I want to tell you that it was not- whether it is currently necessary or not I think is subject to modifi- cation possibly and certainly subject to review. So I didn't want to mislead you in the intent of the bill. We really didn't intend to get into that area with it. But your points are well taken and certainly should be reviewed, so I wanted to in- dicate that for the record, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TA!JZIN. Thank you. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Could you amplify a little bit on page six then, the second paragraph, your statement, however, we feel the re- quirement for a manned engine room on towing vessels, regardless of the level of automation, is overly restrictive in that context? Captain GRADY. Well, the size, the general arrangement, the routes, and the type of operations, tow boats and towing vessels are involved in are very varied and diverse. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Does that go back to your summary where you said that some of the vessels simply by virtue of the way they are constituted don't readily lend themselves to this kind of legisla- tion? Captain GRADY. Yes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Is that a fair statement? Captain GRADY. Yes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would there be some way to deal with this legislation, perhaps, where some of the smaller vessels or some of the kind of arrangements that you mentioned in your summary did not apply? What about some of the larger vessels that the kind of descrip- tion you gave did not apply to? Captain GRADY. I think it is not unreasonable to expect some- body in the vessel's crew to have some engineering skills and to be able to respond to mechanical difficulties onboard the vessel and down in the engine room. But to require that person to be sta- PAGENO="0017" 13 tioned in the engine room may not be appropriate for all vessels and to require that person be licensed may not be necessary But to have an adequate skill level to address engineering problems and be able to service the propulsion equipment on the vessel may not be unreasonable Mr ABERCROMBIE OK, let me move to page seven then, second paragraph. It says, you say, the Coast Guard has no data which would indicate the number of bridge watchstanders currently being employed in this industry is unsafe or the two-watch system on the vessels for voyages under 600 miles is unsafe You go on to say, al though the Coast Guard does not object to these amendments, we do have reservations concerning the need for them That is a very politic statement, but-and I don't want to put words in your mouth and that is why I am asking you the question If you don't object to the amendments, presumably on the grounds that they might increase-could be construed as increasing the safety factor, reducing the fatigue factor, perhaps enhancing the-I won't say certainty, because I expect where the sea is concerned you can't be certain of anything other than the fact that you are going to have to be alert every single second, but certainly increas- ing the confidence factor I don't really understand then in the second part of the sentence, we have reservations concerning the need for them What consti tutes the reservations? Does that go on to the rest of your testimo ny about cost and those kinds of things? Captain GRADY Whether or not there is, in fact, a problem with the crewing levels on vessels making voyages of up to 600 miles and whether this is the way to address that problem and whether there would be a positive cost benefit in addressing it in this manner, I don't know because we don't have the data Mr ABERCROMBIE What is the magic? Maybe you could fill in for me If you could indulge me a moment or two more, Mr Chairman, I would appreciate it Mr TAUZIN Surely Mr ABERCR0MBIE What is the magic in the 600 figure for a lay person like myself? I don't quite understand it The reason I am thinking about it, you take the waters in the Hawaiian Islands, for example, you get out six miles and you are dealing with current changes and weather changes that are extraordinary that require an alertness and an understanding of the waters and the conditions that are something that the casual sailor, for example, just simply isn't going to be able to deal with So 600 miles doesn't really mean much there Isn't it really the kind of water that you are in and the changing conditions or the rapidity with which conditions can change that counts as opposed to mileage per se? Over and above the fatigue factor now Captain GRADY I would say probably back in 1936 when that provision was put in the statute, some determination was made that individuals could stand six hours on watch and six hours off With two people covering the entire day, they could probably stand an alert watch, alert for all these types of things that you describe, for a period that it would take a towing vessel to run 600 miles, and then after that it probably would have to be a three watch system. PAGENO="0018" 14 Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So it was probably associated with fatigue and alertness over a period of hours, right? Captain GRADY. Yes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. But you would not dispute whether it is 600 feet or 600 yards or 600 miles that, if conditions got very rough or a decision was necessary, it doesn't matter. The length of time doesn't matter. The decision as to what to do or not to do is not a function of length of time? Captain GRADY. Correct. I mean, the person has to be capable of making that decision at the beginning of the voyage and at the end of the voyage. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So the reason I am getting to that or the reason I am going over it is that I have been very leery of this au- tomation. I am thinking now about personnel. CaptainGRADY. Yes, there is a fatigue factor. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am also thinking about the need, whether fa- tigued or not, to be able to have someone able to deal with, say, engine problems and at the same time be capable of keeping a watch on what is going on the surface. Captain GRADY. I am not sure that I understand your point there. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. See, one of the arguments that come up in some of the other testimony, and I think you have alluded to it, is that we are talking about a cost factor here of extra personnel. And to me I am thinking, what is the-how can we bring up cost? I mean, if that has to be paid and it has to go to customers who are utilizing the services, that is a cost that should be borne if it, in fact, is going to assure the safety of the vessel and the safety of the crews, because you have people capable of making decisions in a position to make those decisions as a result of their placement on the vessels, and that if we are talking about the sophistication of modern technology being a substitute for human beings actually being in place to make those decisions, I am very leery of it. I don't trust modern technology. Captain GRADY. That is not the case on the bridge of a ship. The navigating officer must be on the bridge of a towing vessel at all times. Where you have modern technology coming into play is in assisting the navigating officer with the information that he or she is receiving. It is also being placed in the engine room on a deeper draft vessel, with vessels being allowed to operate where the engine room is unattended because of the automation. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. What if something goes wrong in that engine room? Captain GRADY. If I could just finish. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I'm sorry. Captain GRADY The 600 mile and the two watch rule do not apply to the engine room. It is just on the bridge of the tug and somebody has to be in attendance at all times. So the 600 mile and the automation may not be directly related. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. OK. In the end then, on page eight you say the provisions of both of these bills result in significant impact on the towing industry in terms of direct operational expenses, but PAGENO="0019" 15 asking you to set that aside for a moment, your testimony nonethe- less, if I am being fair with you, is that the provisions themselves, except for the instances that you have cited, do not-strictly from the safety point of view and the proper operation of the vessel, the Coast Guard does not have objections, is that a fair summary? Set- ting aside that last point about operational costs? Captain GRADY. Yes. The Coast Guard certainly supports any- thing that would improve safety. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So if we can take care of the issue of seeing to it that the Coast Guard is able to have sufficient resources, suffi- cient staffing to be able to carry out the provisions of these bills with respect to inspection and so on and we take up separately the issue of operational costs, the Coast Guard feels that these bills in and of themselves then, aside from those factors, are good bills to pursue? Captain GRADY. Not exactly. In addition to Coast Guard costs, we are concerned about industry costs and not placing burdens on the industry that don't have a benefit. We feel that we need to take a look at this, study it and see if there really is a need for these things that are suggested in the bill. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. One last point and this is-comes from the Seafarers' union testimony so I am not going to ask you to com- ment as if you are agreeing necessarily with the numbers I am going to give you. You have to take a look at it and make your own evaluation as to the numbers, but in the Seafarers' testimony they talk about, I am quoting now, casualties involving tow boats under 300 gross tons numbering some 8,000 of which 5,000 were attrib- uted to personnel causes. When you talk about studies, don't you have quite a bit in the way of statistics as to-with respect to accidents and casualties and so on that- Captain GRADY. Well, we do. We do have a lot of figures. That is where those figures came from, but again, we don't have a break- down as to whether people such as the cook or the unskilled deck- hands and others that are onboard the tow boats caused or contrib- uted to the effects of these casualties or whether it was the licensed people. I think that is what we would have to sort out. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Goss. Mr. Goss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Captain I wonder if in a word you could explain to me the differ- ence between documented and licensed. Captain GRADY. A document is a card issued to a mariner that is used as an identification card and it indicates that the mariner has met certain Coast Guard requirements. The entry level mariner has not demonstrated any sea-going experience or any skills. The document indicates that he or she has proven citizenship or evi- dence of legal entry into the United States with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, has obtained a job and there is a need for this merchant mariner's document, has passed a pre-employ- ment drug test, and we have reviewed the criminal record and Na- tional Driver's Register to determine whether or not that person has been involved in a violation of dangerous drug laws or has an apparent alcohol problem or convictions such as DWI. PAGENO="0020" 16 Individuals may progress from the entry level to a more skilled level such as able seaman and qualified members of the engine de- partment. Those people, after serving a required amount of sea ~time, demonstrate their abilities by completing a professional ex- amination Then you go to the licensed individual These people are the su pervisors onboard the ship-the master and the deck officers and the engineers. They supervise the navigation watch. They supervise the activities in the engine rooms. They direct the activities of the documented people. Mr. Goss. And they are accountable. Captain GRADY. They are accountable, yes. Mr. Goss. Thank you, very much. The issue to me here trying to balance out a question of safety and redundancy in both of these areas and obviously we are all in- terested in safety. I know that in testimony we are going to receive in written testimony that a statement has been made that the data of the U.S. Coast Guard shows that 93 percent of all towing vessel casualties involving quote, personnel area, occur with a licensed in- dividual in charge. Is that probably accurate or not? Captain GRADY. I believe so, yes. Mr. Goss. What do we get bypassing this legislation that en- hances safety if that is the case? What is wrong with our licensed personnel if we are having that type of a statistic or flipping it over, what else are we going to get if we pass this legislation to enhance safety? Captain GRADY. The 93 percent reflects the requirement that all towing vessels have licensed personnel onboard. Nearly all tow boats do have licensed personnel. So if you have a casualty, there is going to be a licensed person onboard the tug unless it is less than 26 feet. That is a very small tug boat and there are probably not many around. The other instances I mentioned earlier were where the vessel was laid up, in dock, and the licensed person wasn't required to be there. To require all of the individuals to hold a merchant mariner's document, that is, the entry level rating, I don't know how that is going to reduce the number of casualties I don't think it will Mr. Goss. Is that why you are suggesting that we need to have a study? Captain GRADY. Well, again, the entry level people are not re- quired to demonstrate any skills, so if they are contributing to the casualty, just to require them to carry an identification card is not going to reduce casualties based upon their professional abilities. Now, if it precludes someone who is a drug user from entering the industry, that might reduce the occurrence of a casualty, if it is a result of drug or alcohol consumption. Mr. Goss. There is-a suggestion has been made that document- ed seaman who have been suspended by the Coast Guard who don't measure up with these abuse problems continuing to work on the inland waterways now and get jobs and therefore that may lead to a disproportionate number of problem areas in the inland water- ways. PAGENO="0021" 17 Is that a statement you agree with9 Captain GRADY Is that related to professional abilities or some thing else9 Mr Goss I would say alertness of the crews Captain GRADY If an individual is fired today, as with someone working for an auto towing company, they could go down the road and apply for a job at another towing company My familiarity with the maritime towing industry is that they do not hire and put people onboard these vessels in charge of equipment worth multi millions of dollars without checking on their backgrounds, without looking for references, without finding out what prior experience they had and they go back to the other companies to check. I don't believe they just hire people off the street without any credentials and a resume and put them in safety sensitive positions or other positions. Mr Goss What-going back to your area of expertise in the Coast Guard, understanding these things, what accidents wouldn't happen if we passed both of these pieces of legislation9 Would you see a dramatic change in your accident statistics9 Are there certain types of accidents that we would expect would no longer happen? Captain GRADY Again, H R 4349 would require an individual to carry a document in their pocket It doesn't improve their profes sional ability so I don't think there would be a dramatic change as a result of that in itself Mr. Goss. So you don't think it would do anything except en- hance redundancy or red tape? Captain GRADY It will do something in the area you identified earlier, through sanctions We could suspend or revoke that docu ment which would preclude the person from going to work for an other company if that person was found guilty of some violation of law So in that respect it could be helpful But because there are no training or professional requirements, I don't see that it would reduce any casualties related to performance of duty Mr Goss How about in the other piece of legislation, the watch question9 Captain GRADY When you are talking about increasing the num bers of people on a towing boat, certainly someone could say the more people onboard, the more people that are available to do things If there is a requirement placed on the industry to increase the watch system from a two watch system to a three watch system, we are increasing the manpower by 50 percent in the area of watch standing 50 percent crew increase, some people would argue, could contribute to safety because there are more people available to do the job But as I mentioned earlier, we don't have any casualty data that we were able to break out to show that there is a big problem in the area of vessels making 600 mile voyages with the two watch system or using the cross over policy We haven't seen any evi dence of where an individual was hired as a deck hand, was put to work in engine spaces, and it contributed to a casualty. PAGENO="0022" 18 The area of requiring two people on the bridge is another con- cern because of the way the bill is drafted. The bill specifies that the watchstander will be positioned alongside the master or the op- erator. Traditionally, the master of the vessel determines when watches need to be set, how the watches will be set, and where the individ uals will stand the watch, and that is based upon weather condi tions and things of that nature To legislate that the individual will be placed on the bridge is of concern to us. Having a requirement to have individuals available to supple- ment the watch when necessary certainly is prudent but I don't think we ought to prescribe where the watch standers should be stationed. So I think, again, until we have some data to show where the needs are, it is hard to say. Mr. Goss. You suggested that we have a study on these safety provisions is your recommendation? Captain GRADY. Yes. Mr. Goss. I think it is a little refreshing to hear you suggest that perhaps the master of the vessel on the scene might have a little more judgment than a Subcommittee of the United States Congress I realize it may be radical but I congratulate you for saying it. I agree with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAUZIN. We will turn to another master, Mr. Anderson from California. Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question I have to ask the Coast Guard representative and Captain Grady, that is you did answer both my questions once a little bit. H.R. 4394 would require all individuals employed on tugs, tow boats and barges on inland waterways to have merchant marine documents. Will the Coast Guard be able to handle this increased adminis- trative time and cost required by this legislation or will additional funds be needed to fulfill this expanded administrative role? I know you answered this partly before, I think your answer was something, well, it would be a modest increase. Well, I have been involved for a long time. Every time we have increased, no one has ever referred to it as modest, and usually they don't like them regardless of how small or what it is. I just kind of wondered if you thought it would be that easy. Captain GRADY. No, it wouldn't be that easy. Again, we don't know the numbers, but assuming that there were 30,000 individ- uals that had to be documented and they could be phased in over a five-year period, then we estimate we need about 13 more people to assign to our field units to handle that. I saw in some document where it was a suggestion that this all might be placed on the St. Louis office because St. Louis is the regional examination center on inland waterways, but this burden will not be restricted to those tow boats on the rivers. All towing vessels over 26 feet long that are at shipyards and are used for moving floats around and things of that nature will be im pacted by this It is going to also be harbor tugs, docking tugs, and sea-going tugs that are less than 100 gross tons, so it is not limited to the river industry or the St. Louis office. This will be nation- PAGENO="0023" 19 wide. We will have to place people in all of our 17 regional exami- nation centers, or at least the majority of them, to accommodate these people. Mr. TAUZIN. Will the gentleman yield a second? Mr. ANDERSON. Sure. Mr. TAUZIN. Does that mean you are going to be asking us to ap- prove some fees again? Captain GRADY. No. But certainly this will extend the current user fee to include this increased population of people. Mr. TAUZIN. User fees will go up to accommodate this increased demand? Captain GRADY. What I was saying, we are going to collect user fees from more individuals. All these people would have to pay for this service. Mr. TAUZIN. That is the point. There will be a fee. Captain GRADY. Yes. Mr. TAUZIN. So they are collected to cover this extra cost and that is going to be an extra fee on the industry? Captain GRADY. No. The individuals that are not now document- ed will have to pay a fee. Mr. TAUZIN. This would be a new fee on the mariners? Captain GRADY. Yes, this would be a new fee on a segment of the population. We already have the user fee for mariners. Mr. TAUZIN. Thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you. I represent an area on the West Coast that has all kinds of ships and every time I go out and ask some of these questions, they don't answer them quite like you do. They don't want any more tax. They don't want any of these. But they wonder why we weren't doing more than we are and better than we are today and it is kind of funny. So towing vessels with automated engine systems are commonly operated without anyone in the engine room. H.R. 3942 would require either a li- censed engineer or an unlicensed qualified seaman to be on duty in the engine room whether or not it is automated. My question has two parts. First, could you expand on the risks posed by unregulated automated engine rooms and secondly, will these risks be completely neutralized by the proposed legislation? Captain GRADY. Well, again, I don't know what the risks are. Probably the majority, if not nearly all tow boats, have some level of automation. We no longer have tow boats running, I don't believe, with the navigating officer sending a signal down to an engine room and somebody down in the engine room responding to that signal and then operating the equipment. It is all pilothouse control, and whether it be a hydraulic system or mechanical system, the navigating officer is directing the engine as somebody would in a recreational boat. You have a series of shifting mechanisms to operate the engine and that is probably the way all tow boats are operated today, unless it is a museum piece. So there is automation throughout the industry and there hasn't been a large level of incidents or large number of incidents involving tow boat automation that has caused the Coast Guard concern to look in that area. PAGENO="0024" 20 Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Finally Mr. Laughlin from Texas. Mr. LAUGHLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Captain, the Oil Pollution Act requires a five-year renewal for merchant mariner documents. As I understand it, the Coast Guard is in the process of putting together a notice for proposed rulemak- ing governing the five-year renewal mandate. My question to you is, what criteria does the Coast Guard intend to include in these proposed regulations and, in fact, would any of the criteria include a demonstration of proficiency? Captain GRADY The renewal criteria will generally duplicate the criteria required for an original document. If the individual was re- quired to complete a physical exam for the original document, he will have to take another physical examination and accompanying drug test for the renewal. If the individual had to demonstrate some professional skills in order to get the rating, I would suggest in our proposed rulemaking that the individual should demonstrate continued proficiency through either evidence of working in the industry, in the profes- sion, or if the person has been away from the profession, some ex ercise, school, or course or something of that nature. Mr. LAUGHLIN. Is there any reason why a person working as an undocumented employee on tugs and barges on the rivers not be required to show proficiency prior to employment? Captain GRADY Well, that is the way it is throughout the man time industry today We have, on all classes of vessels, provisions for entry ratings, and the entry level individual does not come to the job with any skills. The entry level person comes aboard the ship to gain that experience, gain that knowledge, and is required to obtain a certain amount of sea service before they can be tested for those skills. The same thing exists in the towing industry, that is, there are entry level people going aboard those vessels for the purpose of ob taming the knowledge and skill that would be coupled with some professional training in order to pass examinations The entry level position is throughout the maritime industry Mr. LAUGHLIN. I represent a long stretch of the Gulf of Mexico coastline in Texas There are four wildlife refuge systems in the confines of ~he coastline that I represent. There is also a fifth one which is not on the coastline The reason I bring this up is because I hear people from time to time express concern about the possibility of an oil spill in one of these four wildlife refuges One of them is a habitat for the whoop ing crane I might add that the barge industry has shown a lot of restraint in that area by slowing down their tows so that there is not as much wake action causing erosion, but there is a lot of con- cern that there would be an oil spill or some type of hazardous ma- terial spill in one of these wildlife refuge systems. My concern is that if we have a spill there of any hazardous ma terial, then we open up the barge industry to new areas of attack. And I wonder if there is any logical reason that you can give why operations in the wildlife refuge system do not fall under the pro- tection of the Oil Pollution Act PAGENO="0025" 21 Captain GRADY I am not sure how the two are related Mr LAUGHLIN You have stricter personnel requirements under the Oil Pollution Act than you have for inland barge activity and I would like your explanation why Captain GRADY Well, I don't know The Oil Pollution Act applies to tank ships, not tugs and barges Tank ships generally are on longer voyages than tank barges They are removed from the sup port services that you would have from shoreside services. If a tanker needs something, it may be days waiting for assist- ance, whereas a tug or barge in an inland waterway system or in a harbor may be able to get this assistance or change personnel or do those things much more readily than a ship at sea. Mr LAUGHLIN Captain, this is an area that is of great concern to a large group of people-I request that you give some thought to this and would ask for some written response because I have a great appreciation for what the inland barge system does We have a problem in my district that you all know a little bit about, it is Sergeant Beach and the Texas Transportation Institute has done a study that if the inland water system is closed at that point, there are not enough railroad cars in the State of Texas-as big as we think we are-to haul all the products that are hauled through that part of the canal in a day's time. There are not enough 18 wheel trucks in the State of Texas to carry all the product that goes through that part of the inland water system at Sergeant Beach in a day's time So the barge system is of great importance to my part of the State and I think to the whole nation, and the concern that I am raising with you and I would like your response in writing is we have got the barge systems running and hauling millions of tons of products-some of it hazardous-through the sensitive ecological areas in my district and we are not requiring the same standards for the tug and barge personnel that we are of the tanker person nel This is an issue that I would like for your staff to address and send it to the Chairman of this Committee That brings me to the next point that you mentioned in your answer to my question and that was, the tankers out at sea and they are some distance from shore We have furnished to us as part of this hearing a news article printed in the Journal of Commerce I don't know if you have seen that But in that article a maritime specialist, with the American Petroleum Institute states that the barges are not necessarily safer than the tankers and that the crew qualifications for barges are much lower than tankers Do you agree with that9 [The information follows] OIL Pou.uTI0N ACT MANNING AND QUALIFICATIONS OF CREW The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) does not explicitly impose additional man ning on tankships (or tugs or barges) nor does it require additional qualifications for the crew It does however require the Coast Guard to assess the crew qualifications and manning levels of tankships Under existing law and regulations the operator of a tug must be licensed and tankermen (persons in charge of the transfer of oil or hazardous cargoes) must be documented Each tankerman s document must be endorsed to reflect the cargoes the individual is qualified to handle The documented tankerman on the tug/barge must meet the same professional qualifications as the tankerman on a tankship To PAGENO="0026" 22 qualify for an original license as the operator of a tug, an individual must have three years of service on towing vessels, which is comparable to the three-year deck service requirement for acquiring a license as a 3rd mate on a large tankship, though the scope of the examination differs to account for different operating condi- tions. The experience and qualification requirements for the master of a tankship are more rigorous than for the operator of a towing vessel. However, both master and operator must pass professional examinations testing their expertise in shi- phandling and seamanship commensurate with the type of vessel and the trade route for which they will be licensed. The scope of responsibilities of a tankship master is wider than that of the tug operator due to the complexity of the ship's systems and operational requirements. Also, a tankship is often remote from sup- port services that would be available from shoreside for an inland tug. If a tankship needs assistance, it has few options available except to rely on onboard professional competence or lengthy delays in an exposed environment. A tug or barge in an inland waterway system, on the other hand, may be able to get expert assistance much more readily, or may have operational alternatives which do not place the crew or cargo at risk. OPA 90 mandates regulations to prevent another catastrophic marine casualty from occurring. The Act implements many new standards and amends existing reg- ulations; of particular interest to shipboard personnel, including tankships and tow- boats, are the sections dealing with a proactive approach to pollution prevention issues. The greatest impact on daily operations onboard vessels will result from the sec- tions of OPA 90 which relate to issuance of licenses and documents. Because of the alleged involvement of alcohol in the Exxon Valdez incident, new authority was cre- ated for the Coast Guard to specifically mandate drug and alcohol testing as a condi- tion of licensing and documentation. A review of criminal, alcohol and drug, and driving records will be required for an original license and document. To provide the mechanism of review and testing, OPA 90 created additional authority for renewal of Certificates of Registry and Merchant Mariner s Documents to parallel the cur rent authority for licenses. Also, alcohol abuse will not be a cause for suspension and revocation proceedings for all marine credentials issued by the Coast Guard Implementation of the Act will improve the transport of these cargoes and reduce the risk and severity of casualties involving tank vessels. Captain GRADY. No. We have an endorsement for the crew called a tankerman endorsement and the requirements presently are the same for both. If you take the exam for tankerman, it is the same if you are a tankerman on a barge or on a ship That is going to be changed in the future, but to answer the question, currently a tan kerman has to meet certain qualifications and may work on either ships or barges Mr. LAUGHLIN. You don't feel that there is any situation that exists in the qualifications of the barge personnel versus the tanker personnel that needs to be corrected, if I understand your answer? Captain GRADY. Well, there is something that is going to be cor- rected. The United States ratified the International Convention for Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for mari- time personnel. In some areas that international standard is higher than our own, and one is in the area of tankerman training. We have a final rule on tankermen that is going to be published this summer which will adopt the international standard. One of the re- quirements is that tankermen receive fire fighting training and a few other things that are not currently required. So there are some changes that are going to be made to the tankermen requirements for crew members on both barges and tankships. Mr. LAUGHLIN. I don't want to sound like I am picking on the barge industry, because I don't want them to go away angry and don't want to be a part of your crowd or my crowd making them go away angry, but it seems that a lot of the oil spill accidents along the Texas Gulf coast have involved barges and have involved for- PAGENO="0027" 23 eign flag tankers and I have asked questions of witnesses in here before about the Coast Guard and other's requirements on foreign flag vessels. The reason I ask you about this is because there is so much barge traffic on the Texas coast and the propensity for danger and destruction is so high. It endangers not only life and commercial equipment, but sensitive ecological areas and wildlife refuges. I want you to address my concerns about these dangers and my con- cern that the barge crews do not meet the qualifications that we are requiring the tank crews under similar circumstances. It sounds to me as if your people have not addressed in any manner the concern of the qualification of barge operators, particu- larly in the game refuge areas. I do not know whether there are wildlife refuges along other inland waterways or not, but much of the 300 mile stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway between Galveston and Corpus Christi is included in refuges. You follow where I am headed? Captain GRADY. Yes. Mr. LAUGHLIN. OK. The last area that I want to inquire about from you, Captain, is some have said that this legislation, if it were extended to the tug and towing industry in the inland water river areas would handicap and probably force out of business what we call the mom and pop operations, the small water two-vessel com- panies. There are some of those type companies that exist in my district and operate there and I just wonder if you could address that part of the issue that is before us. In your opinion, would this put the small operator out of business or what impact, if any, would it have on the two-boat operator? Captain GRADY. I don't know if this legislation in itself would put anybody out of business. It might be part of the cumulative effect that people are talking about, that so many financial burdens are being placed on the industry through user fees and taxes and other things that this, some are claiming, is an additional burden be- cause in many cases the employers pay the cost of the employees obtaining the document. There will be a user fee, a drug test that ranges from $70 to over $100 depending on where the person ob- tains the drug test. Then there is the cost of traveling to the Coast Guard regional examination center, and lodging and meals while a person spends one or two days there. So all of this is a considerable amount of money, but how it would affect individual companies, I don't know. As I said, a lot of companies pay those bills for the prospective em- ployee or their regular employees. Mr. LAUGHLIN. Thank you very much, Captain. Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Laughlin. If I can follow up a little bit on what Mr. Laughlin's concerns were. The Offshore Marine Service Association has presented testimony to the Committee in writing that indicates that applications of the provisions of 3942 would require offshore tugs to increase manning levels by at least four additional crew members. For example, a mate, decking, engineer and an oiler, has an esti- mated annual additional cost of $165,000 per vessel in salaries alone. Add the additional cost of accommodations, meals, insur- PAGENO="0028" 24 ance, legal fees, drug documentation. They estimate the potential cost could exceed $40 million on a small fleet. Are those numbers anywhere near real? Captain GRADY. I think they are. If you are going from a two- watch system to a three-watch system, the existing towing vessel has to increase their navigating watch by 50 percent. Now, if we are going to place an additional person on the bridge, you are in- creasing one more person for each of the three watches. Then if you are going to require additional people to be onboard to man engine rooms, these people certainly do not come cheap. I know that depending upon labor contracts and benefit programs, an individual's benefits can amount to between 120 and 140 per- cent of their base wage. And then you have relief crews. So you are not only talking about the person onboard the vessel at the time of the voyage, but you have relief crews that have to be provided for. I could agree with those numbers. They seem reasona- ble to me. Mr. TAUZIN. Well then, the $40 million for a small fleet is no small impact. Do these two bills together have a significant impact upon the industry? Captain GRADY. I thought he was just asking about- Mr. TAUZIN. About documentation. Captain GRADY. Just the documentation alone, no; combined, it is a significant impact, yes Mr. TAUZIN. All right. At this point I want to- Mr ABERCROMBIE Would you yield a moment'? Mr. TAUZIN. Just a second, Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. TAUZIN. I want to for the record indicate that Chairman Jones has a written statement for the record, and without objection that written statement will be included in the record of these pro- ceedings. I yield to Mr. Abercrombie. [The statement of Walter Jones follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER B. JONES, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH CAROLINA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Subcommittee is meeting today to consider my bill, HR. 4394. We all share an interest in making our waters safer for people and the environ- ment. In the Oil Pollution Act, we required double hulls and double containment systems for tank vessels to lessen the chances of oil spilling when an accident occurs. We also enhanced Coast Guard scrutiny of personnel on vessels since the most common cause of accidents is human error; nevertheless, there is still a gap with regard to those vessels operating on the inland waterways. Captains and pilots working in the towboat and barge industry must comply with Federal standards; however, others who work with them such as deckhands and en- gineers, do not. These exempt workers are not required to demonstrate their fitness for duty to the Coast Guard. In fact, they escape all Coast Guard oversight. Undocumented seamen may be exposing others working or recreating on our wa- terways to a great risk of injury or death. In addition, since many of these vessels transport oil or hazardous substances, allowing this situation to continue threatens serious environmental damage to our shores and our natural resources. My bill would allow the Coast Guard to weed out unfit seamen. To continue to work in the inland trade, these mariners would have to undergo a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal record check and a review of their driving records. Ex- panding the list of those required to have merchant mariner documents would also preclude a seaman, whose papers have been revoked, from seeking sanctuary in a job on the inland waterways. PAGENO="0029" 25 I know there is some opposition to the bill, but I want to assure all interested parties that I will do everything I can to resolve these differences. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. How different is 3942 from what already exists with respect to the regulation on the Great Lakes? Captain GRADY. There are some statutes that apply to the Great Lakes and nowhere else in the country. For example, seafarers are not permitted to work more than eight hours on the Great Lakes, unlike the rest of the country where they cannot be forced to work more than eight hours, or on tankers where they are not permitted to work more than 12. On the Great Lakes there is a section of the statutes that limits seafarers to working only eight hours. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand. My point is that Mr. Tauzin has asked a good question with respect to costs and figures can get tossed around and one hears millions, even in the Congress, I am sure Mr. Goss would agree, even millions will still get our attention on occasion. But from the practical realities of dealing with the personnel on the Great Lakes, isn't 3942 similar if not exact? Captain GRADY. No, because they don't have the three-watch system in the lakes. We don't have required manning in the engine room in the Great Lakes, and we don't have a second person re- quired on the bridge with the navigator on the Great Lakes. All of these things are in H.R. 3942. They don't exist in the Great Lakes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. Mr. TAUZIN. Captain, thank you very much. As I said, some Members have indicated they wanted additional information. I in- dicated to you that I would like some estimates, particularly on what it is going to cost and in terms of how it is going to affect the fee schedules on mariners if, in fact, we increase the documenta- tion. I particularly would like to add, if you can examine the figures that we have gotten from OMSA a little more closely and indicate whether or not those are accurate figures, we want to know what these things are going to cost. Congress has been piling up an awful lot on the industry lately and on mariners and we ought to have a good handle on each one of them so we can accumulate them and see what we are doing. Thank you for your testimony and as I said we will be waiting to see those responses in the mail. Captain GRADY. Thank you. [The information follows:] COST OF EXPANDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL The Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA) submitted estimated annual cost figures to their industry to expand the requirements for Merchant Mariner's Documents for personnel on tugs, towboats, and barges, and reduce the voyage length that allows for a two-watch system of manning. While the Coast Guard has not performed an analysis or studied the industry costs associated with the proposed legislation, the cost figures as presented appear to be representative of those associ- ated with personnel in the maritime industry. Mr. TAUZIN. I will now bring up the second panel which includes Mr. Joseph Sacco, Vice President of Seafarers International Union and Captain John Walton, Executive Assistant to the President of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots of the PAGENO="0030" 26 AFL-CIO, Mr. Joe Farrell, President of the American Waterways Operators and Mr. Gary Faber, Vice President of Crowley Mari- time Corporation. Gentlemen, if you will assume your place. Mr. TAUZIN. We will start with Mr. Joe Sacco, the Vice President of Seafarers International Union of North American, AFL-CIO. Joe. STATEMENTS OF JOSEPH SACCO, VICE PRESIDENT, SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OR NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO; JOHN WALTON, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, INTER- NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS, ILA, AFL-CIO; JOSEPH FARRELL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN WA- TERWAYS OPERATORS; GARY FABER, VICE PRESIDENT, OPER- ATIONS-PACIFIC, CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION STATEMENT OF JOSEPH SACCO Mr. SAcco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning and good morning, Committee Members. I will try to be as quick and as brief as I can Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Joseph Sacco, Executive Vice President of the Seafarers International Union of North America. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in strong support of H.R. 4394. The SIU represents thousands of seamen and boatmen who earn their livelihoods on board vessels transporting cargo and passengers on the high seas, in the Great Lakes and on the inland waters and harbors and the coastal waters of these United States. As a result, we are concerned about the safety of towboats and barges operated on the Nation's waterways as the very lives of our members are at stake. While my testimony is focused on H.R. 4394, I would briefly like to express the SIU's support for H R 3942 es tablishing manning and watch requirements on uninspected ves- sels. Weather conditions and hazardous cargoes dictate the impor- tance of having a trained crew of sufficient size to handle emergen- cy situations. We urge the Committee to give this measure favor- able consideration. With regard to H.R. 4394, we concur with Chairman Jones' re- marks on the introduction of H.R. 4394 that allowing undocument- ed seamen to work on vessels unnecessarily increases the potential for injury or death of other waterway users. H.R. 4394 is an uncom- plicated measure. It simply corrects an omission in current law to require mariners employed on cargo vessels over five gross tons to obtain Coast Guard documents. Presently a mariner's document is required for service aboard commercial vessels 100 gross tons or over. However, this is a major exception. Personnel employed on tugs and tows operating on the rivers and lakes are exempted. In the last few years, the public rightfully has voiced its intolerance with transportation accidents caused by the human error resulting in the loss of life and major damage to the Nation's environment. As a result, the Congress and the administration need to enact laws and regulations to better monitor the behavior patterns of those employed in the transportation industry. The courts have PAGENO="0031" 27 consistently upheld a right to test employees holding safety sensi- tive positions for drug and alcohol usage. Today as compared to a decade ago, drug and alcohol testing are a fact of life for those earning a living in the various transportation roles. The Exxon Valdez accidents in Prince William Sound and the three spills within a 24-hour period in the coastal waters of Rhode Island, the Delaware River and the Houston Ships Channel, dem- onstrated that oil pollution from tanker spills is a real and continu- ing threat to the public health and welfare and the environment. Subsequently, the Congress was able to forge a compromise to pass without consent. One of the toughest environmental statutes ever imposed on an industry and its work force was the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Oil Pollution Act contains stricter provisions for issues of refueling, of merchant mariner documents, licenses and certificates of regis- try. This provision is similar to legislation that had been proposed by the administration in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez acci- dent and also to amendments added to both H.R. 2158, the Prince William Sound Oil Response Act of 1989 and to H.R. 2459, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1989. When these measures were endorsed by either of these subcommittees, or by the full Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee during the 101st Congress, the Oil Pollution Act prohibits the Coast Guard from issuing or renewing merchant marine documents unless the applicant makes available all information contained in the National driver registry regarding the motor vehicle driving record of that individual. In spite of the fact that this provision represents an added ad- ministrative cost to the Federal Government and is also an inva- sion into the privacy of some employees making their living on the Nation's waters, the Congress and the Members of the Committee overwhelmingly supported this provision. Although the law is de- signed to improve the safe operation of vessels and reduce acci- dents, this well-intentioned Act overlooks thousands of undocu- mented marine personnel employed on certain commercial water- borne equipment, including tugs, tows and barges plying the inland rivers. These individuals will not be subject to the provisions of the Act since they are not required by law to hold Coast Guard certificates or documents as a basis of employment. If we are truly interested in minimizing the potential for future environmental harm from chemical explosions and oil and other hazardous material spills, as I believe Congress and this Committee intended in enacting the Oil Pollution Act, then marine personnel employed on tugs, tows and barges on the inland rivers and coastal waters should be appropriately documented by the U.S. Coast Guard. Safety for the employees in this segment of the transportation in- dustry, the general public, and the protection of the environment must be given the commitment of our best resources. Certainly no laws can control the forces of nature on the rivers, and thus the human element becomes even more important. Laws can control the caliber of personnel that are employed to crew the tugs and tows plying the inland rivers. PAGENO="0032" 28 The documentation process will help eliminate unsuitable candi- dates for employment as mariners who may be hazardous to them selves, to their shipmates and fellow boatmen, the environment, and the communities along the rivers at large. As the present statute is written, it is likely that someone who is deemed unsuitable for a Coast Guard document or who has his doc- ument suspended or revoked could easily seek employment in that portion of the industry which does not require mariner documenta- tion. Without a mandated requirement that certain personal records of a prospective employee be checked, an individual could leave one segment of the industry and seek employment in a less- regulated segment Or even in the less regulated segment of the in dustry, an individual who is denied employment for failing a drug test could temporarily clean up his act and easily move to another company, for without documentation, any previous record would be hard to trace. Clearly that was not the bitent of the Congress in passing the Oil Pollution Act, nor of the administration in promulgating drug test ing regulations A significant portion of U S dothestic cargoes is moved by the barge and towing industry on the 25,000 miles of commercially navigable inland waterways. The Corps of Engineers in 1989 estimated that 1 5 billion tons of freight were carried on selected U S inland waterways Cargoes carried varied from farm products, metallic ores, coal, petroleum products, non metallic minerals, food, tobacco products, to chemi cals and allied products including sodium hydroxide, alcohol, radi ation material, benzene, sulfuric acid, paints and insecticide, and other hazardous cargoes. This movement of hazardous and combustible products and mate rials, which, if involved in a explosion, grounding or other mishap can present a sigmficant threat to the environment and to the com munities along the riverfronts Those who point to the safety record of the tug tow barge indus try under current regulation and, as an argument for leaving the system alone, are in error In fact, according to Coast Guard records of towboat casualties for the period 1981 through 1990 of the 12,702 selected cases contained within the Coast Guard's data base, casualties involving towboats under 300 gross ton numbered 8,242 of which 5,047 or 62 percent were attributed to personnel cause. As defined by the Coast Guard, personnel causes include, but are not limited to, such factors as inattention to duty, intoxication, cal culated risk, carelessness, error in judgment, lack of knowledge, lack of training, lack of experience, operator error, fatigue, smok ing, stress, improper safety precautions, failure to comply with rules, regulations and procedures, and improper loading, cargo storage securing, rigging, mooring and towing. Further, of the 5,047 accidents attributed tO personnel causes, 4,136 or 82 percent resulted in groundings and collisions. The recent strain of unfortunate river mishaps is a matter of record. No amount of after-the-fact reporting, liability and recovery will suffice. The emphasis must be on prevention. It is our view that the leg- islation under consideration today lends itself to this criteria En PAGENO="0033" 29 dorsement of H.R. 4394 will undoubtedly lend itself to attaining these objectives in light of the high level of incidence in this trade. It is imperative that the stringent personnel and safe oriented pro- visions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also apply to currently un- documented personnel on tugs and tows five gross tons and over. Uniformity across the board would guarantee that certain safety and extensive standards are enforced throughout the entire mari- time industry. And in conclusion, the Congress has made tough and unpopular decisions in the past to regulate the marine environment. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is a profound example. Let us not waste those tough decisions by declining to correct an obvious oversight in the law. It took a major environmental accident to give impetus to a much-needed bill. It will be foolhardy to put off in any way the principles of H.R. 4394 until a disaster strikes. The next time, in addition to our precious environment, it may mean a tremendous loss of human lives. Let us enact H.R. 4394 in this Congress. Thank you. Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you. I just looked over all your submittals and I have got to say, you are a firm believer in documentation. [The statement of Mr. Sacco can be found at end of hearing.] Mr. TAUZIN. If I might, Captain John Walton is next. John, we welcome you and would invite your testimony. STATEMENT OF JOHN WALTON Mr. WALTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Captain John Walton~ I am the executive assistant to Captain Timothy A. Brown, the Inter- national President of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots. I have personal onboard work experience in both the towing seg- ment and deep-sea segment of the maritime industry. For the past nine years, I have been employed as master of a product tanker. This tanker vessel carried one quarter of a million barrels of petro- leum products on coastal and worldwide voyages. I appreciate this opportunity to testify today on behalf of the MM&P in support of H.R. 3942 and H.R. 8439. I have submitted a written statement which I would ask to be included in the record. I will try to be brief by summarizing the MM&P's position at this time. At the outset, we believe these bills are designed to improve the safety of towboat operations and give Congress and the industries the opportunity to react to prevent rather than react to potentially devastating situations which we all know can occur at sea. The MM&P supports H.R. 3942 because we are extremely con- cerned about the health, safety and environmental threats posed by the operation of uninspected towing vessels due to the lack of proper Federal manning and watchstanding regulations. The current lack of adequate standards for watchstanding allow for only one person to be on watch on the bridge and no one in the engine room. That person, not only has to navigate, but must re- 55-369 0 - 92 - 2 PAGENO="0034" 30 spond to other colinear duties not associated with the direct navi- gation of the tug or barge, such as communication. On some of these vessels, the chart room and radio room are away from the bridge, forcing the person on watch to actually leave his position We all remember too well what happened when the Exxon Valdez, when the captain left the navigating bridge Further, the automation of the engine room and installation of an alarm to alert the man on watch does not adequately insure the safe operation of these vessels. In the first place, automated sys- tems can and do malfunction Much like an automobile's idiot light warning system, if the man on watch is alerted to a potential prob lem, he is put in the position of reacting to a problem rather than being able to anticipate and correct the situation before it gets out of control Instead, our members lives, the vessel and the cargo and the marine environment are put at risk Presently, our members stand watches of six hours on and six hours off on these vessels as well as performing overtime work during there off watch period for an average workday of 16 hours It is not unusual for the deck officers that are off-watch to be inter- rupted to monitor a host of situations such as stormy seas, equip ment failures, personnel illnesses or any other crisis which may occur when we are hundreds of miles from shore A personal thought I have on that I have many that have hap pened to me over my career One in particular, if you are on a two watch system and you are in rough weather and it is not unusual for a seaman to get hurt onboard, once that individual is injured, then someone has to give him medical attention. If you have two men on watch, one is on the bridge, then the other man is on his off time, correct9 So he is supposed to be off six hours and, according to Coast Guard regulations, he is supposed to take six hours off prior to assuming a bridge watch Well, the man that is on the bridge can't leave the navigating bridge and, we must remember, this little tugboat that everyone seems to be talking about, they keep forgetting about that great big barge that is out in front of it and that, in a lot of cases, carries more oil than some of our coast wise tankers It is a real safety hazard So the person that is off watch has to attend to these other colinear duties That can also happen in port I remember a couple of years ago in Tampa, I was master Of a vessel. I had laid in at the Phillips berth. We were discharging regular gasoline. During the course of this discharge, while we were eating our lunch, there was a loud noise; the vessel started moving ahead. I ran out on the deck and here is a very large barge, about 400 feet in length, and it rammed right into the stern of my ship Now, this was a propane barge The deck hand on the bow of this barge, he was glassy eyed His hair was askew I do not think he was in toxicated, but he looked as tired as any individual could look We immediately checked our lines to make sure we didn't break away because, if we had broken away, obviously with pumps going at 10,000 barrels an hour, it would have been a tremendous spill It would have been an accident, no one's fault, but it would have been an accident. PAGENO="0035" 31 I said to the young man on the bow of the barge, because 400 feet away is a little tugboat, 1 said, "What is the problem here? What happened?" He said, "Oh, Cap, we are sorry. The Captain's been up all night. He has been helping the tanker man discharge the barge." That is what we are talking about, other colinear duties, and I am sure if that individual had said "I am not moving this barge," and I have been in this position myself, and had I said, "Well, I am not going to move this ship because I haven't had six hours off in the previous 12," I don't think I would have my job for very long. The Masters, Mates and Pilots has always prized itself on the highest levels of competence on the membership. But when the staffing can be reduced to dangerous levels, even the highest level of professionalism may not be enough to prevent an accident. The IOMM&P strongly supports H.R. 4394, a bill designed to expand the requirement for merchant mariners' documents for per- sonnel on tugs, towboats and barges. Much like an individual drives without a license, crew members who do not possess Coast Guard documents and are involved in important operations of vessel safety and navigation are permitted to enter and remain in the industry without demonstrating their fitness for the job. While the statistics do not tell everything, the Coast Guard has shown that approximately 57 percent of towboat casualties between 1981 and 1987 were personnel-related, caused by lack of training and experience, intoxication, improper safety precautions, and op- erator error. In this time period there were nearly 9,000 towboat accidents or more than 1,000 per year, and I wonder how many were not reported on undocumented vessels. The IOMM&P believes that passage of H.R. 4394 would lessen these occurrences by insuring that only qualified seamen are em- ployed on these vessels. We believe the passage of H.R. 4392 will also put safety first, safety of the life, safety of the vessel and cargo, and safety of the marine environment. In closing, I would reemphasize that both H.R. 3942 and H.R. 4394 give us a chance to act on a situation rather than react to a crisis. While statistics play an important role in measuring proba- bility in effects, we do not want to wait to be a statistic or a tow- boat version of the Exxon Valdez to take action. I respectfully urge you to come down on the side of safety. Thank you. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have. Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, John. [The statement of Mr. Walton can be found at end of hearing.] Mr. TAUZIN. We will now turn to the President of the American Waterway Operators, Mr. Joe Farrell for your statement. Joe. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH FARRELL Mr. FARRELL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Sub- committee. I am going to discard the remarks that I had planned to make this morning, based on what I have heard so far, in hopes that I can bring an important perspective to your deliberations - today. PAGENO="0036" 32 We have heard a lot about safety this morning, both in the testi mony and in the questions that have been asked, and I was think- ing as that was taking place that Lady Safety must be smothered by all the people that are scurrying to embrace her. Nobody has exclusive dominion over safety. Nobody has more concern about safety certainly, than the people that operate our vessels. We don't pretend to have more than the Congress or more than the labor movement, but we certainly have a great deal of concern about safety In that respect, I spent a good part of my life as an officer on nuclear powered attack submarines and when you marry nuclear reactor technology to submersible vessels traveling at very high speeds, often in somewhat dangerous or very dangerous circum stances, you can imagine that individual safety, the safety of the crew, was always utmost in the minds of the Commanding Officer and the others in charge of that vessel But we also had other considerations and that seems to be over looked here somewhat today It wasn't just safety We had a mis sion to accomplish. We had to be concerned about the cost of oper- ating that remarkably effective vessel We had to be concerned about the life of the crew in terms of its accommodations and its food, the crew's recreation to the extent that we could attend to that. There were many considerations, all secondary, to safety, but still important And that is also true in the vessels that operate on the coasts and the rivers of the United States Let me also point out some comments have been made about technology and redundancy There is a very important point that you all need to understand and that is, in some-in many cases, actually-that technology makes the operation of the vessel safer than if it were done by a human being. I will give you three examples that I am very familiar with The operation of a nuclear reactor. The power level of a nuclear reactor is much safer maintained through technological devices than any human operator. The all important level in the boilers of a nuclear submarine which prevent those boilers from meltings, from burning up and causing a nuclear accident, the levels of those boilers could not be maintained by a human being They must be maintained by tech nology And finally, the level of condensate under the main turbines, also very important to not damaging those main turbines, can be controlled much safer by technology than by human beings. We don't want to `lose sight of that. The analog in our vessels would be, if you have a hydraulic or electrical signal that changes the power of the diesel engines in op- erating the tug in order to fit the circumstances versus having somebody leave his station, a qualified engineer, and go down and manually change the power level It doesn't take a great deal of imagination and thought, I don't think, to realize that in today's world, technology can do that more efficiently But more important, it is safer to do it that way There is no system, human or technological that is perfect, but in many cases, my point is that technology is safer than human operation PAGENO="0037" 33 As to these two bills, specifically, it seems to us that perhaps un- wittingly, they are more aimed at increasing the number of people on vessels. We have heard speculation and anecdotes, but no evi- dence that would support any elements of either of these bills. The only statistic that has been quoted today by the Coast Guard is that something in the order of 60 percent of all casualties are caused by human error, but within that spectrum, 93 percent are caused by vessels with licensed personnel. I think you also need to be reminded that the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which you all and your colleagues spent almost two years in crafting through debates and hearings and so forth, nobody could ever say the Oil Pollution Act overlooked something. That is not the first thing that comes to mind when you deal with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. It has a section, 4111, that re- quires the Department of Transportation to conduct detailed stud- ies that relate directly to what this legislation would propose to do: training, manning levels, watchstanding, all those kinds of things. So it would seem to me that the answers that we are all seeking today are not there but will be provided in the near future through the activities required by Section 4111 of OPA-90. And finally, I would like to say a word about competitiveness and productivity. We shouldn't turn our back on those two things. Increasingly, the American people are realizing that, for us to maintain our standard of living, that all of us in government and in the private sector must get much better in productivity and in our ability to compete both domestically and in the international marketplace. With no evidence to support decreasing our ability to compete and decreasing our productivity as these bills would do, it seems like a very foolish thing to do. On top of that, impose on these companies-because in the end virtually all the companies would end up paying the bill-the addi- tional user fees for things like dull photos, three copies, making sure you have your social security card and your birth certificate and that sort of thing, without any nexus to safety really doesn't make any sense at all. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TATJZIN. Thank you, Mr. Farrell. [The statement of Mr. Farrell can be found at end of hearing.] Mr. TAUZIN. Gary Faber now, the Vice President of Operations for the Pacific at Crowley Maritime Corporation. Gary. STATEMENT OF GARY FABER Mr. FABER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. My name is Gary Faber. I am Vice President of Operations for the Pacific Fleet of Crowley Maritime Corporation. I am responsi- ble for the marine, deck, engine, cargo operations for our fleet of tugs based on the West Coast. I have under my jurisdiction ap- proximately 150 tugs, 125 barges, and about 1,000 sea-going person- nel. Rather than read through the prepared statement, which has al- ready been submitted for the record, I would like to say in regards to H.R. 4394 that we are in favor of the bill. We urge support for it. PAGENO="0038" 34 It is a system by which you can document, monitor, and evaluate the personnel that are on the tugs and barges, which is in every- one's best interest in regards to safety and management of our business. In regards to H.R. 3942, I have not submitted a prepared written report for that bill yet, but I will. But I would just like to say that, as I understand it, the bill's objective is to increase the safety and loss control awareness in the towing industry. That is something that all prudent operators are responsible to do and that we do en deavor to perform. But there are a number of issues in the bill that do require fur ther studies in that a lot of the equipment, as was stated earlier by the Coast Guard, simply can't accommodate the increased manning levels that are requested And the reality of the situation is do we really need some of the redundancy or we are not already perform ing it. I think, as was stated earlier, that a study should be done and that we can identify what are the actual duties of the personnel. There is a lot of speculation of exactly what is required The 16 hours of work, the cross-over duties between engine and deck, and the reality of the situation on a tugboat is that does not occur an inordinate amount of time. There are special circumstances where there is a flurry of activi ty on arrivals and departures, but for the majority of the voyage, that may not occur again We at Crowley have taken a lot of steps to manage our fleet We have specially written policies and proce dures, re watchstanding, arrival, departure, and I think there is a lot that the industry has to offer that would shed a little bit more light on this subject. That is all I have to say Thank you very much Mr TAUZIN Thank you, Gary [The statement of Mr Faber can be found at end of hearing] Mr TAUZIN First of all, let me ask you, Gary, for the record, Crowley's ship personnel are, in fact, documented Mr FABER Yes, every one we have is documented Mr TAUZIN So you come with a level playing field You would like to make sure everybody else is documented, is that right? Mr FABER Yes, sir Mr TAUZIN A thought Maybe, Joe, you can hit this and maybe John, you and Joe could comment on it Mr Farrell first As I un derstand it now, the hiring and the firing and the decisions about who is going to work on a vessel is really the owner's now for these undocumented crewmen What if, instead of setting up a system where the Coast Guard had to do all this documentation, what if the system were set up where the owner documented his own workers and submitted those documents to the Coast Guard, with whatever checks had to be made I see in here concern about cost, cost avoidance of mariners having to go and sleep overnight and do the checks and go to the stations and get their documents And if we wanted to establish, as the Chairman apparently wants to establish in his bill, more records of the crews, more records of the seamen to make sure, in fact, they are not getting jobs in the undocumented side of the industry after they have been PAGENO="0039" 35 booted out of the documented side for violation. If that is all going to help safety, and obviously there are some indications it could, could we not have a system with less cost in it that would be oper- ated somewhat like I described? Joe. Mr. FARRELL. Yes, I would think so, Mr. Chairman, but I think before that took place, as I tried to indicate, it is very important to establish the need for it before it is imposed. And it seems very clear from what has taken place today, and not only today, that that has not been established. Mr. TAUZIN. Well, assuming the Committee bought off on the notion that that was a good idea to have more seamen documented, assuming we bought off on the notion that it was good for safety to make sure that documented workers who have lost their jobs for drug violations didn't end up working in the undocumented force, assuming we bought off on that, I am only asking, could there be a system where the owner of the vessel could provide to the Coast Guard necessary evidence or documentation of some form? Mr. FARRELL. The answer is yes. Mr. TAUZIN. To avoid all these extra costs in this system? Mr. FARRELL. Yes. The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman. It would cost less, certainly, and let's not forget, either, that the owners of these companies are not indiscriminate when it comes to matters like this. Somebody said earlier, I guess it was Captain Grady, that they go to great lengths to look into the background of the people they are hiring. I mean, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 has some problems in it, but it has some great triumphs in it as well. It is very, very costly to spill oil, among other things. Mr. TAUZIN. It is saying to our people, you are not going to spill oil. Mr. FARRELL. That is exactly right. That is what Congress in- tended and they succeeded. Mr. TAUZIN. Maybe I could get a reaction from you, John. Sup- pose we could devise a system with less cost to the whole system by having the boat owner actually document his employees for the Coast Guard, Joe. Mr. SACCO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to that. I think here, the issue here clearly is safety. What cost do you put on human life? What cost do you put on any community in these United States where you have all these chemicals being transport- ed, whether it be the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic Coast, the West Coast. Mr. TAUZIN. We are not invading that. What I am asking you, if you can get the same result, as documenting seamen, which the Coast Guard can then check the FBI, the drivers' licenses records, the whole schlemiel. Mr. SAcco. What we need, Mr. Chairman, is mandatory control and that would have to be implemented by the COast Guard. Mr. TAUZIN. You don't think any system other than the Coast Guard doing all this would work? Mr. SACCO. No. Mr. TAUZIN. How about you, John. Mr. WALTON. I would be leery of letting the company handle that on an individual basis. There are reputable companies and there PAGENO="0040" 36 are disreputable companies and I think it would leave regulations and documentation in the hands of the employer where, rightfully, it belongs in the hands of a government agency. Mr. TAUZIN. You want to comment back on that, Mr. Farrell? Mr. FARRELL. No thank you. Mr. TAUZIN. All right. Then let me turn it over to the other Members. Mr. Goss. Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You hit the areas and the testimony has been very good on most of my questions, but there are one or two things that did suggest themselves to see if-we are trying to get information here and see if anybody has any. I have been curious to know whether anybody has any statistics on accident rates involving vessels where unionized versus nonun- ionized labor or accidents with vessels with documented versus doing nondocumented? Does anybody have those statistics? Mr. FARRELL. Other than the ones that have been cited, that is, 60 percent personnel error and 93 percent on licensed personnel, we do not. Mr. Goss. So it is not unfair to say that there is further informa- tion that could come forward here that might be useful in terms of determining the safety benefits in this? Mr. FARRELL. Yes, and that would result, I think, it should, from 4111 of OPA-90. Mr. Goss. I heard what you said on that and I think I agree with you. The second question is getting to the question of fatigue and so forth, which is something that I understand a little bit. It seems to me that most accidents have probably happened pretty close to the coast or pretty close to land. That seems to be where most the things to hit are, more of the traffic is concentrated, where the hard spots and the geography are. And I am wondering if we got the relationship of the mileage and the fatigue formula right in this second bill, 3942. I realize that alertness in ocean-going is important because of potential traf- fic problems, collision at sea, but I am wondering if maybe not the greater danger in terms of accidents may not be around the coastal areas, and I don't know whether we have a lot of instances where we are dealing with more than 200 miles port to port in the coastal waters or not. Anybody want to offer any observation on that? Mr. FARRELL. Well, certainly accidents that involve environmen- tal damage, by definition, are more concerned near the coasts or along the rivers, but we have been talking a lot here about human life. I don't think it makes any difference where you are if you are dealing with human life, whether you are a thousand miles at sea or a mile off the coast. Mr. Goss. The other question-and this is not a facetious ques- tion-it may sound like it, but my view is that I have enough confi- dence in some technology now and I know that when I am lost in a fog on a bridge, I value very much a compass and radar and I have used them successfully and I am sure others have. If you took the radar away from me and gave me another able- bodied seaman or another licensed seaman or another navigator, I am not sure I wouldn't rather have the radar if it came down to that in a cost question. So is that for operators and owners, a cost PAGENO="0041" 37 question for some of the smaller activities here? Are we forcing people to do things that may, in fact, work against safety using rea- sonable technology? Mr. FARRELL. I think in our country, Mr. Goss, the way our econ- omy works, cost is always a factor, but safety, as far as our experi- ences, is always the first criteria. Mr. Goss. Surely no large operator with a big investment is going to forego good technology. I wouldn't expect that. It is in terms of efficiency and return on your dollar investment and so forth. But I can see what Mr. Laughlin was talking about, some of his small mom and pop operations in his testimony earlier here. I was wondering, if you get down to a strapped operation, a couple of boats, if we passed something like this and it becomes mandatory, are we maybe depriving one of those vessels from ad- vances in technology, the money would be spent with this mandato- ry requirement to have the additional person standing by on sta- tion? And I am not sure it is a good trade-off. That is my question. Mr. FARRELL. Yes. I think that is possible, yes. My colleague mentioned the reputable and disreputable companies. That is part of the human condition, unfortunately. We acknowledge that. But my hunch is that, if you have got somebody that would violate the law deliberately and intentionally, a new law is not going to make that much difference. He is going to violate that one also probably. Mr. WALTON. I would like to touch on that Congressman Goss. I believe the 200-mile provision, and the designation of that number is trying to keep a two-watch system under 200 miles which would affect most harbor tug operations. You are talking tugs that assist in docking and undocking vessels. They may dock one ship a day, they may dock two. So there is, in that particular trade, there is more off-time than, say, a trade of ocean hauling, a barge on a haul or coast-wise where your going from one point to another, Maine to Florida, let's say. So if you have been running six and six since you left Maine, obviously by the time you get to Florida, you are pretty well tuck- ered out. And like you said, yourself, you are now in congested waters. You are now near protected reefs. You are in heavier traffic in that situation and you should be on your toes and you are not be- cause fatigue is starting to show on you. That is why the three watches are necessary for voyages in excess of 200 miles, because fatigue is like-it is an ailment. It impairs your thought process. We obviously wouldn't let anyone operate a vessel or a tug push- ing a barge with large quantities of oil knowing that their thought process was impaired by alcohol or drugs, so why do we let an indi- vidual run around that is suffering from fatigue which also affects his thought process which causes human errors and results in a higher percentage of accidents? And I think that is the crisis we should be addressing. Mr. Goss. I think the fatigue question is a very legitimate ques- tion. I was amused-that is not the right word to use with the Exxon Valdez, but I was disturbed to note in the earlier testimony that fatigue was a big factor, and I have a little trouble accepting that. PAGENO="0042" 38 I don't remember how many minutes the Valdez had actually been out of port, but it was not a whole lot of time I realize the problem there is legitimate with regard to people having a shore- side situation where they get onboard and they are fatigued to begin with. Mr WALTON That is the whole point When the ship's at a dock, the master's not asleep, he is pretty well up the entire time and I can testify to that Mr Goss I understand that and I don't think we have done quite enough work on this legislation yet to get the whole scenario of how it really is in the real world, put down in workable lan- guage that is going to solve the safety problem, and take care of the fatigue problem, and take care of the fact of the terrain as it were, the fact that there are periods of time when you are in con- centrations of traffic which are predictable and proximity to obsta- cles, land fall as it were. Mr WALTON The traditional watch going to sea is four hours on, eight hours off Two watches would mean six hours on, six hours off The six hours on, we have already testified, you are usually not off, you are usually up So just by virtue of going to a three watch system, you are going a long ways to alleviating the fatigue prob- lem and making our coast safer. Mr. Goss. I don't think I have a problem as much as with the three watch system as I do with how we apply it, how you write the rule, and I am certainly opposed to solving the fatigue problem, not only in maritime matters, but in .aircraft also. We all have direct personal interests, thoughts of the guy up there taking a nap. It is not a pleasant thought. When I read that we are going to be legislating naps for pilots on aircraft, I must say I would like to take a real close look at that legislation too But that is-I am coming at this from the spirit that this may be a good idea, from a safety point of view, but if we write the legisla tion, I want to make sure we don't have some unintended conse- quence and I am not sure I have heard all the things discussed here today that I think are factors with regard to either piece of legislation. But your testimony has been helpful and I realize your experi- ence is very, very valid. And certainly I am learning from it and I thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, I think that is all I have. Mr TAUZIN Mr Goss, fatigue sets in a lot earlier when you have been drinking, I think, than when you haven't Mr Goss That may be possible Mr. TAUZIN. Yes. Mr Goss The point I wanted to make, I don't know how many nautical miles the Valdez had covered, but it wasn't many Mr TAUZIN Mr Abercrombie Mr ABERCROMBIE Thank you Thanks, Mr Chairman Mr Farrell, Mr Jones isn't here-unfortunately not able to be here today, but I would like to ask a question that I think is re flected in his legislation and part of the basis for his legislation In your testimony, you correctly state, I believe, that, if enacted, more mariners will have to pay the fees to get their Merchant Marine documents I was a little confused because there seemed to PAGENO="0043" 39 be an implication the barge companies would incur higher costs if 4394 was implemented. I don't want to put words in your mouth and that is why I am asking you the question. My understanding is that the mariners themselves would have to incur the cost. Setting aside for the moment whether that is a good idea or a bad idea, but that there was an implication, at least I drew the implication from your statement, that the companies themselves would incur higher costs from the documentation situa- tion. Was I drawing a wrong inference from your testimony? Mr. FARRELL. I am not really sure, Mr. Abercrombie. The bill would require, technically at least, that the person seeking the doc- ument would pay for that service. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So wouldn't that relieve the companies of the- Mr. FARRELL. I need to finish my answer. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I beg your pardon. Mr. FARRELL. I am told by our members, some of my members when I inquired about this, that in many cases, they would be re- imbursed, the company that is hiring the individual would reim- burse him for those fees. I have no data or evidence as to what per- centage that would take place, but it is obvious that companies would pay a lot of it. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The bill doesn't say that, though. Mr. FARRELL. No, but it would be a result of the bill. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Maybe that is a loss of unintended conse- quence, but we don't pass those laws, hopefully. In any event, then, you are saying that you feel that that would be a likely outcome, even if the bill didn't? Mr. FARRELL. I would say so, yes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So it wouldn't have anything to do with the idea that perhaps the unions might be able to identify potential members a little more easily after the documentation process. Mr. FARRELL. I made a lot of inquiries about that. I have heard nothing that satisfies me that that question you posed is a problem. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. OK. I have a couple of other questions I would like to-and some of them are incorporated into observations, Mr. Chairman. At a minimum, would you say that all the companies right now are operating as the present law requires in terms of the staffing of their vessels? Mr. FARRELL. Is the question for me, Mr. Abercrombie? Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. Mr. FARRELL. Yes. Oh, yes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. You don't think that there are any companies that perhaps are able to underbid other companies by perhaps not having all the staffing that is required right now? Mr. FARRELL. That is not a concern, in my judgment, Mr. Aber- crombie. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. All right. Inasmuch as I asked some questions before about technology or expressed some reservations about it, I want to make sure that I was understood by you and, if I did not make it clear enough before, perhaps if you will allow me a moment or two to restate my premises, maybe you can comment on them. PAGENO="0044" 40 You indicated that technology was safer than human operation. I did not mean in my previous statements and observations to mdi cate that I didn't think the technology either added to safety or was crucial in determining for human beings now what they might or might not do and the decisions that they make My problem had to do with when technology fails and the human being is required to make a decision. Secondly, I don't think the point was whether personnel were li- censed or not, but whether an adequate number of personnel, i.e., the three-watch system, for example, fatigue, that kind of thing. Li- censing is one thing Some licensed drivers have accidents with automobiles such as ~unlicensed drivers do. The question is whether you are an adequate driver or not. Presumably, if one is licensed, at least on a statistical basis, you have got a better chance at it If, in fact, licensed personnel on ships are involved in these accidents, it points up to me how easy it is to have accidents despite being licensed And how fatigue and other factors have been cited in the Coast Guard regulations can come into play. Finally, there were questions about the competitiveness and pro ductivity I hope I wasn't indicating that I thought that other coun tries, for example, foreign flag vessels, should be held to a lower standard It seems to me they should come up to our standards They should come up to a better standard, whether it is with the environment or anything else So with those things in mind, I was a little nonplused when you said that the need for particularly these two bills had not been es tablished. The implication is that, if we have a horrendous acci- dent, then the need will have been established, and I think what we want to do is anticipate and try to avoid that. Mr FARRELL No, Mr Abercrombie, I don't agree with that I apologize if I overreacted to your assertion that you are a luddite Mr ABERCROMBIE That was more alliterative than anything else Mr FARRELL I haven't had a chance to get to know you well enough. Mr ABERCROMBIE Perhaps I haven't-so far, I think I am not having an account in the bank. I might-you might get to know me better. I may be one of the few left. I don't know. Mr. FARRELL. I look forward to that. I don't think anybody would subscribe to the concept that we need to have a horrendous accident before we craft legislation in hindsight. The data is there. We have done quite a bit of work with the Coast Guard in trying to assist them at their request in the regulations that are cascading as a result of OPA-90 And they have enormous quantities of data That data hasn't been manipulated yet, in our judgment, as well as it can be and will be in the future, that will tell us what is needed in terms of manning, licensing, fatigue matters. All those things are available, we believe, in the data banks of the United States Coast Guard. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Then is it fair to say-and I just have one more point then, Mr. Chairman-is it fair to say then that, from your point of view, even though you are a bit skeptical as to the PAGENO="0045" 41 provisions of these bills at the moment, that the issues involved in the bills are legitimately on the table? Mr. FARRELL. The issues are legitimate. I am not skeptical. I oppose the bills. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Let me just, for the record, Mr. Chairman, in- dicate to you and to you, Mr. Farrell, just for your information, part of the reason that I brought this bill forward, obviously, has to do with personal experience. I t~hink we all have that, like your ob- servation about others who might have been drinking and fatigued. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. This is an observational remark. I understand that. But I mentioned before the situation in Hawaii where we have a series of coasts all around us, coastal water navigation is treacherous in Hawaii. Just one year ago, Mr. Chairman, right here is a picture of a tug that is grounded on a reef just off Dia- mond Head. Now, one of the indications Mr. Laughlin and others made was that the tugs, the barges and so on, the barges associated with hauling many times have oil and other chemicals. I think Mr. Sacco made this point, in excess of tankers. I can tell you, this tug, and I have-I will put this in the record also, Mr. Chairman-went aground off Diamond Head. We are talking about the fundamental existence of the economy of the State of Hawaii. By extension, by the way, this involves all kinds of other people too, not just in Hawaii, take United Airlines, for example, if our beaches are full of oil. And by the way, the Exxon Valdez was on its way to Hawaii when it had its accident. The Coast Guard indicated that the investigation into the acci- dent was ongoing but that it appeared the tug was on autopilot and ran aground when a crew member stationed on the bridge went below to investigate engine room alarm. Now, all we need in Hawaii is to have to go below because there is nobody there to investigate an engine room alarm and we have something go aground and an oil spill off Waikiki and we are fin- ished. Maybe Prince William Sound has come back and maybe tourism up there in Alaska wasn't quite that important in Prince William Sound, and I am sorry about the animals on the environ- ment there, but let me tell you, if we have that happen off Waikiki, we can't survive six months of not having people come. So this is not something that I am making up. This happened here, this is one of the things that prompted me to go into this a little more deeply. I can see this happening in the Gulf Coast. I can see this happening in the East Coast. I can see it happening in the Pacific. I can see it happening on inland waterway operations. So I don't mean to make you the fall guy in this, Mr. Farrell, in particular, but, Mr. Chairman, my point is that I think these issues, by the testimony of the Coast Guard, as well as the testimo- ny written and spoken here today, has concluded that these issues are legitimately on the table. How we deal with them obviously is subject to negotiation and review, but I think that we have before us living examples of what can happen with a failure to deal with both of these issues. Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. You have given a Hawaii perspective. The Louisiana perspective is, if we employed a PAGENO="0046" 42 few more people in oil wells, we would have less tanker accidents too. We might have some good discussion on that one day. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Count me in. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Anderson. Mr. ANDERSON. No questions. Mr. TAUZIN. Well then, let me thank you gentlemen. As I said, your testimony has been supplemented by a great deal of informa- tion, particularly you, Joe, and we appreciate it. We are going to examine all of this and report to the Chairman our findings. We also are going to keep the record open for several weeks so if you have additional information. We are interested if there are al- ternative ways. As Mr. Abercrombie pointed out, if all of you can look at it from the standpoint, how can we achieve these objectives at the right economic levels, so it doesn't impair an already very deeply-burdened segment of our economy. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield just a moment. Mr. TAUZIN. Sure. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will submit also for the record and make available to everybody who is interested here today, numerous peti- tions from people in California, for example, so it is not just Hawaii. Mr. TAUZIN. They are part of the record already. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And also letters and statements of support. Mr. TAUZIN. We have got it. It is all part of the record. I want to point out, Mr. Abercrombie mentioned the bank, you have to pay for whatever we impose on you. We want to make sure it is reason- able. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. [Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair, and the following was submitted for the record:] PAGENO="0047" 43 102D CONGRESS 1ST SEssioN * * To amend title 46, United States Code, to establish requirements for manning and watches on towing vessels. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATWES NOVEMBER 26, 1991 Mr. ABERCROMBIE introduced the following bifi; which was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries A BILL To amend title 46, United States Code, to establish requirements for manning and watches on towing vessels. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. MANNING AND WATCH REQUIREMENTS ON 4 TOWING VESSELS. 5 (a) WORKING ALTERNATELY IN DECK AND ENGINE 6 DEPARTMENTS.-SeCtion 8104(e) of title 46, United 7 States Code, is amended to read as follows: 8 "(e)(1) On any towing vessel, a seaman may not be- 9 "(A) engaged to work alternately in the deck 10 and engine departments; or PAGENO="0048" 44 2 1 "(B) required to work in the engine department 2 if engaged for deck department duty or required to 3 work in the deck department if engaged for engine 4 department duty. 5 "(2) On a vessel designated by subsections (c) and 6 (d) of this section- 7 "(A) a seaman may not be required to do un- 8 necessary work on Sundays, New Year's Day, July 9 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas 10 Day when the vessel is in a safe harbor, but this 11 subparagraph does not prevent dispatch of a vessel 12 on a voyage; and 13 "(B) when the vessel is in a safe harbor, 8 14 hours (including anchor watch) is a day's work.". 15 (b) NUMBER OF WATCHES.-Section 8 104(g) of title 16 46, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 17 "(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) and ex- 18 cept on a vessel to which subsection (c) of this section 19 applies, on an offshore supply vessel or a barge to which 20 this section applies, that is engaged on a voyage of less 21 than 200 miles, the licensed individuals and crewrnembers 22 (except the coal passers, firemen, oilers, and water 23 tenders) may be divided, when at sea, into at least 2 24 watches. *HR 3942111 PAGENO="0049" 45 3 1 "(2) On a towing vessel that is engaged on a voyage 2 of more than 200 miles, the licensed individuals and crew- 3 members shall be divided at all times when the vessel is 4 at sea, into at least 3 watches.". 5 (c) MINIMUM NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS ON 6 DUTY.-Section 8104(n) of title 46, United States Code, 7 is amended to read as follows: 8 "(n) On a towing vessel, at all times while the vessel 9 is under way- 10 "(1) at least 2 individuals shall be on duty on 11 the bridge, of whom 1 is required to be a licensed 12 individual and 1 is required to be a seaman; and 13 "(2) at least 1 individual who is a licensed engi- 14 neer, or a seaman who meets requirements for duty 15 in the engine room established under regtilations is- 16 sued by the Secretary, shall be on duty in the engine 17 room, whether or not the engine room is auto- 18 mated.". `HR 3942 III PAGENO="0050" 46 102D CONGRESS 2D SESSION * * To amend title 46, United States Code, to require merchant mariners' documents for certain seamen. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATWES MARCH 5, 1992 Mr. Jo~s of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. STUDDS, Mr. KOPETSKI, Mr. PERKINS, Mr. HUBBARD, Mr. CARDIX, Mr. WILSON, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr MRAZEK Mr LEwIs of Florida Mr KOLTER Mr HORTO\ Mr FE TERSO\ of Minnesota Mr Ev~s Ms KAPTUR Mr MOODY Mr HERTEL Mrs LOWEY of New York Mr CiJAP1i~ Mr FROST, Mr SARPALIUS Mr PALLO\'E Mr PASTOR Mr ACKERMAI~, Mr BACCHUS Mr LANTOS Mr KILDEE Mr MCNUL~rY, Mr ROE Mr BO\'IoR Mr ABERCROMBIE, and Mr. BRYANT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries A BILL To amend title 46, United States Code, to require merchant mariners' documents for certain seamen 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of Amertca in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1 MERCHANT MARINERS DOCUMENTS RE 4 QUIRED 5 Section 8701(a) of title 46, United States Code, is 6 amended- 7 (1) by striking "100" and substituting "5"; PAGENO="0051" 47 2 1 (2) in paragraph (1), by striking "a vessel oper- 2 ating only on rivers and lakes (except the Great 3 Lakes);" and substituting "a small passenger yes- 4 sel;"; and 5 (3) by striking paragraph (2) and renumbering 6 the remaining paragraphs accordingly. 7 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 8 The amendments made by this Act are effective one 9 year after the date of enactment of this Act. HR 4394 lB PAGENO="0052" 48 PATSY T. MINK COMMI1rEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ~ Con re~ of the ~Initeb ~`tatt~ DO? ~OU~t of ~tpvt~entattUe~ MTT GO M TO 0 S 6 0 P K ~aø!jin~ton ~C 20515-1102 AX I STATEMENT BY U S REPRESENTATIVE PATSY T MINK BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND NAVIGATION HEARING ON H.R. 3942 MARCH 17, 1992 Chairman Tauzin and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to submit my statement in strong support of H.R. 3942 legislation to strengthen the safety requirements and staffing levels on towing vessels I thank the Subcommittee for its swift action to conduct a hearing on this important legislation introduced my distinc~uished colleague from Hawaii Mr Abercrombie. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and believe that it will go a long way in protecting the safety of the workers on towing vessels, the public and our environment. Hawaii, perhaps more than any other state, is dependent upon the maritime industry for the transportation and commerce of goods and services It is the life-line that provides food materials to build homes, cars, medical equipment, machinery for our factories and farms and the list goes on. The safety requirements for thio~ industry and the protection of the men and women who work on the vessels that bring in these goods and the towing vessels that guide the larger ships into our waters is of great concern to the people of Hawaii. PAGENO="0053" 49 Safety is the key issue that we are talking about today. Over the last several years the towing industry has experienced a severe reduction in staffing levels, jeopardizing the crew, public safety, and the environment. In many cases, the towing vessels are manned by only one observer who must also navigate, steer the vessel and transmits radio messages. The real tragedy is that under current law these type of hazardous conditions are allowed under the minimum safety standards. Mr. Chairman, current law only requires that one man be assigned as observer and navigator for the entire the towing vessel. This type of relaxed rules do not address the needs of the crew on these vessels and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the what happens on a towing vessel on a day to day basis. As those who represent the operators and crew of these vessels have testified, one person cannot be expected to be on watch on the bridge while having to look at charts and other navigational equipment in the engine room. Even with automatic pilot technology the safety of the crew and the vessel is severely compromised when only one person manning the towing vessel. Mechanical failure and other unforeseen circumstances can easily turn a routine voyage into a dangerous life-threatening situation. PAGENO="0054" 50 H.R. 3842 would strengthen the current requirements and mandate a minimum of three crew members on watch at all times and mandates a minimum of two watches on voyages of less than 200 miles and three watches on voyages of more than 200 miles. It is my understanding that these requirements are already in effect in the Great Lakes region and have worked to the satisfaction of all those involved. We cannot allow the current situation to continue. I urge this subcommittee's support of H.R. 3842. The time to put some reasonable safeguards into effect is long over due, because lives of the men and women in our maritime industry depend on it. Thank you for this opportunity to express my support for H.R. 3842. PAGENO="0055" 51 US Department / US Coast Guard dD~ree~O~O1 of Transportation Staff Symbol ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U S COAST GUARD STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN F J GRADY ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION AFFECTING MERCHANT MARINER'S DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND NAVIGATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 17 1992 PAGENO="0056" 52 CAPTAIN FREDERIC J GRADY III U S COAST GUARD Captain Grady is Chief, Merchant Vessel Personnel Division, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, DC. He reported to this assignment during August 1986. His previous assignment was Chief, Port and Environmental Safety Division. Captain Grady graduated from Massachusetts Maritime Academy in 1961. He entered the Coast Guard and graduated from Officer Candidate School at Yorktown, Virginia, in 1963. Captain Grady has spent the majority of his 29 years Coast Guard service in the Marine Safety program. His previous field assignments include Marine Inspection Offices Los Angeles/Long Beach, California; Portland, Maine; Albany, New York; Jacksonville, Florida; and on the Ohio River at Marine Safety Office Huntington, West Virginia. Captain Grady's Coast Guard sea duty includes ocean station patrols in the North Atlantic and service in Vietnam. In his present assignment he is responsible for managing the Coast Guard program of establishing manning standards for all U.S. inspected vessels, administering federal pilotage activity, establishing qualification and standards for all licensed and unlicensed maritime personnel, and maintaining seaman's records. Captain Grady is also head of the U S delegation to the International Maritime Organization sub-committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping. PAGENO="0057" 53 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. COAST GUARD STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN F. J. GRADY ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION AFFECTING MERCHANT MARINER'S DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND NAVIGATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 17, 1992 Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure for me to appear before you today to discuss two proposed bills which would expand manning, - watchkeeping, and merchant mariner documentation requirements for merchant seamen on tugs, towboats and barges. Title 46 U.S. Code, Section 8701, requires seamen aboard U.S. merchant vessels of at least 100 gross tons to hold merchant mariner's documents, except on vessels operating only on the navigable rivers and lakes of the United States, other than the Great Lakes. Currently, individuals serving on inland towing vessels, and on harbor or ocean tugs of less than 100 gross tons are not required to hold a merchant mariner's document. In addition, all towing vessels of 26 feet in length or larger, regardless of tonnage or where they operate, must be under the control of a licensed master, mate, or operator of uninspected towing vessels. H.R. 4394 would revise 46 U.S.C. 8701 by requiring seamen on merchant vessels of at least 5 gross tons to hold merchant mariner's documents. It would eliminate current exemptions for barges, and vessels operating on rivers and lakes, but add an PAGENO="0058" 54 exempti&~ for small passenger vessels. The bill's impact would essentially be focused on seamen working in the inland towing industry and is intended to enhance safety by subjecting these seamen to drug and alcohol testing and criminal records checks Whether they are documented or undocumented all seamen on towing vessels are. currently required to undergo pre-employment drug testing, are subject to reasonable cause and post-accident drug and alcohol testing, and are also subject to random drug and alcohol testing if they perform functions or duties directly related to the safe operation of the vessel Only documented seamen seeking endorsements for qualified ratings such as Able Seaman Qualified Member of the Engineering Department (QMED) or Tankerman are subject to an additional drug test to whichundocumented seamen are not; these certain documented seamen must submit to a periodic drug test as part of a required physical examination. Under Coast Guard regulations applicants for an original merchant mariner s document must -appear in person at a licensing office and submit a completed application form -provide proof of citizenship or evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of lawful admittance to the U S for permanent residence -provide a letter of commitment of employment or evidence of prior military sea service and -finally applicants must provide fingerprints for FBI Criminal Record Check 2 PAGENO="0059" 55 Current rulemaking activity to implement provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA-90) will also require applicants to make available National Driver Register information related to certain offenses committed by the individual. The Coast Guard is presently developing a work plan for this rulemaking. An individual applying for a qualified rating endorsement on a merchant mariner's document must also provide proof of physical fitness, including the periodic drug test. OPA-90 also instituted a five-year period of validity for merchant mariner's documents. Therefore, all seamen holding merchant mariner's documents are required to apply for renewal of their documents. Applicants for renewal must: -complete another application form, which includes a required statement by the seaman identifying any convictions of law or drug use by the individual; -make available updated National Driver Register information; and -provide proof of physical fitness if the applicant holds an endorsement for a qualified rating. By requiring seamen on virtually all towing vessels to obtain merchant mariner's documents, H.R. 4394 would accomplish the following: -make available criminal record information and National Driver Register information for all previously unlicensed and undocumented towing vessel crew members when they apply for their original document; and 3 PAGENO="0060" 56 -provide sanctions for acts of negligence, misconduct, and violation of law or regulation committed by these seamen through the Coast Guard's authority to suspend or revoke a seaman's merchant mariner' s document. Currently an unlicensed or undocumented seaman discharged for drug use or other offenses can get a job on another towing vessel by presentation of a drug- free certificate~ Our statistics indicate that 58 ,percent of the reported towing vessel accidents involved personnel error, but the statistics do not discriminate between errors committed by licensed and unlicensed crew members. However, 93 percent of all towing vessel accidents involving personnel error occurred on vessels with licensed individuals in charge of the operation of the vessel The remaining seven (7) percent are attributed to casualties occurring while a licensed person was not required to be aboard such as while the vessel was moored not in operation or in lay-up status. Considering that most of these accidents involve vessel collisions, allisions with bridges, or vessel groundings, it is far more likely that the vast majority of human errors contributing to accidents were caused by individuals already licensed by the Coast Guard rather than by the undocumented seamen on these towing vessels. Concerning pollution incidents involving personnel error, the persons in charge of oil and hazardous material transfer operations are required to be either licensed or documented, and thus are already subject to the requirements which this bill would impose on the towing industry. 4 PAGENO="0061" 57 Prior to passage of a bill on these issues, the Coast Guard proposes that a study be conducted to determine the need for new statutory provisions. Let me turn now to H.R. 3942. This bill would impose new working conditions, manning, and watchkeeping requirements on towing vessels. To the extent that this bill would lessen crew fatigue, the Coast Guard endorses its purpose. The provisions of 46 U.S.C. 8104(e)(l) currently impose a prohibition against seaman alternately working in the deck and engine departments on most classes of oceangoing merchant vessels of more than 100 gross tons, and on Great Lakes towing vessels. As written, H.R, 3942 would apply this prohibition to all towing vessels, regardless of route, and it would eliminate the prohibition for all other classes of vessels. The Coast Guard favors the elimination of this prohibition against seamen alternately working in the deck and engine departments on all vessels, including towing vessels. This prohibition, commonly referred to as the "cross-over" rule, represents a significant obstacle to the objective of ensuring crews on U.S. vessels can be employed as effectively and efficiently as possible without causing a decrease in safety. Maintaining or creating a cross-over prohibition for all towing vessels merely extends an outdated rule which was provided to protect seaman from dangerous work practices. Today, there are collective bargaining arrangements and work-hour limitations to ensure fair labor and safe work practices for seamen; the cross-over rule can no longer be justified in the name of seaman 5 PAGENO="0062" 58 protection. Many foreign countries are endorsing dual-qualified crews who are trained in, and capable of performing duties in both the deck and engine departments. Several U.S. maritime companies are employing maintenance personnel who are responsible for maintenance functions throughout the vessel while certain seamen assigned to the deck and engine departments are strictly responsible for watchstanding duties. The complete removal of 46 U S C 8l04(e)(l) could result in more productive and knowledgeable crews, and aid the U.S. maritime industry's ability to compete with foreign interests~ without `increasing any risk to vessel safety. The Coast Guard supports the bill's proposed requirement for all vessels, while underway, to have a licensed engineer or other seaman aboard the vessel who is knowledgeable in the operatiion and maintenance of engineering systems. However, we feel the requirement for a manned engineroom on towing vessels, regardless of the level of automation, is overly restrictive. Due to engineering technological advances many U S inspected vessels with very complex engineering systems, much more sophisticated than the typical towing vessel, are permitted to operate with periodically unattended enginerooms. We do not have accident data to support requiring uninspected towing vessels to maintain a higher watchkeeping requirement than comparably equipped inspected vessels. ` The proposed bill adds a new subsection to 46 U.S.C. 8104 which would require a licensed individual, and a seaman to be on duty on the bridge at all times the vessel is underway, and' would 6 PAGENO="0063" 59 further amend 46 U.S.C. 8104(g) to require a three-watch system to be employed on vessels engaged on voyages exceeding 200 miles. currently, there is no specified minimum number of watchstanders required on towing vessels, with the exception of the requirement that towing vessels be operated by a person licensed by the coast Guard. A proper look-out must be maintained on all vessels. 46 u.s.c. 8104(g) currently requires a three-watch system on vessels engaged on voyages exceeding 600 miles. The coast Guard has no data which would indicate that the number of bridge watchstanders currently being employed in this industry is unsafe, or that the two-watch system allowed for vessels on voyages up to 600 miles is unsafe. Although the coast Guard does not object to these amendments, we do have reservations concerning the need for them. We are especially concerned that the bill's requirement for a second watchstander to be located on the bridge would negate the responsibility and authority of the masters and towing vessel operators to exercise their judgment in establishing a proper watch. The intended function or purpose of this second watchstander is unclear. If the intent is to require a lookout separate from the master or operator, we note the Senate's report accompanying the International Navigation Rules adopted in 1980. This report stated, in part, that the licensed individual or helmsman may safely serve as look-out on towing vessels with an unobstructed all-around view provided at the steering station, or where there was no impediment of night vision or other impediment to keeping a proper look-out. If a separate look-out or other 7 PAGENO="0064" 60 watchstander is considered necessary, we recommend the law not specify where that person S watch station be located The proper placement of the lookout and other watchstanders should be decided by the licensed individual in charge of the navigation watch. The voyage length criteria of 600 miles in regards to watchkeeping requirements has existed since 1936. Congress established this provision as a factor of safety, rather than a working condition on tugs. It was the opinion of that Congress that towing vessels on voyages of less than 600 miles could operate safely with the crew divided into two watches. Fatigue is a matter of particular concern to the Coast Guard, as it is world-wide. The Coast Guard is actively supporting international efforts to identify matters affecting crew fatigue and develop measures to prevent it. We are not convinced that merely adjusting the watch scheme based on the voyage length would necessarily reduce fatigue. We believe that properly enforced work-hour limitations might positively influence crew effectiveness, but even work-hour limits may not by themselves be an adequate tool for preventing fatigue Physical fitness of the crew, quality of rest periods, shoreside and onboard duties, and the environment in which the vessel operates are also significant factors which may contribute to fatigue. The provisions of both H.R. 4394 and H.R. 3942 would result in significant impact on the towing industry in terms of direct operational expenses as well as user fees resulting from the additional documentation requirements for the crewmembers on 8 PAGENO="0065" 61 towing vessels. Although the Coast Guard cannot quantify the regulatory impact in terms of costs and benefits, we suggest that the Committee and Congress fully explore these impacts (both economic and paperwork) before changing existing law. This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions at this time. 9 55-~369 0 - 92 - 3 PAGENO="0066" 62 International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots 700 MarItime Blvd., Unthicum Heights, MD. 21090-1941 I Tel No.: (301) 850-8700 Cable BRIDGEDECK WASHINGTON D.C. / Telex No.: 750-831 / Telecopler No.: (301) 850-8725 TIMOTHY A. BROWN Internatlonsl PresIdent JAMES T. HOPKINS, JR. InternatIonal Secretary'Treasuren STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JOHN WALTON EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES S PILOTS, ILA, AFL-CIO TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND NAVIGATION ON HR 3942 AND HR 4394 MARCH 17, 1992 INTERNATIONAL MARINE DIVISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LONOSHOREMENS ASSOCIATION AFI ClO PAGENO="0067" 63 My name is Captain John Walton. I am executive assistant to Captain Timothy A. Brown, International President of the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, ILA, AFL-CIO (IOMM&P). I have personal onboard work experience in both the towing segment and deep-sea segment of the maritime industry. For the past nine years I have been employed as Master of a product tanker. I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3942, a bill introduced by Congressman Neil Abercrombie, which would establish requirements for manning and watches on uninspected towing vessels. I am also here to testify in support of H.R. 4394, a bill introduced by Committee Chairman Walter Jones which would expand the requirement for merchant mariner's documents for personnel on tugs, towboats and barges not now covered under the law. The MM&P supports H.R. 3942 because we are extremely concerned about the health, safety and environmental threats posed by the operation of uninspected towing vessels due to the lack of proper Federal manning and watchstanding regulations. When a tow boat operates with one person on watch on the bridge and no one on duty in the engine room, the potential for an accident is great. The person on watch not only has to navigate, but must transmit radio messages as well. On some of these vessels, the chart room and radio room are away from the bridge, forcing the person on watch to leave his position. The automation of the engine room and installation of an alarm to alert the man on watch does not adequately ensure the safe operation of these vessels. In the first place, automated systems can and do malfunction. Further, if the man on watch is alerted to a potential problem by an alarm, he is put in the position of reacting to a problem, rather than being able to anticipate and correct a situation before it gets out of control. By being forced to react rather than prevent, our members' lives, the vessel and the cargo, and the marine environment are put at risk. Historically, towing vessels in the ocean and coastwise trades carried three deck officers divided into three watches, and an engineer. The industry had an enviable safety record. Then, in the 1980's, due in part to cutbacks in the oil industry, a surplus of equipment was realized. Much of this equipment wound up in the hands of "shoestring" operators. In order to gain economic advantage, these operators crew their vessels at unsafe levels, and the more established operators are forced to react by reducing manning in order to compete. Unfortunately, the courts have concluded that the present inadequate and unsafe manning levels do not violate existing law. It is, therefore, up to Congress to rectify this situation. H.R. 3942 calls for a minimum of three crew members on watch at all times. It further mandates a minimum of two watches on voyages of less than 200 miles and three watches on voyages of more than 200 miles. We believe this is essential to ensure the safe operation of tow-vessels. Our union prides itself on the professionalism and skill of our members, but when the staffing on these vessels can be systematically reduced to dangerous levels, even the highest level of professionalism may not be enough to prevent an accident. Presently, our members stand watches of six hours on and six hours off on these vessels as well as performing overtime work during off-watch, for an average work day of 16 hours. It is not unusual for the off-watch deck officers that are to be interrupted PAGENO="0068" 64 -2- to monitor a host of situations such as stormy seas, equipment failure, personnel illness or any other crisis which may occur when you are hundreds of miles from shore. Our members are among the best trained and highly motivated and dedicated mariners in the world, but they are not immune from the fatigue that sets in from working an average 16 hours a day for months on end. When crew members are forced to work to the point of exhaustion, bad judgment calls are a strong possibility. Even if no lives are lost or serious injuries caused, our members put their licenses at risk due to these inadequate manning policies forced on the industry by uninspected towing vessel companies. We also believe it is important to note that the reduced manning levels on these towboats have a long-term negative effect on the industry through the elimination of an essential training ground for future experienced Second Mates. Previously, this individual received practical, on-the-job-training and experience under the direction of the Master and Chief Mate. Now that the Second Mate's position has been cut on these uninspected vessels, there is no one learning the skills necessary to move up to Chief Mate. Meanwhile, the Chief Mate has no time to spend with the Master and learn from him. There really is no alternative to take the place of the years of experience that working on board the vessel offers. Manning on all commercial towing vessels should be set by law to ensure that Deck Officers and seamen on look-out should stand watches of no more than eight hours a day (four on and eight off) as it used to be. The Engineer should not have to be working on the deck performing able-seaman duties and, thereby, neglecting a very important part of vessel operation, namely preventive maintenance and upkeep of engines. The IOMM&P believes that passage of H.R. 3942 will put safety first: safety of life, safety of vessel and cargo, and safety of the marine environment. We strongly urge that H.R. 3942 be enacted now -- to prevent a tragedy from occurring, rather than in response to a disaster. The IOMM&P also supports H.R. 4394, a bill which would expand the requirement for merchant mariners' documents for personnel on tugs, towboats and barges not now covered by law. Current law generally requires that merchant seamen on vessels over 100 gross tons have Coast Guard-issued mariners' documents. However, the law specifically exempts the document requirement for merchant mariners employed on such vessels, including barges, operating only on the navigable rivers and lakes of the United States as well as those individuals employed or engaged on any vessel 100 gross tons or under. These undocumented crewmembers involved in important operations of vessel safety and navigation are permitted to enter and remain in the industry without demonstrating their fitness for the job. Since they are not required to possess Coast Guard documents, there is not a way to determine if these individuals have drug or alcohol problems or whether their documents have been revoked or suspended for such abuses. The Coast Guard statistics show that approximately 57 percent of towboat casualties between 1981 and 1987 were personnel-related, caused by lack of training and experience, intoxication, improper safety precautions and operator error. In this time period, there were nearly 9,000 towboat accidents, or more than 1,000 per year. The IOMM&P believes that passage of H.R. 4394 would lessen these occurrences by ensuring that only qualified seamen are employed on these vessels. PAGENO="0069" 65 -3- The IOMM&P urges that this Committee favorably consider both H.R. 3492 and H.R. 4394. These two legislative proposals will go a long way towards alleviating the hazardous circumstances currently found in this segment of the maritime industry and will ensure that hard working, professionally trained mariners will be able to perform their jobs under safe and fair working conditions. Please let me know if the IOMM&P can be of assistance to this Committee in any way In order to ensure the expeditious enactment of these important proposals. PAGENO="0070" 66 Statement of Gary Faber Vice President, Operations-Pacific Crowley Maritime Corporation Concerning H.R. 4394 In a Hearing on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation March 17, 1992 PAGENO="0071" 67 Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation. My name is Gary Faber. I'm Vice President, Operations- Pacific for Crowley Maritime Corporation. It is my responsibility- to manage the marine operations and the personnel of that portion of Crowley Maritime's fleet of tugs and barges home-ported on the West Coast of the United States. Crowley Maritime Corporation operates approximately 380 vessels ranging in size from small harbor tugs to large container ships engaged in foreign trade. I have under my jurisdiction about 150 tugs, 125 barges, and 1,000 sea-going personnel. We appreciate the opportunity to testify today concerning H.R. 4394, a bill that would expand the number of seamen requiring merchant mariner documents (MMD'S) Presently exempted from the requirement for MMD'S are seamen on various classes of vessels such as those operating only on rivers and lakes (except the Great Lakes), barges, fishing vessels, fish tenders, fish processors, yachts etc Seamen on any vessels less than 100 gross tons are not required to have MMD's. H.R. 4394 would remove the exemption for barges and for vessels operating only on rivers and lakes and would change the vessel size threshold from 100 gross tons to 5 gross tons. PAGENO="0072" 68 I understand that a complete description of the current regime for issuing mariners documents has or will be provided by another witness, so I'll not repeat that information. In summary, however, there are a large number of engineers, deckhands, and cooks on tugs and towboats on inland rivers that presently need not be licensed or documented. Crowley Maritime's vessels generally are not exempt from the requirement that all seamen have documentation. They do not operate exclusively in rivers and lakes and for the most part are larger than 100 gross tons. As a consequence, all of our seamen are required to have MMD'S. We consider this to be beneficial and certainly not an onerous burden to the company and if a burden to the seaman, then a minimal one at best. The principal benefit comes from the screening made before the document is issued. An FBI check is made, as well as a review of the National Driving Register to determine if there has been an alcohol-related driving offense. If the seaman subsequently is involved in an act of incompetence or misconduct or is found to be negligent, or is convicted of an offense described in the National Driving Register Act, his document can be suspended. The process of applying for an MMD will reveal narcotics violations which can, under certain circumstances, prevent applicants from being issued a document. PAGENO="0073" 69 4 These are critical issues for the safe operation of vessels. Safety and environmental protection, of course, are major concerns of companies. Lives of vessel crews and the general public as well as preservation of natural resources are at stake. Oil and chemicals are a prominent cargo carried on barges. Accidents involving such cargoes can be disastrous to the communities and environment in proximity to the accidents. Although Crowley's shipboard personnel are all documented, we're concerned, when we enter rivers such as the Columbia or the Mississippi, that the personnel on the vessels that share the rivers with us are also properly documented. The Merchant Mariners Document can provide assurance that a reasonable check on seamen qualifications has been made. In summary, we believe H.R. 4394 is a rational and reasonable bill that should significantly assist in improving the level of safety in vessel operations on rivers and lakes. We urge a "yes" vote on the bill. PAGENO="0074" 70 STATEMENT OF JOHN M. GOUVEIA REGIONAL DIRECTOR INLANDBOATMENS UNION OF THE PACIFIC BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE OF MERCHANT MARINE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND NAVIGATION HEARING ON H.R. 3942, STAFFING REQUIREMENTS ON TOWING VESSELS MARCH 17, 1992 Mr. Chairman and members of this honorable committee, my name is John M. Gouvela and I am a Regional Director for the Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific (IBU), Marine Division of the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union. I appreciate this opportunity to provide written testimony for the record on H.R. 3942, a bill relating to staff ir,g requirements on towing vessels. I am providing testimony in favor, of H.R. 3942. The IBU is a labor organization who represents sea going employees moat of whom are employed on towing vessels, I am originally a seaman who has voyaged on towing vessels for many years prior to becoming a Regional Director of the IBU. Therefore, I am familiar with the safety conditions on towing vessels. At the present time the existing statues concerning the requirements for manning and watches (work shifts) on towing vessels needs to be amended to protect the safety of the public, our environment, as well as the safety of our crews on board these vessels. The potential danger created by the minimum manning end watch requirements under the current laws is enormous. The current laws put in jeopardy the crew of towing vessels as well as the licensed personnel who are on the bridge (command center) of the towing vessel, not to sent ion our environment. The current laws require only one man to be assigned to observe where the vessel is headed and to control the whole towing vessel. Should that one man on the bridge leave for any reason, or that one san on the bridge succumb to a heart attack or seizure and become unconscious, the effects would be devastating; a collision or grounding could occur. If the towing vessel is towing an oil barge, a collision or grounding will very likely cause an oil spill of great magnitude. The licensed person on `watch" in the wheelhouse or Bridge has as his responsibilities, steering the vessel to avoid obstacles, plotting his course in the chartroom, and transmitting radio messages. On some of towing vessels the chartroom end radio room are away from the bridge. In other cases the chertroom or desk and radio are behind the person on watch, leaving him with his back to the front of the towing vessel, consequently having no one at tt~e steering wheel (helm) and no look-out.. The foregoing creates a situation akin to having no one watching where a moving car is going, with no one steering the car as it moves. PAGENO="0075" 71 2 It is my understanding that the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska occurred pertly because the captain left the bridge to go below the deck to the radio room to send a message to the corporate headquarters, thereby leaving an inexperienced person at the helm. Under the current laws regulating manning on towing vessels, the Exxon Valdex scenario stated above would be worse because when the captain leaves the bridge to go to, for example the radio room, poor~ e will be at the helm. Currently, there are times when the man on watch will leave his post to get his relief or to get a cup of coffee or' maybe a snack. In the worst Possible scenario, the consequences of the bridge being unmanned when these barges are loaded with fuel, is that the towing vessel will run aground or collide with another vessel. Today some towing vessels are equipped with an automatic pilot, but even these devices have been known to malfunction. Therefore, if the person manning the helm leaves the helm because he is relying on the automatic pilot and the automatic pilot fails, then the towing will be out of control with no one watching where the vessel is going. Even in the engine rooms, automated alarm systems have been installed. If there should ever be a break down, the alarms are not activated until after the fact, whereas, if manned properly, some one would be able to see, hear or possibly smell a problem and correct it before it happens. Under the current statue, the minimum manning for unins~ected vessels on runs less than 600 miles can be as little as two men. All that is needed is two deck officers on a six on and a six of f 12 hour watch system. This results in only one man at a time running the whole towing vessel. This minimum is unsafe and must be changed, in order to avoid the foregoing hazards to the environment and the crew. The towing vessel Companies will even go so far as to say that what we are asking will be costly, and there is not enough bunk space on most of these vessels. This is untrue, most of these vessels have sufficient spaces to sleep up to ten crew men now, and should these spaces be unavailable they can be reedily made available with the least amount of alterations and not that much of a cost. Moreover, many companies operate their vessels with n sufficient amount of crew men to meet the requirements under H.R. ~942. All that might be needed is to reassign these crew men to observer positions. Today the practice of no Able Seaman personnel on deck is at the very least ir,adequete~ Some Companies are running these towing vessels with no AB's, and this violates Federal Law. The people of Hawaii have been concerned about what occurs in the Maritime Industry, due to. the fact that Hawaii is en, island State and what occurs in the ocean directly affects Hawaii. We are cognizant of whet would happen to our tourist industry if an oil spill the size o~ the Alaska spill occurred. Such a spill would not only' hurt our tourist industry but would wreak havoc on our marine life such as the fish, crabs, see urchins, and seaweed, all staple foods of the Hawaiian People. As our esteemed Congressman Nell Abercrombie stated ,"This is a safety bill pure, plain, nid PAGENO="0076" 72 3 simpl.e~ It's like having more than one person in the cockpit of a plane, end who wants to fly without a co-pilot? There have been too many near disasters and oil spills nationwide. The Tow Boat Industry has expanded a gremt dccl in the last 30 years or more, end it is about time we heve the laws of this great nation amended to rectify the current hazards that have been created due to this expansion in the industry.these Rules and Laws enforced and amended. The enactment of H.R. 3942 will not cause a great departure from the current law. This is because currently, the recuirements set forth in H.R. 3942 are already in effect for the Great Lakes of the United States of America. All that HR. 3942 will do is afford to the rest of the United States of America what is already applicable to the Greet Lakes. In conclusion, for the reasons set forth above, I respectfully urge this Honorable Committee to adopt HR. 3962 and refer said bill out of committee to be acted upon by the House of Representatives. If there are any questions concerning my testimony, I will be more than glad to answer then at this time. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, ?.~Zl~,GI~ /3, ./ff~~ Respectfully Submitted, 44 ~ 1/ 3OHN H. Regional Director Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific PAGENO="0077" 73 TESTIMONY OF THE OFFSHORE MARINE SERVICE ASSOCIATION H.R., a bill to expand the requirement for merchant mariner documents for personnel on tugs, towbosts, and barges. H.R. 3942, a bill to establish requirements for manning and watches on towing vessels. BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND NAVIGATION March 17, 1992 OFFSHORE MARINE SERVICE ASSOCIATION 1440 CANAL STREET SUITE 1709 NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70112 TELEPHONE (504)5664577 FAX (504)566.4592 ATTN: OMSA PAGENO="0078" 74 The Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA) is pleased to submit its testimony for the record of the Subcommittee Ofl Coast Guard and Navigation hearing on H.R. 3942, and Congressman Jones' bill to expand the requirements for merchant mariner documents for personnel on tugs, towboats and barges. OMSA represents over 270 companies that operate U.S. flag vessels, or provide services, supplies and equipment, in support of offshore construction and oil and gas operations worldwide, including more than 240 offshore tugs An additional number of offshore tugs are operated by non- OMSA members. We are not able to accurately estimate that number for the record today and have, therefore, limited our presentation and figures to our members' fleet. Application of the provisions of H.R. 3942 will require our offshore tugs to increase manning levels by at least four additional crew members, i . e *, mate, deckhand, engineer and an oiler, at an estimated annual cost of $165,000 per vessel, in salaries alone. Add to that the additional costs of accomodations, meals, insurance, legal fees, drug testing, documentation, etc. The potential annual cost of this measure, for our small fleet alone, could exceed $40 Million. In addition, the provisions of H.R. 3942, which amend 46 USC 8104 (g), will also affect approximately 1200 of f shore service vessels. The bill will reduce the duration of a voyage, from 600 miles to 200 miles, for which, at PAGENO="0079" 75 present, a two watch system of manning can be utilized. The estimated annual cost of this provision, as it applies to offshore service vessels, is $68 Million. The additional costs that would be created by the passage of H.R. 3942 come at a time when our offshore tugs are faced with a utilization rate of less than 50%, our anchor handling tugs have a utilization rate of less than 30%, less than 60% of our offshore service vessels can find work, and very strong indications that activity in the U.S. offshore industry will continue to decline. We are, in fact, an endangered species. The passage of H.R. 3942, as. it is currently written, then, will result in a potential impact of $108 Million annually in increased expenses to the offshore marine service industry as a whole. It is impossible absolutely impossible - for our industry to absorb this expense. The industry's survival is already threatened, in any case, by additional expenses posed by Coast Guard User Fees, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA-90) and the Americans with Disabilities Act, among others. Our industry will simply not survive the impositions of these additional costs. Which brings us to a question. WHY is it necessary, in fact, to impose these additional burdens upon such an obviously depressed, seriously threatened marine ~ Is there sufficient and reliable documentation to establish that the offshore towing industry, has produced accidents and PAGENO="0080" 76 threats to the environment which justify such costly, protective measures? OMSA maintains, with respect, that there is no basis in fact to expand the requirement for merchant mariner documents for personnel on offshore tugs, towboats and barges. The issuance of a merchant mariner document does not impart specific skills, training or experience to the recipient, particularly entry level ratings. Although provisions of OPA-'90 will require the Coast Guard to verify that applicants have been subject to physical examinations, drug tests, etc., the offshore marine service industry, including the offshore tug segment, has historically required thorough physical evaluations of prospective marine employees for safety and insurance reasons. Our industry aggressively promotes safety on board our vessels. As evidence of this, OMSA is pleased to note the results of its latest safety survey (1990) which demonstrates our industry's commitment to safety. Our industry survey reported a lost time incidence ratio of 1.7, a result that is superior to or compares quite favorably with any in the transportation industry, including trucking. The bill is presented, according to Congressman Jones, as is Mr. Abercroabie's bill, presumably, to enhance vessel safety and to protect the marine environment by raising manning and licensing standards for personnel on "vessels that carry oil and hazardous cargoes, which if spilled can PAGENO="0081" 77 cause disastrous environmental damage to our shores and natural resources " Although our vessels are engaged in the offshore oil and gas industry, it should be noted that they are not engaged in the transportation of crude oil or petroleuni products. We primarily move anchors for rigs and construction barges. They do not pose a significant threat to the environment They most certainly do not pose a threat which can justify, either on documented evidence of need, or On a cost/benefit basis, the costs attached to this or the other proposal (H.R. 3942). The problem, in our opinion, is one of erroneous perception. The perception includes a very general application of proposed rules to an industry (towing) which application makes no distinction in operations and services performed by similarly named but different vessels within the broad fleet of boats which will be impacted, and even if the problems purportedly being attacked are not present in certain sectors of the affected industry OMSA maintains that the provisions of H R 3942 and the bill proposed by Congressman Jones, contrary to their concept and good intentions, will not significantly enhance safety aboard our industry's vessels, or reduce significant threats to the marine environment, but, rather, they will serve to impose an unreasonable economic burden on our industry Clearly, Chairman Jones or Congressman Abercrombie cannot possibly intend to knowingly impose and PAGENO="0082" 78 pursue such a devastating financial requirement upon our industry, unless it can be clearly shown to be absolutely necessary to protect the public interest. However, we feel compelled to issue the fearful warning that it is easy - and has become usual - for Congress and government agencies to initiate legislation and regulations that appear to be in the public interest. The fact is that the benefits often do not, in the final analysis, equate to the adverse human and economic costs, particularly with respect to impact on small business enterprises such as those involved here. We are hopeful that these hearings will provide Chairman Jones, Mr. Abercrombie and the Subcommittee with sufficient evidence and a sharp awareness that the cumulative imposition of the costs created by these proposals will be economically devastating and unjustifiable, when considered together with OPA-90, the American with Disabilities Act, proposed User Fees, increasing insurance costs and others, not to mention the normal still escalating costs of operations, notwithstanding that utilization and day rates (revenues) within our industry are declining. We are, ladies and gentlemen of the Subcommittee, an economically devastated, but not an unsafe industry by any reasonable standard. We are extremely anxious about the impact of these resolutions, frankly, but we are confident that you will consider these legislative proposals very thoughtfully, in context with the condition of our industry PAGENO="0083" 79 and the actual, relative benefit(s) to be derived, in fact. We need time and the opportunity to heal from an overdose of regulation, frankly. These bills, with respect, would exacerbate an already frightening situation in which we find ourselves today Thank you for this opportunity to share our information and viewpoint. We would be pleased, if requested, to provide the Subcommittee with whatever additional assistance or information we can PAGENO="0084" 80 Hearings on Legislation to Expand the Requirement for Merchant Mariners Documents for Personnel on Tugs, Towboats, and Barges (H R 4394) and to Establish Requirements for Manning and Watches on Towing Vessels (H~R. 3942) Statement of Joseph Farrell President of American Waterways Operators Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries U. S. House of Representatives March 17, 1992 PAGENO="0085" 81 Chairman Tauzin, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Joe Farrell and I am President of the American Waterways Operators (AWO). As you know, AWO is the national trade association representing the coastal and inland barge and towing industry, and the shipyards which build and service these vessels. Our industry provides over one half of the on-board jobs in the U.S. merchant marine. We are here today to renew our previously successful efforts which defeated earlier attempts by maritime labor to add Merchant Mariners Document (MMD) requirements for crew personnel on towboats on the inland river system as amendments to other pieces of legislation which were moving through the process in the last Congress In addition to successfully opposing these earlier efforts on the merits, we likewise argued that no hearings had been held to develop the needed record on the subject We therefore appreciate the opportunity you are providing today to address this matter m a public forum. To begin, I believe it is necessary to first directly confront the statements and alleged facts that are being used by supporters of H R 4394 to establish a need for this legislation. We are particularly concerned with the allegation that our industry allows employees to operate vessels without any demonstration of their abilities or fitness for duty In point of fact as you know Mr Chairman, those individuals who pilot and operate our fleets are thoroughly trained and licensed as required by existing statute and Coast Guard regulations At a minimum, the required qualifications for an operator of a towing vessel are as follows: * 21 years old * Three years of service six months of which must be duty or training m the wheelhouse and three months of which must be in the particular geographic locale for which application is made * Three months of required service must be performed within three years of application for license; * Pass Coast Guard exam * Completion of an approved first aid course; * Completion of an approved CPR course; * Pass physical exam * U S Citizenship * Provide written recommendations concerning suitability for duty from recent marine employers and at least one from master of a vessel on which applicant has served * Pass Coast Guard fingerprint check and * No convictions of dangerous drug offenses within three years of application (up to 10 years if facts or circumstances warrant) no history of usage of or addiction to a dangerous drug unless applicant produces satisfactory evidence of cure Untrained and unqualified'? Obviously not and one need look no further than the overall excellent safety record of this industry as additional evidence of that fact Government statistics support the assertion that this is the safest mode of transportation And as the Chairman knows we are always seeking ways to improve our remarkable record for safety Concerning the issuance of an MMD I will discuss the requirements later m my testimony but it is important to note at this point that they do not require any testing or demonstration of any minimum level of training This latter fact makes eminent sense since personnel holding only a basic MMD do not exercise in any manner operational control of any aspects of vessel operations i e they do not have pilotage navigation, or wheelhouse responsibilities nor do they handle other safety related duties such as petroleum or other liquid cargo transfers etc Thus whether or not our currently so called undocumented crewmembers are required to have MMDs is irrelevant to any discussion concerning qualifications of those who actually operate vessels on the waters of the US PAGENO="0086" 82 -2- It should also be noted in this regard that the Coast Guard casualty statistic being used by proponents of this bill is likewise irrelevant to the issue of undocumented crewmembers, since the 57 percent accident figure being cited involving "personnel error" does not distinguish between errors made by licensed versus unlicensed crew. In point of fact, Coast Guard data does show that 93 percent of all towing vessel casualties involving "personnel error" occurred on vessels with a licensed individual in chai~ge. Thus, It cannot fairly be represented that requiring MMDs for currently undocumented deckhands would favorably impact vessel casualty statistics. In addition, we also strongly disagree with the allegation that the Congress, during its extensive deliberations on the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) somehow "overlooked" regulating the "undocumented" portion of the marine transport workforce, further claiming that this omission costs lives and damages the environment. To the contrary, what this Committee and the Congress did during two years of bearings and debate was to correctly focus and direct the enhanced regulatory requirement of OPA on those marine transport personnel actually responsible for the safe movement and operations of their vessels. In addition, in order to ensure that the highest level of safety-related requirements for vessel operations was indeed provided for under the Act, this Committee and the Congress also mandated a study in Section 4111 to determine whether existing laws and regulations relating to crew size, training, vessel equipment, etc. are adequate to ensure safe navigation of vessels transporting oil or hazardous substances. Given the breadth of OPA's regulatory requirements and considering the potential for severe adverse financial impacts this law's implementation is threatening, a consensus might better be reached that the law extended regulations too far; "omission" is not a word which in any form relates to the regulatory scope of OPA. Based upon the record, we therefore submit no "oversight" occurred. Those whose responsibilities clearly involve vessel movement and safety are already covered under the law. So who are these "undocumented" vessel employees that are targeted by the proposed legislation? But for the fact that they work in the marine transport industry, they would otherwise be called laborers; on the water, we call them deckhands. These are the entry- level positions which are filled by technically unskilled individuals whose duties fit the unskilled category. As a deckhand, moreover, their activities by design generally require no previous experience in the industry and do not involve vessel safety-related decision making responsibilities. They learn through supervision, formal company training, and by on the job training. As they gain work experience and knowledge over time, however, many advance to positions of greater responsibility which indeed have licensing, certification, or documentation requirements which reflect increased decision making capabilities. It is in fact this entry-level pool of workers that produces after years of experience and training many of our senior wheelhouse and company personneL Starting `at the bottom" in this and many other industries is still the norm and a proven way to acquire experience and knowledge. As I referenced earlier, the issuance of an MMD does not require any testing or demonstration of any minimum level of traiing~ What it does require is that a prospective employee present himself at a Coast Guard documentation location and establish or provide: * U.S. citizenship or permanent resident status; * Three unmounted, dull finish photographs of passport type; * I.etter of commitment of employment; * Social Security card; * Birth certificate; * Submit to an FBI narcotic drug offence check; and, * As now required under OPA, request his National Driver Register record be transmitted to the Coast Guard for review. Obviously, the first five requirements are bureaucratic-paperwork in nature, requiring the applicant to expend time, money, and travel to a documentation center. Moreover, this expanded MMD coverage' would certainly serve to further overburden an already stressed Coast Guard mission agenda if these requirements were mandated for deckhands on the PAGENO="0087" 83 3 smaller inland fleet towboats And while the undocumented deckhand is not run through an FBI narcotics check he or she is required by law to pass a pre employment drug test is subject to random testing as well as post casualty and for cause testing I will provide for the record the AWO Guide for Marine Employers which addresses the Department of Transportation drug testing rules. Finally, the Department of Transportation is currently developing regulations covering alcohol testing for the industry, and AWO has been participating in this effort. What an MMD will also require is a fee which as you know we and the umons all opposed last month during your hearing on the fairness of the proposed vessel inspection and licensing and documentation fees We again thank you Mr Chairman for holding that hearing and raising the issue of the impact these fees will have on the marine transport sector As we testified these fees would increase the cost of entering the merchant marine and may thus serve to discourage many of the most likely applicants we hope to recruit These potential employees are already often financially strapped particularly in today's economy, so that seeking employment in this industry could be unnecessarily discouraged by requiring one to pay a fee for the privilege of working This would exacerbate the existing shortage of applicants which employers now face even without the new user fees. And, I believe the case is even more compelling when applied to today's discussion which would extend this unnecessary financial burden to the lowest end of the marine transport employee spectrum -- the inland river deckhands. The labor movement likewise testified in opposition to these proposed fees -- which they brand as an unjust `work tax, and they also enumerated the substantial cumulative burdens which have already hit the maritime industry as a result of OPA, Clean Air Act Americans with Disabilities Act harbor maintenance fees vessel tonnage fees etc We concur with their observations Where we differ however is that while we seek to eliminate unnecessary and excessive government taxes and fees on our employees a umon somehow finds fairness in extending an otherwise unjust MMD work tax on entry level workers now fortunate enough not to be on the government s rapidly expanding target list for user fee revenue collection It is one thing to charge fees for services legitimately needed and performed by government; it is quite another to artificially create revenue sources by legislating regulatory coverage over entry-level, unskilled or marginally skilled positions under circumstances where no public interest is served / Turning to the legislation (H R 3942) introduced by Congressman Neil Abercrombie which would radically alter the current law's long established 600 mile threshold for watchstanding requirements and otherwise mandate increased crew size requirements and prohibit a seaman from working alternately in deck and engine departments as in the case of the MMD legislation we believe that no safety related foundation in fact now exists warranting across the board crew size complement increases Moreover given the highly visible competitiveness problems already associated with the U S merchant marine sector mandating increased crew sizes absent a safety driven foundation is clearly ill timed and counterproductive And as stated earlier the OPA mandated study on crew size and qualifications will yield the analysis necessary to base any conclusion as to whether or not crew size increases are indeed needed in any segment of the marine transport sector Mr Chairman marine safety has been and will continue to be of utmost importance to the barge and towing industry What is often forgotten in this and other debates in Congress is the fact that it is in our the industry s own self interest to maintain safe efficient operations as we seek to reach the all too often elusive goal of making a profit In the light of the enormous liability levels imposed not only by OPA, but also by the well-documented personal injury liability exposure we face under the Jones Act compensation provisions, to assume that we would somehow risk financial ruin in order to maintain our so called undocumented deckhand status or a particular crew complement size is patently absurd It is likewise equally without merit to propose that all employees in this or any other industrial sector no matter their duties be completely disconnected from operations must be caught up in the government s regulatory net in order to ensure that public safety is protected PAGENO="0088" 84 Compliance with Department Of Transportation, Coast Guard Drug Testing Rules An AWO Guide For Marine Employers TheAmerican Waterways Operators 1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite 1000 Arlington, VA 22209 ~1-9300 PAGENO="0089" 85 TABLE OF CONTENTS PARTI Disdaimer& Introduction 1 PART U Symp~ 2 PART III Sample Company Policy Statement 5 DrugandAlcoholPohcySample#1 6 Drug andAlcobol Policy Sample #2 7 PARTlY Sample Procedure For Collection &Documentation 11 SampleConsent Form 13 Pre~scrccnQuestionnaire 14 Sample Pre-screen Questionnaire 15 Specimen Collection Log 16 Sample Specimen Collection Log 17 Sample Custody Document 18 Specimen Collection Services 22 DiStifiedLaboratones 23 PARTY Employee Assistance Program 25 Sample EAPTraining Program 26 Sources of Training and Education Material 31 S SampleRecordofTraining 35 Sample Employee Assistance Program 36 Counseling and Rebabilitation Services 38 PART VI ComphanceDeadimes 39 PART VU Terms and Definitions 40 APPFX4DIX CopyOfUSCGRules46 CFR, Parts 4 5 And 16 CopyOfDOTRules49 cPRPart4O CopyOfUSCGRules33 ~FR Part 95 PAGENO="0090" 86 PARTI DISCLAIMER This matcrialhasbeen developed bytheAmerican Waterways Operators as aservice to its members. It isintended tobe used onlyas ageneral compliance guide for companies soon tobe requiredto institute aprogram for chemicaidrug and alcohol testing of corn- mercialvesselpersonneL It should notbe reliedon for the purpose of fulfluingthe re- quirements of the regulations. While everypossible effort hasbeen made to achieve accuracy,AWO is not responsible for anyerrors or omissions in the attached informa. floss, and specificallynsakes no representations as tothe accuracyof the information con- tainedherein, or as towbether thisinformation is in conformitywith the regulations. July1989 INTRODUCTION ~ ~ ~, 1988, finairules (46 CFR, -~, 5, and 16) were eatablishedby the Department of Transportation, UnitedStates Coast Guard (USCG), for substance abuse requirements of all personnel servingas crewmembers or persons otherwise engaged aboard commercial ves- sels operating uponthe waters of the UnitedStates. The final rule on who must be tested can be found in the Fe ulRegiste' voL 53, no. 224; Nov~ 21,1988, and became effective Dec. 21, 1988. The interim final rule on howto complywith testingrules (49 CFR, 40) can be found in the same volume and date of the Federal R4stei~ 1~ UnitedStatesgovernment is nowengaged inwhat is called a'war on drugs.' Tremendous efforts arebeingmade to stop the flowof drugs across ourborders, stop domestic production and refinrinent of drugs, inform the publicof the dangers of druguse, and deter the use of dangerous drugs. Amongthe manyfronts of the `war' is the effort to remove from the nation's transportation industryall those individualswho are known tobe substance abusers. The Department of Transportation haswrittenmandatoryrules andguidelines tobe followed bymanyseginents of the transportation industryincluding marine transportatioo. This manual is toassist marine employers in understanding and implementingthose rules andguidelincs anum communicatingnecessaryinformation concerningthose rules andguidelines to their employees. The material contained herein is intended tobe only a brief overviewand a helpful guide. Marine employers are advised tobecome familiar with 46 CFR, 4,5, and 16, and 49 CFR, 40 prior to establishment of their own drug testingprograms. These Rules do not supersede 33 CFR 95 (Dec~ 14,1987) which provides the Coast Guard withthe authorityto require drugand/or alcohol tcstingfor reasonable cause. PAGENO="0091" 87 PART H SYNOPSIS Typssofvsuslscovsrsd O1).ThendesapplytoanyUnitedStatesvesselwhlchis required bylaworregulationtobecperatedbyanindlvldualholdingUSCGlicenses,celtificatesorMcr- thtMarlnedocumead& VcperatedbyStatelicensedpilotsarealsolncluded. Eump~ A. De~uboceangowgvessek B. Offshoretugs C. Largeflshlngvessels D. Passengerfor-hire vessels E. SlxpasQessthanlsgrosstosssand6orlcsspassengers) F. Mobile off-shorerigs 0. Uninspectedtowrngvessels H. Ocresupplyvessels I. Qewboale II. Iadl,ldaalswhomu.tbstested(16.105) - Anyindividual who isengaged aboard a commercial vessel must undergo chemical testing, whether that individual is a crewmember or not~ solong as that individual is engaged directlyin the safe operation or navigation of the vesseL The rule is specificregardingthosewho are not required tobe t~mb A. lndbedualseng.gedinthepreparationoffishorfishproductsonfishprocessingves- B. Scientlficperaonnelcnoceanograpbicresearchvessels. C. Individuals on small passcngervesselswho have no navigation or safetyrelated duties suchaswuesies,bartenders,orcntertainers. (NOTE Individualsinthe above dcscrlbedpositionswhohave assigned safetyrelated emergemydulesarccoveredbytheregulalions.) HI. Rsqulrsd Testlag A. Pi*ssaplsgw.t(16.210) . No one maybe engaged or employed as a crewinember aboardavesaelunlwthatindhedualpassesadrugtcsLTherearespeCificexCeptiOflL B. PaaissUc (16.220) - Whenever a physical exam isrequired byrcgulation, e.g., license renewal. Subject to the same ezceptlonsaspre-employsnent. C. I..4.. (16.220) - Vc~scl crcwmembers mustbe tcstcdon arandombasis. Employeesmustbetested at an annualrate of S0percent of totalvesselemployees. ~f~Jom* impliesthat evaycrewmember and officerwould have unequal chance ofbeingtestedonascientificallyvalidbasis. D. Saris.. Maria, lacldsit(SMI) (16240aad4.00-2) - All persons must be tested for thep smsce of drugaand .1cc dicyare directlyinvolvedin anyof the following. 1 Death. 2. Injuryto the catent that professional medicaltreatment isrequired andthe crew member can notperform routine tasks. 3. Damage topropertyin ezcessof $100,000 or actualconstructive total loss. 4. Discharge of oil of 10,000gaUoes or more into a waterway. 5. Discharge of a rçportable quantityof hazardous substance into a waterway. Urine samplebottles shouldbe available for testingwithin 24 hours of an SM!. 2 PAGENO="0092" 88 Results of US Itestsmustbe submlttedtotheCosat Guard. Porm2692-B (whenit becomesavailablefromthegoverninent)mustbeusedtoreportalltestresults.Spe. clalrulesapplylathe event of death (4.06-30). B. Reasosable Cuss (16.250)-Rcqulrestestlnglntbeeventof reasonablebelief that an ala uslngdrugsoralcoboL lv, Specimen 1~rpes A. Urines forpr mpk men~ random, probable cause, seriousmarine led- dent andperiodlctcsting. B. Bloodorbreathspecamenaforalcoholtestsandurinespecimensfordrugtestsfor mehesmanne ~den~ V. Smeplscsllertle.aadcustody- Rigidroqidrementsmustbe met to ensure security, privacy, sanitation ndaccuracyduringaamplecolectloe,handling,transportaalonandtesting.(SeePart lV,SwePveForU*raS~tuis CaAndDcamnsestadon.) A. Burdenforcollection,documentatiosi,privscyandspecimenlntegrityrestswiththe B. Chain of custodymust be n~alntsincdthroughout entire process. C. Testingmustbecosaductedbylaboratorics certifiedbyDepartmentof Health and HumanServices (DHHS). (See Part IV, CeiftftedLabo~utodes) VL Speclae.Aaajysls (16.350)-B hspecimcnmustbe analyzedforthe presenceof marijuana, coca~oplatea,phcncycUdlee(PcP),Iampbetandncs. VII. Medical svlswO80csr (16.370) -TheemploycrmustdesignateaMedicalReviewOfficer (MRO)toperfomccrtainseviccs.TheMROmustbealicensedphysician. (49CFR 40.33). A. The MRO shallreviewandintcrpret each positive test. B. TheMROshallverifyallconflrmedlaboratovypositivereportsandcommunicate thcseresultstotheemplcynrcrhisdcsignatedrepresentative. C. TheMROshalldetcrminethatapersonasdrugfrceandnotllkelytoagsinusc dangerous drugs prior to that person returningtowost VIIL Records (16.260) - The employer must maintainrecords of all testing. A. Records.of negative tests must be `naintaincdfor at least oneyear. B. Rccordscfpositivetastsmustbemaintalnedforatleastflveyearsandmade available to the Coast Guard uponrequest. IL RsporllagTast Results toUSCG (4.06.60) -The employer is requiredbythe rules to report test results tothe Coast Guardunder certain circumstances. A. Positive test results on all individuals holdingUSCG licenses, certificates, or Mer- ch~Madnc&cumecis. B. All positive andnegative results of testamade due to a serious marine incident L Release of InformatIon (16.380) - Test results are private information. An employer maynot release test resultsexcept as specificallyset forthin the rules. A. Results maybe released lithe individual tested signs a specific authorization for the release of test results to anidentifled person. 3 PAGENO="0093" 89 B. Results maybe releasedtothe tested IndividuaL C. ResultsshallberelessedtothcCosstGuardUpoflrequest. XI. Cousqusuces ofpos1UvsT~t,(16.2O1)~Anylndlvidua1whofailsachemicalte5tf0rdal2gerOUs drugs (conflrmedpositlve test results),wlllbepresumedtobe a userof dangerous drugs. A. If he is an applicant, he shailbe denied employment as a crewsnember. B If he is a crewmember at that rims, he mustbe removed from duty related to safe operation or navigation as soon aspracticable C. Ifheholdsahcense,cerflflcateordocument,(maddltiontoAafldBmcntiofled above) the results must be reportedto the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard may proceed to suspend or revoke thatlicense, certificate or document. D. Anyone refusingto submit to a drugtest maybe subject to those consequences as stated mA, B, and C above. XII. EmployssAsslatance Progiu (EAP) (16.401) -The rules require the employer to establish a drug education and trainingprogram for all crewmembers and supervisors. The regulations do notrequire that the employer provide for rehabilitation of crewmemberswho test positive. A. The education program requirements of 16.401(a) provide ass minimum, the following: 1) Display and distribution of informational materiaL 2) Display and distribution of a community service hothne telephone number for crew member assistance. 3) Displayand distribution of employer's drug and alcoholpolicy. B. The drug awareness trainingprogram in 16.401(b) isa requirement for both crew members and supervisors, and it must be 60 minutes total for supervisorypersonneL The minimum trainingrequirements areas follows 1) Effects and consequences of drug/alcohol use onpersonal health, safety, and work environment. 2) Manifestations andbehavsoral clues mdicsting the possibility of drug and alcohol abuse. 3) Documentationofthetrainingprovided. 4 PAGENO="0094" 90 PART III SAMPLE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POUCY ThcAWOHcaItb,SafctyandTraiiàgCoinmitteerccommendsthatmemberaadoptawritten pclicy.tatementcathcuaccldrupaadalccbolmthcwcrkplacc. Theeziatenceofaucha policywfflnotonlyfacllitate emplo mmunications, but maybe of significantvaluein help. ingacscompliancepostwe. The foil wosample drugandalcobol policies are intended as aguide toAWO members who are formulatinga substance abuse policy. It is not presentedas a recommendation on howspccificpolicyissues shouldbe resolved, but asasuggestedagenda of itemsthatneed to beaddreued. 5 PAGENO="0095" 91 ll~'Sample#1 Drug and Alcohol Policy Drugs and alcohol of anytype are strictlyprohlbited on companypreniiscs. Theyare not tobe brought onto companyproperty, includingcompanyvehicles awayfromthe propertyand your own personalvehicle inour parkinglot~ Reportingtowork under the influence of alcohol or proh ddrugs ors stances, orwithdetectable amounts of suchprohlbiteddrugs or sub- stances lathe system, isstrictlyforbidden. ifaviolstion occurs onboard a vessel, it is the responslbihtyofthemsster toreheve the crewniember from dutysnunedistely If the violation themssteris offwatchitis the dutyof the pilot ornate on watchtocail the mssterimmediately. Randomblood or urine testswillbe conducted onthe vessels or at an appropriate site to determine whether employees are mviolation of this policy The cosnpanymayreqwre an employee involvedin an accident or iajuredwhuleworksngto take abloodtest~ The company may also conduct random searchesof quarters and personal propertyon our vessels at any time for the purpose of deternnnmgcoinpliancewdh these rules An employee who is taking a prescription drugis required to present to his/her persoflnel manager (prior toreporting towork) a statement from either the prescribing physician or a physician specifledbythe company, statingthat the prescription drugwiil not impair the employee's work performance. Anyviolation underthis section, including anyrefusal to submit toblood, breath or urine tests, or to cooperatewith a search, can result in immediate dismissal. 6 PAGENO="0096" 92 II~' Sample #2 Drug and Alcohol Policy ConipanyName Personnel Policies & Proéedures Subject: DrugAndAlcohol Control Effective Date:_________ General The purpose of thispolicyis tomaintain a safe, productive, andwholeaomework environment to allempl abypreventingaccidenta and other dan erousincidents thatmayresult from drug/alcohol use. This policyis also intended to complywith Coast Guard and other governmental regulations. The policypertains to all employees of the company, and to non. entployeeswho have cause tobe on companyvessels and other properties. Policy Statement 1. The possession, use, sale ordistribution of illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, or in. tcsicatingbeveragessstiictlyprohlbited in or onvehicles, vessels, offices, warehouses, terminals, and other propertyowned, operated, or controlledbythe corn- pany.Enttyinto or upon cosnpanypropertywhile under the influence of alcoholor with detectable levels of illegal drugs in the system isalso prohlbite~i Violation of this policywlll result in appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. Non-employees foundtobe inviolation of this policywill be removed from company propertyand maybe denied future access. 2. The companywlilsupport treatment efforts for employees with drug/alcohol problemsuho,priortoofficialdiscovery,voluntarilyseekasslstance. Theirjobs will notbejeopardizediftheyactivelyparticipateanddemonstrateacceptableprogressin acompany-approvedrehabilitation program. Normal leave of absence and group medicalbenefltsmaybeavallableduringrehabilitation. 3. Thecompanymayconductunannouncedinvestigationswhenthereisreasonable suspiclonofdrug/alcoholuse. Theseinveatigationsmayincludeclinicallyacceptcd plsysicalandbebavioraltests. Employee cooperationinsuchinvestigationsisre. PAGENO="0097" 93 Sample Alcohol and Drug Polky (Continued) Definitions 1. Alcohol Alcohol shall mean anybeverage, mixture or preparation containing alcohol, includ- ingbut not limited to whiskey, beer, wine, and other spirituous liquor or malt beverages. 2. Drugs Drugs shall mean any substance that has mind or function-alteringeffects on a human subject indudingbut not limited to anypsychoactive substance, narcotic, depressant, stimulant, hallucinogen, and anyother substances controlled bylaw. 3. llkgal Drugs Illegal drugs shall mean drugs prohibited bylaw, and otherwise legal substances ob- tained or used illegally. 4. Drug Psrapberualla Drug paraphernalia shall mean any item commonlyused or known to be used for ad- ministering, packaging, or transporting illegal drugs 5. Company Property Companypropertyshall mean anyreal property, wstercraft, motor vehicle, aircraft, structure or other propertyowned, operated, or controlled by the company. 8 55-369 0 - 92 - 4 PAGENO="0098" 94 Sample Alcohol and Drug Policy (Continued) Administrative Guidelines All employees are subject to this policy. The policy should be applied uniformlyto all persons in agroupbeing investigated. 2. When there is reasonable suspicion that an employee is using or illegallytransporting drugs or alcohol, all personalitems such as packages, bags, lunch boxes, or other items being carried on or removed from companyproperties are subject to inspection. Likewise all assigned property such as lockers, living quarters, desks, etc., will rem the propertyof the company and willbe subject to searchwhen there is reason to believe the employee is in violation of this policy. 3 All drug/alcoholsearches and other investigations willbe conducted by at least two administra tive or supervisorylevel employees or bycontract professionais. 4. No employee or other personwilibe forcibly searched or detained and every effort will be made to respect personal integrity and right to reasonable privacy. Refusal to cooperatewith lives- tigations and/or testingprocedures will be considered evidence of violation of this pohcy Employees so refusingwillbe suspended, pending administrative review. 5. Allillegal drugs or drugparaphernalia found in or on companypropertywillbe released to a law enforcement agencyfor disposition. 6. Drug/alcoholtestingwillbe conducted as follows: .Preemphynient. All candidates for employment with the companywill be tested for drugs and alcoholas part of the preemployment physical examination. A positive teat resultwill eliminate the candidate fromconsideration. Post.aeddeat. All employees whose orders, actions or failure to act cannot be ruled out as causative factors in the events leadingto an accident will be tested when one or more of the fol- lowingconditionsresulti a. Death or serious injury. b. Substantial loss or damage to propertyor equipment. C. Flagrantviolation of companypolicy or prudent operatingmethods. d. Asignificant discharge of a reportable substance. Pbyslcal Eaalaaftoa. A drug/alcohol test wlllbe included in all annual and other physical cx aminations required as a condition of employment. Reasusable Cause An individual employee or apecsflcwork group maybe tested for drugs and alcoholwhen there isreason tobelieve that policyviolations may have occurred. .Raadesa. The companywill conduct random testingof vessel employees as required bythe Coast Guardregulaticna. 7. The detectable presence of anydrugin the systemwill constitute a `positive' test. All positive test resultswillbe confirmed using an authorized testingmethod. Unresolved or conflicting reaultswill be interpretedin favor of the employee. 9 PAGENO="0099" 95 Sample Alcohol and Drug Policy (Continued) & Testing for alcoholwill be done with an Evidential Breath Testing (EBT) device. 9. An employee producinga positive teat result or refusingto cooperate in the test willbe immedi- atelysuspended, without pay, pending investigation and administrative review. if the employee is found not inviolation, he will be returned towork with all wages and benefits paid for the period of suspension. 10. Employees required to use prescribed drugs or non-prescription medications which contain drugs or alcohol, during the time they are tobe on companyproperties, will notify their super- visor of the substance to be taken and its purpose prior to reporting for work. A physician's statement maybe required. Vesselemployees must notifytheir crew dispatcher at the time they receive their work assignments. The supervisor or crew dispatcher will have final authority to permit the employee to enter or remain in the workplace. 11. Test results and other information concerning drug/alcohol investigations will be treated con- fidentially. Such informationwill be released only to those management representatives who have a need to know, to state or federal agencies such as the Coast Guard, andwhere required bylaw or regulation. Information concerning drug/alcohol use by former employeeswill not be released for employment reference requests. 12 When an employee, for the first time, voluntarilyreports he has a drug/alcohol problem and seeks assistance, he will immediatelybe granted a leave of absence in accordance with the employment policies or labor agreement applicable to him. The employee will not be permitted to return to work until such time ass competent medical authority, approved by the company, has certified the employee is free of the problem and able to safely perform. 13. To protect his position with the company, the employee voluntarily seeking assistance must agree to all treatment, rehabilitation, and follow-up testing as described in a treatment program agreed to bythe company. The employee must also agree to release the company from all liabilityfor anyinjury suffered bythe employee as a result of anydrug/alcohol use by him during or after treatment. 14. The employee willbe permitted job protection and rehabilitation only one time. Anyinvolve- meat in a drug/alcohol or related incident following return to work will result in appropriate dis- ciplinaryactionuptoandincludingdischarge. 15. The company's financial participation in the rehabilitation will be limited to existingleave and medical benefits provided under the labor agreement or employment policies applicable to the employee at that time. 10 PAGENO="0100" 96 PART P1 SAMPLE PROCEDURE FOR SPECIMEN COLLECTION AND DOCUMENTATION Marine employerssnd Department of Health andHuman Services (DHHS) certified laboratories are required to develop and maintainwell documented proceduresfor the collec fiosi, shipment andtestingof Urine samples (49 CPR, 40, Subpartb, 40.23-40.25). Laboratories willoffer approvedprocedures aspart of these services. Marine emplcyersmaypurchase collection services from the laboratories, or other private ser vice organizations. (See Part N Independent Sample CoilecttonAndlnveslsgatson Services) This discussionis intended asgwdance to employers who desire to conduct sample collection DRUS eertllledlaborato.ierwlII niakeavallablespproved sample containers, code labels, tamperdetection seala,cbala otcustodyforms and malllngmaterlals CollectIon Sit. A. Employers should designate one or more collection sites B. Collectionsites shallhave necessarypersonnel, materials, equipment, and facilities for collection purposes C Sample Collectors Shall ensure collection site security 2. CollectIon sad Recording Procedures A. One or more individuals shouldbe designated in writing as Drug Urinalysis Sample Collectors. Sample Collectors shouldbe trained in these procedures, supervise all sample collections, and make all sample documentation entries Sample Collectors shouldbe of thesame gender as the employees providingsamples. B. Collectors shouldinitiallyverifythe identityof each employee selected to provide a sample against appropriate identification, such ass drivers licenses. C. Collectors shouldinquire whether the employee is currentlytaking anymedication and, if so, the identityof the medicstionshouldbe noted on the pee-screen question naire and onthe sample collection log(sample forms attached). D Collectors msyobserveemployees providingsamples. The employee should secure a bdto.ample containers. Upon receiving sample containers front employees, Sample ~0llectorssbo~d ensurethst the containers are securelyclosed andsealedwith tamperproof tape. B. Collectors should, in the presence of the employee, assigns laboratory code number to all aamplecontainers. The employee's name and lab code number should alsobe recordedbythe Collectors in the sample logbook, and on the sample's Chain of Cue- todyform. The employee shouldbe asked to initial the label of each sample con- tainer,logbookandChsinofCustOdyfOrn1. F lathe event a person refusesto submit to a drug test, that refusal must properlybe recorde~ G. lathe event an employeededinesto initial the sample container, ledger or chain of custodyform, theCollector should initial in the employees place and asterisk the en~. 11 PAGENO="0101" 97 IL Collector should maintain sole custodyof samples from the time they are submitted until theyare mailed. Collectors should deliverthe samples to a U.S. Postal Service mailreceplacle onthe same daythe ssmpleawere coflected,whenever practicable. If a delayinmallingis necessary, the samples shouldbe stored in a secured location. The Collector shalistate the reason for anydelayin mailing in the `comments' sec- tionof the sample ledger. Ukewisc~ custodymust be maintainedwhen uaing any alter. native niethodof delivery. 3. Lsborato.yProcedme The contract laboratorywillbe required to strictlyfoliow Chain of Custodyprocedures, and test. ingprocedures providedforby49 CFR Part 4O,froce~hovs for Transportation Woi*place Testing PAGENO="0102" 98 Alcohol and Drug Screen Consent Form It isusefultomform employees and prospective employcea of a company's drugtestuig programem advance of the testuigand mwntlng. Some companys even include references to the programs in advertisementsused to recruit newemployces. The ConsentForm, a sample of which is showahere, is evidence that an employee hasbeen informed of the program and consents, as a condition of employment, to participate in the program. I3~' Sample Consent Form Alcohol and Drug Screen Conseist This company strictlyproblbitsthe use, possession or transfer of illegal drugs, drug parapher- aaliaor alcohol aboard companyvessels or on anyother companyproperty or while on com- panybusiness. Ths companywill cooperate fullywith pubhcauthorities in the criminal prosecuticnofanyoneinviolationofsaidprohibitioiL ___________ herebygive(companyname and/or a designee of its choice) myper- mission toted me for the presence of alcohol or illegal or habit-forming drugs or narcotics at anytimewhile lam employcdby the above company. I agree to cooperate in any such test knowingthat the use ofalcohol or illegal drugs as mentioned above is inconsistent with my health and safety, aswell as that ofmyfellowworkers. I Understand that if! have a detectable levelof an Illegal drugor substance or alcohol in mysystem, I willbe inviolation of the cosnpany'spolicyand subject to the disciplinaryaction set forthbelow. I realize that an on the job accident or Injurymaybe cause for thistesting, and I will submit to such. I understandthat this consentis part of mycmployment agreement, and if! refuse to be tested, Iwlilbe terminated, and maybe responsible for the cost of mytransportatlon home.! understand that if detectable levels ofan illegal drug or substance or alcohol is found in mysys- tem, this wlllbe grounds for the immediate termination of my employment. Consent to Search I, ~ understand that (companyname), in the interest of the safety and health ofitsemployees, desires to inspect andsearch, at random, unannounced times, all pack- egss,boxea, clothing, or anyofmypersonalbelongings carried on or off companyproperty. I consent tothese searches andagree to allow and cooperatewith such inspectionswhile employedwith the above company. If I refuse, I understandthat I willbe terminated andwill be responsible forthe cost ofmytransportation home. - Date______________ Witness Date_____________ 13 PAGENO="0103" 99 Pre-Screen Questionnaire ationsdossotc derpositiveurinctest results alonetobe indicative of substance abuse~ Rather, theregulations require that aMedical ReviewOfficer (MRO) interpret the test results, The MRO must consider if alternative medical e~qsianations could account for the posi- tire test result Drugpositive urine maycome from individuals who are receivinglegitimate medical treat- mont& For example: codeine positive urine existsin some who are using prescription medicinefor cough orpain; cocaineis sometimes used as a vasoconstrictive anesthetic; am- phetimines are used to treat a varietyofcondition& Positive test results in these instances are not false positives -the drug is actuallypresent. The sample Pro-Screen Quesitonnaire isdesigned to provide the medical review officer with the in- formation needed to determine if the positive test is the result of legitimate or illicit ingestion ofasubstance. TheSample Pre-ScreenQuestionnaire shown here maybe adapted to conform with the re- quirementsofaparticuiarMRO. 14 PAGENO="0104" SUBSTANCE PRE-SCREEN QUESTIONNAIRE What is the reason for this test? Pre-Employment -, Random Sampling _, Periodic __~, Serious Marine Incident Probable Cause __, Other (specify) _____________________ Employee/Applicant Name: _________________________ ________ NT. _________ Wt._~ Lbs. Sex________ Age_________ Employer: Is the employee/applicant taking any of the following medications or prescriptions? YES NO YES NO Any other drugs or medications? - Yes - No If yes, please list: __________________________________________ This test has been requested by my employer in accordance with the policies and procedures established by my employer. I knomingly consent to this test and hold (name of testino facility) harmless being assured of proper performance of this procedure. 100 - - Allergy Medication - - Antibiotics - - Aspirin (more than 4 a day) - - Birth Control Pills - - F*male Hormones - - Blood Pressure Medication - - Foods Containing Poppy Seeds (in last 24 hours) - - Decongestants/Nasal Sprays - - Arthritis Medication (Advil, Nalfon, etc.) - - Diuretics - - Heart Medicine - - Sleeping Pills/Sedatives - - Thyriod Medication - - Tranquilizers/ Ant idepressants - - Appetite Depressants - - Cortisone/Steroids Cold Medicines If yes to any of the above, please clarify. I I 5; L I I I Employee/Applicant Signature Da~e 15 PAGENO="0105" 101 Specimen Collection Log In order tobe most effective, a drug and alcohol testing program ahouldbe error free. Con- trolling and preventing administrative errors is the purpose of the chain ofcustodyproce- durea. The initial document in the chain of custodyprocedure is the specimen collectionlog The log is required to be kept at all testingsites. The log records the date and time of specimen collec- tion, the name andsodalaecuaitynumberoftheprovider,thespecimenbottieidentifyingnum- her and other pertinent information. Space is included to record comments relevant to the taking of a particular sample. The log is signed or lnitialedbythevarious parties involved inthe collection of each sampln. A sample Collection Logis shownhere. 16 PAGENO="0106" 102 TIME NAME OF PROVIDER PROVIDER 5.5's CODE NUMBER . * SAMPLE COLLECTOR NAME SAMPLE OBSERVER NAME SAMPLE CONTAINER CODE * & TAMPER DETECTION SEAL CUSTODY REPORT ATTACHED? DATE SAMPLE MAILED SAMPLE SPECIMEN COLLECTION LOB DATE I I I PROVIDER ID CONFIRMED PROVIDER INITIALS OBSERVER INITIALS COLLECTOR INITIALS COLLECTOR INI T IALS COMMENTS 17 PAGENO="0107" 103 Urine Sample Custody Document Documentation of the physical custodyof each specimen - from collection to analysis - is re- qulredbythe rules. This paper trail~ called the Urine Sample Custodydocument serves several purposes. The form minimizes the possibilityof administrative errors, minimizes the likelihood of specimen tampering or switching and helps protect the integrity of the process fronichalleuges by employees adverselyeffected bypositive test results. A sample Urine Sample Custody Document is shown here. This particular form is provided in triplicate for distribution to the company, the deliveryservice, and the laboratory~ Instructions are included. Different certified laboratories may use different forms. 18 PAGENO="0108" 1. Manager, Complete snes4~, ttirougtvAs and hne,~on ft is consent form Complete the ahbit on top of let Expmes Box. ALL' eIIFORMATIONMUSTBE COMPLETE BEFORE SPECIMEN WILL BE PROCESSED. PLEASE PREITI 2. Collection She: Have the isdlddusi being sealed collect at least BOcc of - veidedudnehtto thaplantic spedmenc~DMde the urine aelnEle evenly behveen the Iwo acreenap bottles. ~ thsli the omsenoe of the mdhiduat belno tested. Scmw cape on TIGHTLY to acleate me ~eaeprom sew. v,,onecmr: Coniglete me jftson conaent tons at this time. Place Ia&5f~ over lop of liw1.Ddd~ so that it is attached to the top and to both sides. Have hidhidu& being tested hiltS ~g~~at this time. Complete Leke)&and wrap ithi~ Jaroond the middle of ~ 4. ~ / Race ~fljQoxertopof aecondbottle so that it isatlached to the top and to both aides. Here htdhridusi being tested hiltS (~fQ at this time. Complete ~~8sLQ and wrap ~ Q amund the middle of second bottle. 104 INSTRUCTtONS FOR THE USE OF THE DRUG SCREEN TESTING KIT PLEASE DETACH AND READ ~ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING S 5. I1±hY~ I Fold and form the small while boo included in yosr kit. Secure the bottom wuh the limI hat of label E (Elf Race both sealed screw-cap bottles in the boo, close it and seal the top with the second half of label E 1E2) Place sealed white boo into Fimt Espmss Boo \1~\ 6._ Have individual being tested complete secton A on consent form (current medicatons). Have him/her read line ,4then sign and complete U ne . The pemon supervising the collecton must sign and complete line LSi, Any ioformstion minted to the sample (pH, temperature, et) should go on the SPECIMEN COMMENT tine 7. Race ALL copies of the consent form into the FImI Express Boo with the smaO white boo. Close the FImI Express Boo and secure the flap with SECURITY SEAL provided. If completed airbitf leon top of the First Express boo, call your local Federal Express office for pichup. NOTB Please ship as many specimens as possible In each First Express Boo. U MedExpmss 1211 Union Avenue, Suite 400 Memphis, Tennessee 38104-3513 1-800-331-1502 (TN) 1-800-331-6440 1-800-654-1865 19 PAGENO="0109" Reprinted by permission 105 MedExpiess Pface over top of 1st Bottle Place around ndddle of let Bottle Place over top of 2nd Bottle Place around mttcfle of 2nd Bottle Place El over bottom and E2 over top of small white box Place over flap of First Express box DONOTBSEAI( sEAt. IMTIAL5OFSDMOUAL BEINOTESTED DONOT BREAX 5EAL 242932 - 242952 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 242952 INDMDUALS NAME:_________________________ SSN#_____________ Ettf~W~oFCE~i~TiD sbi~t~At~ 242952 242952 © IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 242952 INDMDUAIS NAME:_____________________ SSN# D 242952 * ~ 1 242952 (i~) SECURITY SEAL 20 PAGENO="0110" 106 A A A A A 1CO~ONSRETE~PHO~ CCE~NRRESPCOOE] THE SPECIMEN WAS RECEIVED INTACT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ~BECENEDATMECEXPRE8SBY DATE ] SPECIMEN SEAL BROKEN BY: ____________________________ DATE:_ ~ o~ce~~c LAB COPY Reprinted by permission 21 2429 52~ DONOT BREAK SEAL STEALS OPINDMDUALBEING TESTED DONOT BREAK SEAL IDENTiFICATION NUMBER INDMDUAL'S NAME:_________________________ SSN# B DONOT BREAJ(SEAL INTIALSOF INDIViDUAL BEING TESTED DONOT BREAK SEAL © IDENTIFICATiON NUMBER INDIVIDUAL'S NAME:_________________________ SSN# D SECURITY SEAL MANAGER'S NAME EMPLOYER'S NAME AND ADDRESS: FEDEX USE ONJY - COMAT ADDRESS 0 PRE EMPLOYMENT 0 EMPLOYEE 0 FOR CAUSE 0 OTHER ____________ DATE O~COLLEC'flON:______________ TIME OF COLLECTION: COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS 60cc OF FRESHLY VOIDED URINE ARE NECESSARY FOR THE TESTING PLEASE UST ALL MEDICATIONS CURRENTLY BEING TAKEN INCLUDING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ORDERED BY YOUR PHYSICIAN I b.~.A. SPECIMEN COMMENTSs I AUTHORIZE THE COLLECTION OF THIS SPECIMEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF A URINE DRUG SCREEN. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EACH SPECIMEN WAS SEALED IN MY PRESENCE AND INITIALED BY ME PRIOR TO FORWARDING TO THE LABORATORY FACILITY FOR TESTING. FURTHER, I AUTHORIZE NEDEXPRESS TO RELEASE THE RESULTS OF THIS TEST TO M F Do PAGENO="0111" Un-board sample collection is by tar the most practical solution to random and post-casualty testing. While many facilities offer sample collection services- doctors, laboratories, mdc- pendent agencies, etc., only a limited number offer on-board collection. Provided here ia a list of those who have informed the subcommittee responsible for compilation of this guide that they offer on-board sample collection. Information on additional on-board sample collection services as they are discovered will be kept on file. That information may be obtained by con- tacting: The American Waterways Operators Southern Region Office Whitney Building, Suite 1027 228 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70130 504- 524-3366 AWO does not endorse these or any particular collection services. River Tech 2625 Bell Road Collection Maceo, KY 42355 Consultation 502-281-5252 Wood Investigative Services P.O. Box 417 Collection Long Beach, MS 39560 Consultation 601.864-7487 Investigation Drug Education Associates, Inc. P.O. Box73267 Collection Metairie, LA 70033-9907 Consultation 504.454-0412 Investigation Medical Advisory Systems Box 193 Pennsylvania Ave. Collection Owings, MD 20736 Consultation 301-855.8070 107 Specimen Collection Services 22 PAGENO="0112" 108 Certified Laboratories Listodbeloware the names, addresses, andphone numbers of all testing laboratories certified bythe Department of Health andHuman Services (DHHS) as published mthe Federal Ragster Informationon laboratories certsfledsmcc that date canbe foundsn later editions of theFedaralRegvster Forfurther information contact Omce otWorkplace Initiatives National Institute on DrugAbuse Room 1OA 53 Fishers Lane Rockville,MD 20857 Obviously cosnphancewsth DOT drugtestsngruleswouldbemade simpler for many employers if more laboratorseswere certified, sod maybe advisable fnt employers to contact laboratories mtheir operating areas and dsscusstheir certification. Maryland MedlcalLaboratorles Smith Kline Blo-Science Lab 1901 Sulpher SpringRoad a000Sovereign Row Baltimore, MD21227 Dallas, TX 75247 301-247-9100 214-638-1301 Ammlcaa Medical laboratories, Inc. CbentWest Analytical Lab. 11001 MainSt., P.O. Box 188 600600W. North Market Blvd. Fairfax~VA22030 Sacramento, CA 95834 703-691-9100 916-923-0840 Medinilaboratorles, Inc. Nichols Institute 402 West CountryRd. D 7323 Engineer Road St. Paul; MN55112 SanDiego,CA92111 612.636-7466 619-278-5900 Sesib BeadMedical Foundation, Inc. International ToxlcologyLab S30NorthLafayottc Blvd. 2201W. Campbell Park Dr. SosdhBend, IN46601 Chicago, 11.60612 219-234.4176 312.633-3360 Csspscbam Laboratories, Inc. MedArts/South Community Heap. 33O8ChapelHilI/Nelson Hwy. 1001 Southwest44th Street P 0 Box 12652 Oklahoma City 0K73109 ResearchParkTrianglc, NC 27709 405-636-7041 919-549-8263 or 919-248-6494 Asrlcaa BkslbstLaboratorles, Inc. CenterFor Human Toxlcolo~ 33.90Seott Blvd., B1dg~ 15 417 Wakara Way Rm. 290 SantaOara, CA95954 UniversityResearch Park 408-727-5525 Salt Lake City, UT84108 801 5815117 Chom-BloCorporatloa Doctors & Physicians Lab 140E. RyanRond 801 E. Dixie Ave. OakCreek, WI. 53154 Lcesburg, FL. 32748 904-7879006 1-800-365-3840 23 PAGENO="0113" 109 MstPath inc. MstPatk,Iac. 3S5MlttelBoulevard One MalcolmAve. WoodDale, 1L60191 Teterboro, NJ 07808 312.595-3888 20i-393-5000 Nor stTaslcole~y, Inc. Polsoslab, Inc. 1141 East 3900 South 7272 Claireinont Mesa Rd. Sub Lake City, UT.84124 SanDiego, CA92111 1-800-322-3361 619-279-2600 Rocks Blo.edlcal Laboratories Soathgate Medical Laboratosy 6370 WilcuaRoad 21100 Southgatc Park Blvd. Dublin, OH 43017 Cleveland, OH 44137 614-889-1061 1-800-338-0160 24 PAGENO="0114" 110 PART V EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (EAP) The rules require that each employer establish an "Employee Assiatance Program" (EAP). The employer haa the option to include an EAP in his internal personnel services or he may contract to have those services provided The two basic components of the EAP are training for all employees and help for those who need it The extent of help an employer will provide mayrange from an extensive pohcy of rehabilitation to merely areferral to services where professional help maybe obtained. The EAP may range from basic training on drug and alcohol abuse to a comprehensive pro- gram such as the following example. Employees should be informed of the effects of drugs and alcohoL Employees should be provided the toll-free telephone numbers throughout the US. where professional help maybe obtained. 25 PAGENO="0115" 111 I1~' Sample EAP Training Program IntroductIon (2-5 minutes) A. The reason for the EAP training program: Mandated by the Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, under 46 CFR Parts 4,5 and 16, PrograinsforChemicalD~ugandAlcohol 7'estingof Corn- rnescial Vessel Personnel; Final Rule (Effective December 21, 1988). B. The purpose of the EAP training program Is Instruction In: The effects and consequences of drug and alcohol use on personal health, safety~ and work environment. The manifestations and behavioral cues that may indicate drug and alcohol use and abuse. II. Effects and consequences of drug and alcohol use. 15-20 minutes (Also see Part V,Spnpeons of Use) Marljuaaa Health problems, high dose or chronic use can trigger panic and anxiety episodes in some users. Regular use interferes with learning and concentration and contributes to low motiva- tion and psychological dependence on the drug. Loss of job and/or license. Serious injury or fatality. Cocaine Longterm amphetamine use can permanently damage teeth, bones, lung, liver and kidneys, and deplete body stores of vitamins and minerals. Heavycocaine use carries risk of over- dose and dependence. Cocaine sniffing can damage nasal tissue and weaken the heart, while freebase use is linkedwith chronic lung irritation. Loss of job and/or license. Serious injury or fatality. 0~ Overdose and physical addiction. Intraveneous heroin users also face risks of AIDS and other needle-related diseases. Unpredictable potencyof street heroin poses additional hazards. Loss of job and/or license. Serious injury or fatality. Phencydlldlne(PCP) PCP is often sold on the street as an additive to (or substitute for) more scarce drugs, such as LSD, cocaine, heroin, and mescaline, posing serious risks to users who do not realize they are taking PCP. But whether taken accidentally or intentionally, the drug carries a range of risks: Accidents - reduces sensitivity to pain, heightens aggression, powerfully impairajudg- ment and coordination producing high risk of injury or deathby fall, drowning, etc. Panic At- tacks - `Bad Trips' can involve confusion, mood swings, delusions, and'hallucinations. Psychosis - In some users, PCP can trigger underlying emotional and behavioral problems, producing lingering psychosis. Loss of job and/or license. Serous injury or fatality. 26 PAGENO="0116" 112 Aaplutamlaes Loogtcnn use can pernianentlydamage teeth, bones, lungs, liver, and kidneys, and deplete bodystores of vitamins and minerals. Coma and death can occur from cardiac arrest follow- inghigh doses ofamphetamines. Use of high doses maytrigger full-blown psychotic episodes. Loss of job and/or license. Sheet termhazards arise from faultyjudgmen~ emotional instability and risk ofdesthby overdose (alcohol alone on combinstionwsth other drugs) Longterm danges include irre versible damage tobodytissue (brain, hver pancreas, kidneys) memoryproblems, and nutritional defidencies. Loss ofjob and/or license. Serious injury and fstality~ HI. Thanlksfaøo.s aadbebavlo.uj clues that mayladicate drugand alcohol use andabuse. (l5-2ilminutcs) PRODUCTIVflV-Look for unexplained decreases in productivity. It willbecome apparent through the inabilityto maintain qualityof work or theinabilityto do assigned duties in an ef- ficleatmaimer. ILLNESSES - Look for recurringlllnesses that have nosppardnt, mcdicslly sound cause. It is not uncommon tohave anemplcyee `outwith the flu's couple of times a year. However, ifthcillnesahas a distinct pattern such as immediatelyfollowing a vacation, days off or weekend off~itmaywellbeasignof addiction. ABSENCES Time off without prior notsceto the company which mayor maynot be sub- stantiatedwith an excuse uponreturningtowork~ ACCIDENTS - Both injurycausing, and those resulting inpropertydainage. Look for signs of carelessness not usuallyexhlbitedbythe employee. LONG BREAKS - Itis not uncommon for drug and alcohol abusing employees to use lunch onothcr scheduledbreaks for chemical use. In order to avoid detection, theymay extend thatbrcaktoallowthe'hjgh'towearoffabit. CONCENTRATiON - Inabilityto keep mind onwork, lack of coordination, drowsiness, etc. MOODINESS - Inabilitytoget aloogwith co-workers. This mayinclude mood swings that maychangedunsngthecourseoftheday PIIYSICALSIGNS Lookfor dilated pupils, blood shot eyes, runnynose drastic weight dsange~ decreasedinterest in hygiene, dishevelled clothing, etc. (Consult abuse poster, at- 27 PAGENO="0117" 113 IV. Sympto~a of Use Incoordination, slurring of speech, blood-shot eyes, emotional instability, decreased inhibi- Co~um Dilated pupils, loss of appetite, compulsive behavior, excitability, belligerence, suspicion, amfumon,insomrna. Constriction of pupils, lowresponse to pain, nausea or vomiting, lethargy, slowbreath, and akernatingperiods or wakefulness and sleep (`nodding out'). Judgment and coordination are not impaired markedly at low doses. Examples are codeine, morphine, heroin. Ex- amples of synthetics are the registered trademarks such as Demerol, Dilaudid, Percodan, andTalwiu. Pbeucydlldlsae (PCP): Intoxication, poor coordination, inabilityto carry on a conversation, bizarre behavior, sweat- ing, flushing, muscular rigidity, and occasional rhythmic rotation of the eyeballs may occur. High dose symptoms resemble schizophrenia. Apbetawinea: Dilated pupils, loss of appetite, compulsive behavior, suspicion, confusion, insomnia. Incoordination, slurring of speech, emotional instability, decreased inhibitions, stupor. Each supervisorwill receive a copyofl)nsgr OfAbuse, bySamuel Irwin, Ph.D. This booklet is availbie fromHazeldon Educational Materials, publication #4520, for $1.50 per copy. Call 800326-8000. 28 PAGENO="0118" 114 29 SOME MAY REFER TO THIS EMPLOYEE AS A DRUG ABUSER but, he does not abuse drugs, he abuses himself with drugs WATERING EYES DROW$INIU CONPUSIQN RUNNY NOSE - DREAMY, ULANK EXPRESSION REDNESS OF iVu ~ RAW NOSTRILS RAW LIPS DRASTIC CHANGES IN APPETITE EVIDENCE OF DRUGS - OR DRUG EGUIPMENT TUMOR IN HANDS AND LEGS WIDE MOOD SWINGS $UNGLA$SE$ SHIELD DILATED PUPILS IN THE EYES yu~ *V~ADfflM~ LEARN TO ~ PAGENO="0119" 115 Broad Spectrum Screen Detectible Drugs DRUG CLASS GENERIC NAME BRAND NAME Ethyl Alcohol: Alcohol Antidepressants: Aniitriptyline Elavil Imipramine Trofranil Antihistamines: Diphenhydramine Benadryl Hydroxyzine Atarax Promethazine Phenergan Sedative-Hypnotics: Amobarbital Amytal Butabarbital Butisol Pentobarbital Nembutal Phenobarbital Luniinal Secobarbital Seconal Aprobatbital Mutate Methaqualone Quaalude Opium Alkaloids: Morphine (Heroin) * Codeine * Synthetic Narcotics: Pentazocine Taiwin Hydromorphine Dilaudid Propoxyphene Darvon Methadone Dolophine Levo-Alpha-Acetylmethadol LAAM Stimulants: Cocaine * Amphetamine Benzedrine Methamphetamine Dosoxyn Phetermine Ionamin Phenmetrazine Preludin MajorTranquilizers (Phenothiazines): Chiorpromazine Thorazine Thioridazine Mellaril Trifluoperazine Stelazine Promethazine Phenergan Perphenazine Trilafon Adulterants: Quinine * Minor Tranquilizers: BensodiazePines Valium, Librium, etc, Marijuana: Tetrahydro-cannabinol Marijuana Sold under generic name 30 PAGENO="0120" 116 Sources of Training And Education Material Krsmes Communications 31290th Street Dai1yCity~ CA 94015-1898 (booklets) a) ManagingEmployee Productivity: Understanding the Supervisors' Role in Turning Poor Performance Around b) Alcoholism: Job Safety and Performance c) Alcoholism In The Family d) Alcoholism In The Workplace e) Cocaine and the Family 1) Cocaine in the Workplace g) Relapse h) Women, Alcoholand Drugs i) KidsandDrugs j) Is There A Problem (self-assessment) k) Marijuana 1) Car Injuries, Belts and Booze National Safety Council 444 North MichiganAvenue Chicagn, IL 60611 a) film- Monday Night andTuesday Morning b) film - The Hangover c) film - The Decision d) film - The Last Round e) flim-LiveandLetLive f) Breath Alcohol Concentration Wallet Card (promotional) g) film - Alcohol and Other Drugs h) booklet - Workplace DrugTestingWise Hunt or Witch Hunt i) booklet - Partners InTrouble j) booklet - Recovery Alcoholism And DrugAbuse k) posters: Drink'n Dulls YourThinkin' Drinking and Work Don't Mix - Alcohol Impairs Judgment Avoid Double Trouble (alcohol and drugs) Bottom line On DrugAbuse Don't Overdo It The First Time Is Never The Last Time Know When To Say When WhcnAlcoholTakea Over: You Can't Think Straight Drugs Don't Always Kill Drugs Break Up Families 31 PAGENO="0121" 117 1) A StudyGuide of Published Material Pertaining To Substance Abuse and Alcohol m) film - The SleepingTiger n) fllm-SoLongPal o) ~-To Last a Life Time 3) Bureau of Business Practice 24 Rope Ferry Road Waterford, Ct 06386 a) film - Cold Turkey~ Drugs In The Workplace Ill b) book -Alcohol and Thugs: Issues In The Wodqlacei 1984 4) Promotional Slidegulde Corp. 222Ashland Place Brooklyn, NY 11217 (718) 858.4199 a) Pocket slideguide on drug abuse 5) The American Council for DrugEducatlon (ACDE) 5820 Hubbard Drive Rockville, MD (301) 984-5700 a) pamphlet. Crack Some Questions and Answers 6) Pharniaceutlcal Manufactures Association 1100 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 a) pamphlet- Substance Abuse: Signs and Symptoms 7) NIDA Dreg Free Work Place Helpline 1-800-843-4971 8) AmerIcan Society of PersonslAdmlnlstratlois (ASPA) 606 North Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 a) book - SubstanceAbuse in the Woi*place:An Employer Perspective 9) The Bureau of National Affairs, me. 1231 25th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 a) book -Alcohol and DnsgAbuse in the Woi*place: The Complete Resowve Guide, 1988 b) book -Alcohol and Dregs in the Worlqlace: Costs, ConUuir, and Contmversies, 1986 c) book -Employee Testing: The Complete Resource Guide4988 d) book -En*ployeeAssistancePmg~wns:Beneft&c, F)vblems, and Prespects, 1987 32 PAGENO="0122" 10) ChaaalagL BeteCo., Inc. ZiOState Road South Deerfield, Ma 01373-0200 a) Alcohol and Health b) About Alcohol c) About Alcoholism d) Women andAlcohol e) Alcoholic inthe Family? f) Choosing Not To Drink g) Substance Abuse at Work h) Multiple Substance Abuse I) About `Crack' or `Rock' Cocaine j) AbOut Cocaine k) About Marijuana 1) DrugsandYou m) About DrugAbuse n) About Preventing DrugAbuse o) About Employee Assistance Programs p) Abou~ Addiction 11) FlI Ubrary The GreaterLosAngeles Chapter NationalSafetyCouncil 616 So. WestmorelandAve. LosAngele~CA90005 213-385-6461 33 118 a) America Hurts. The DrugEpidemic b) Cocaine and Human Physiology c) Comebacker: The Bob WelchStory d) Cradle Cheap and Dangerous e) TheDrugKnot 1) Tarnished Dreamic Alcohol~ Drugs and Seniors 12) InternatIonal Fun Bureau Inc. 332South Mich~anAve. Chicago, IL 60604-4382 (312)427-4545 a) The Alcohol You PAGENO="0123" 119 13) NatIonal Iaatltute on DrugAbuse 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville,MD a) monograph - Urine Testing for DrugAbuse, 1986 14) FMS ProductIons I.e. 520 East Montecito Street, #F Santa Barbara, CA 93103 a) Too Dangerous To Work W*th b) Drugs at Work c) Medical Aspects of Mind AheringDrugs 34 PAGENO="0124" 120 Record of Training The regulations require variouslevels of training concerning the effects of substance abuse in theworkplace for supervisors and other employees. In order to show compliance with the regulations it is useful to keep records which indicate that the appropriate employees have received the required training. A sample Record of Training is shown here: ll~' Sample Company Vessel____________ I herehvcertifythat the above nam ed employee received training inaccordance with re- 35 EmployeeAsslstance Program Record of Training Dangerous Drugs And Alcohol I have received training inaccordance with requirements of the Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, regulations, 46CFR, 4,5, and 16. Date_________________________ Employee Name__________________ Employee .~lguaiurc quirements of those regulations shown above. Instructor's ~ Company_ Date PAGENO="0125" 121 Il~' Sample Comprehensive Employee Assistance Program ~ A To provide an outside professional service which will assist an employee in overcom ing alcohol, drug and personal problems that may jeopardize his/her health, produc- tivity and continued employment. B To provide assistance to supervisors in resolving performance problems which may involve employee alcohol, drug and personal problems in a manner that is consistent with normal supervisoryroles C To effectively reduce problems in the work force and retain valued employees D To serve primarily as a problem assessment counseling and referral service to employees E To assist the company in its cost containment effort Policy A. it is the policyof (company name) to provide confidential assistance to employees who are having personal problems, whether theybe emotional, financial family/msrs tal, legal, alcoholism and/or drug abuse (company name) s concernwsth the employees personal life is limited to unsatisfactoryjob performance and/or negative reflection or discredit to the company. B This policy pertains to all regular full time employees Voluntary use of this program is encouraged. Confidentiality is assured C Employees are assured that theirjob promotion opportunities and reputation will not bejeopardizedby using the EmployeeAssistance Program All records or discus sions of personal problems will be kept by the designated counseling resource and will not appear in the employees personnel file D Existingpersonnel policies are not altered bythis policy III. Coverage A. All employees shall have the fullbeneflts of the Employee Assistance Program. B. Many of the mental health, alcohol, and drugtreatment services to which the troubled employee mayneed are covered under the company's insurance benefits or national services provided throughout the United States Fees for services such as counseling which are not covered at ailbe the company's insurance benefits are to be the respon sibshtyof the employee seeking such assistance IV Procedures A. Self Referral Ifanyemployee recognizes the need for professional help to deal with personal problems such as alcoholor drugs, they are to contact the EAP counselor directly 36 PAGENO="0126" 122 ~ployceMsistanceCconseloruet 1. Intervlcwthe employee on a confidential basis. 2. Determine thebasic cause of the problem. 3. Develop amutuallyagrecable plan to resolve the problem. 4. Refer the employee to the most appropriate service to resolve the problem. 5. Follow-up as needed to assure problem resolution. B. SupervisosyReferral Whcna supervisor identifies ajob performance problemwhichis not corrected with normal supervisoryassistance, this should be anindication that the employee is no- able to correct the probjem. The supervisor shouldvoluntarilyuse the EAP if the employcefeels that personal problems maybe the cause of unsatisfactoryjob perfor- mance. 2. The supcrvisorwlll continue to monitorjob performance and if the performance prob. 1cm continues, corrective action should be taken according to company policy. At each step of corrective action, the employee is tobc encouraged to voluntarily use the EAP to correct anypersonal problems that may cause unsatisfactoryperfor- mance 3. An employee's continued refusal to correct job performance problemswill be hand- ledin the same manner as otherjob related problems, if the employee agrees to util. ins the EAP, the supervisor should assist the employee in contacting the EM' 4. The employee willbe encouraged bythe EM' counselor to sign appropriate consent forms sothat necessaryinformation maybe obtained fromthe service providers. Whenthe appropriate consent forms are signed, information can be provided for the supervisor and/or the (company) Personnel Department regarding employee atten- dance and/or general status during the process of assistance. V. Respoisalbillty A. All employees are responsible for satisfactoryperformance oftheirjobs. if personal problemsthreaten theirjob performance, they are encouraged to utilize the EM' to resolve these problems. B. Ailsupervisors are responsible for the identification of job performance or attendan- ceproblems whether theyare continuous or intermittent. Whenever these problems are not correctedwith normal supervisory assistance, the supervisor mayencourage the employee to utilize the EM' to determine if personal problems are causing no- satisfactory performance. if performance faiis to improve eventhough the employee participated in the EM', corrective disciplinaryaction must be taken. 37 PAGENO="0127" Counseling and Rehabilitation Services Ust NatIonal Institute on DrugAbose (NIDA) S600FiShersLanes Rockville, MD 26857 1.800-843-4971 American Medical Socletyon Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependecles (AMSAODD) 12 West 2lstStreet NcwYork~ NY 10010 Attention: Ms.JudyArthur (212)266-6770 DrugEducationMsociates, Inc. 4739 UticaSt., SUite 101 Metairie, LA70006 (504)454-0412 1-800-666-3324 National Association on DrugAbuse Problems, Inc. (NADAP) 355 LexingtonAvenue NewYork, NY 10017 (212)986-1170 National Clese'Inghonse on Alcohol Information (NCALI) P.0. Box2345 Rockville, MD 26852 (301)468-2600oc 1-800-843-4971 National SabuyCona~ 444NoethMichigsnAvenue ~cbicugo, 1160611 1-800-621-7619 boomed Professional Counselors, LocalSafetyCouncils, Local Drug Education Councils, Certified EmployeeMssstancc Professionals, LocalMedical Societies, StateAlcoholism and DnsgAbuse Pro~ams, Health Insurance Carriers, Alcoholics Anonymous (check meeting notices in local paper) Narcotics Anonymous (cbeckmeetmgnotices miocal paper) National Hothnc 1-800-COCAINE, state and local Mental HealthAssocaatsons 123 ll~' Sample Association ofLabor-MansgementAdmlnlstrators sad Consultants on Alcoholism, Inc. (ALMACA) 4601 N. FairfaxDrive, Suite 1001 Arlington, VAfl263 38 PAGENO="0128" 124 PART VI COMPLIANCE DEADLINES These rules (including the requirements for an employee assistance program) became effec- the Dec. 21, 1988. Deadlines for testing compliance depend upon the number of vessel crew members employed by a company. The rules also allow employers to `phase in' by not requir- ing the same deadlines for compliance to all occasions for testing. The following table shows compliance deadlines by number of crewmembers and testing requirements. No. of Crew Members: Over 50 11-50 10 or less Pre-Employment 7/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/90 Post Casualty 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/2190 Random 12/21/89 12/21/90 12/21/90 Reasonable Cause 12121/89 12/21/89 12/21/90 Random sampling shall be phased in over the first 12 months after the program is instituted. During the first 12 months the minimum number of crew members tested must equal at least 25 percent. Thereafter, the number of crew members tested must equal at least 50 percent. Periodic teatingwill be required after 12/21/90 for original or renewal of all USCG documents, licenses, certificates, etc. Responsibilityfor periodic testing rests upon the individual unless the company sets policy of assistance. Upon written request, the Commandant (MMI) will review a company program for com- pliance with these rules. 39 PAGENO="0129" Chain Of Custody. Procedures to account for the integrity of urine specimens by tracking, handling and storage from point of collection to final disposition. Chemical Test: A scientifically recognized test which analyze an individuals breath blood urine or bodily fluids or tissues for evidence of dangerous drugs or alcohol use. Collection Site: A place designated by the employer where individuals present themselves for the purpose of providing a urine specimen to be analyzed for the presence of drugs. Collection Site Person: A person who instructs and assists individuals at the collection site and receives and makes an initial examination of the urine specimen A collection site person shall have successfully corn pleted training to carry out this function, or shall be a licensed medical professional or tech- nician. Confirmation Testi A second analytical procedure to identify the presence of a specific drug or metabohte which is independent of the initial test and which uses a different technique in chemical principle from that of the initial test (at this time gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (ge/ma) is the only authorized confirmation method for cocaine, marijuana, opiates, amphetamines and phen- cycidine). Crew Membern An individual who is on board a vessel acting under the authority of a Coast Guard hcense or document whether or not the individual isa member of the vessels crew or an individual employed on a US vessel that is required to be operated by a licensed or documented in dividual DHHS The Department of Health and Human Services Drug Test. A chemical test of an individuals urine for evidence of dangerous drug use Initial Test (also knumi as Screening Test) An immunoassayscreen to eliminate negative urine specimen from further consideration 40 125 PART VII TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 55-369 0 - 92 - 5 PAGENO="0130" 126 Intoxlcant Anyform of alcohol or dangerous drug. Marine Employer: The owner, ms.msging operator, charterer, agent, master or person in charge ofaveasel, other than a recreational vessel. Medical Review OlUcer: A licensed physician responsible for receiving laboratoryresulta generated be an employer's drugtestingprogram, who has knowledge of substance abuse disorders and has appropriate medical training to interpret and evaluate an individual's positive test result together with his or her medical historyand any other relevantbiomedical information. Sample (also known as Specimen): That amount of urine or blood tested for the presence of intoxicants. Serious Marine Incident (SMJ): A marine casualtyor accident which is required to be reported to the Coast Guard. 41 PAGENO="0131" 127 Part IV Department of Transportation 46 CFR Parts 4 5 and 16 Programs for Chemical Drug and Alcohol Testing of CommercIal Vessel Personnel Final Rule Monday November 21, 1988 Coast Guard PAGENO="0132" 128 47084 Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 1988 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION publishing elsewhere in today's Federal obtains evidence on which to base Register an Interim Final Rule and remedial or punitive action. Coast Guard request for commenta entitled Thie final rule is a logical extension of Procedures for Tronsportotion existing regulationa to ensure a drug- 46 CFR Pads 4,5 and 16 workploce Drug Testing Progroms. free working environment in the (COD 56-0671 Theae Procedures, which will be maritime community. The regulations codified in 49 CFR Pad 40. are based on provide for positive and aggressive Programs for Chemical Drug and Department of Health and Human action to identify users of dangerous Alcohol Testing of Commercial Vessel Services Guidelines for Drug Testing. drugs before they are involved in Personnel with appropriate modifications to allow incidents which bring them to the AGeNCY: Coast Guard, DOT. them to apply to private industry and attention of the Coaet Guard. The atate and local governments. The new 49 regulations are intended to enaure that AcTioN: Final Rule. CFR Pad 40 provides detailed - - users of dangerous drugs are not issued SUMMARY: These regulations require the information for implementation of the liceoaea, cedificatea of registry, or establishment of anti-drug programs to. drug testing requirements of this rule, merchant mariner's documents, and are reduce the incidence of drug abuse by setting forth requirements for such not.accepted for employment on veasela commercial vessel personnel. These things as specimen collection engaged in commercial operations. Drug programs include pre-employment. procedures, laboratory procedures, and users and abusers will either be periodic, random, post-accident and quality assurance. deterred from continued drug use or will reaaonable cause testing. The post' Drafting Information be faced with sufficient probability of accident portion of the program also The principal persons involved ~ being identified in the workplace and invoivea testing for alcohol uae. The Coast Guard believes these rules drafting this document are CDR jotut precluded from employment in the will discourage drug and alcohol uoe by Koaki, Project Manager, and Chriatena induafry when such use is detected commercial vessel personnel, reduce the Green, Project Counsel, Office of Chief through chemical testing. CounseL Diecuoaioo of Comments potential for marine casuattiea related to drug and alcohol uae, and enhance the Background Generol Orerview of Mojor issues safety of the maritime transportation The Coast Guard has explicit The Coast Guard received 248 written induatry. statutory authority to deny Issuance of a comments in reaponae to the notice of erreciave DAre: This rule is effective oo license, certificate of registry, or proposed rulemaking. Despite the fact December 21, 1988. merchant mariner's document to any that some of these were received after FOR FURThER INFORMATtON CONTACt individual who (lj has been c~~nvtcted of the close of the comment period. all Commander john Koski, Project violating a dangerous drug law of the were considered in the formulation of Manager. Marine Investigation Division United Slates or a state within 10 years these rules. In addition to the writteo (G-MMII, Office of Marine Safety, of application, or (2j has ever been a responses, 80 individuals presented Security and Environmental Protection, user of, or addicted to, a dangerous drug testimony at the four public hearings U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 (46 U.S.C. 75031. Similarly, the Coast held by the Coast Guard. Second Street, SW., Washington, DC Guard has statutory authority to revoke All facets of the maritime induot"y 20593-0001. f202j 267-2215. a license, certificate of regiotry, or 5UFPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July merchant mariner's document of any presented their views, either as 8, 1988, the Coast Guard published a individual who is, or has been, a user of, individuslo, small operators, large notice of proposed rulemaking, entitled or addicted to, a dangerous drug (48 corporations, unions, or associations. "Programs for Chemical Drug and U.S.C. 7704(cjj. The Coast Guard is While there was universal suppori for a Alcohol Testing of Commercial Vessel further mandated to revoke the license, drug-free maritime working Personnel," in the Federal Register ~s3 certificate of registry. or merchant environment, there waa serious concern FR 25928). mariner's document of any individual about how the Coast Guard propoaed to On July 26, 1988, the Coast Guard who has been convicted of violating a accomplish this goal. announced in the Federal Register (53 dangerous drug law of the United States Several sectors felt that the scope of FR 28024) a series of ppbltc hearinge on . ore state within a 10 year period before the proposed regulations was too broad the notice of proposed rulemaking. the beginning of the proceedings against and would result in unbearable These hearings were held on August io, that individual (46 U.S.C. 7704(bjJ. It to implementation coats, most notably 1988 in Houston, Texas; August 12, 1958 clear that these statutes intend to among smell operators. Many felt that in Chicago. ttlinoio; August 19, 1988 in exclude drug users and violators of drug only those people operating under the Washington, DC: an4 August 22, i9s5 in statutes from serving on US. merchant authority of a Coaet Guard issued Ssn Francisco, California. A total of 80 vessels, license or merchant mariner's document individuals made statements on the As the Coast Guard stated in its should be subjected to mandatory drug proposed rules at these hearings. Each notice of proposed rulemaking, these testing. Echoing thia opinion, many hearing was recorded, and copies of the statutes are currently enforced by others stated that employees serving tapes, along with any written statements examining criminal conviction recorda aboard vessels in capacities which hsd and other materials provided, have been of license and document applicants and nothing to do with the eafe operation of placed in the public docket. The Coast holders, by the prosecution of those the veoset should not be subject to the Guard also received a total of 246 letters individuals operating a vessel mandatory testing requirements. commenting on the proposed rules. All negligently or while intoxicated, and Smail operators end seasonal of this information has been reviewed through administrative remedies such as operators were seriously concerned that sod considered in the devetopmeot of civil penalty actions and suspension end mandatory testing would result in the final rule. revocation proceedings. These methods shortagee in their workforces, The Office of the Secretary of the are used, however, only after an maintaining that potential employees Deparirnent of Transportation is incident occurs and the Coast Guard would opt to go into other, equally well- PAGENO="0133" 129 - Federal Register I yoL. 53, No. 224 I Monday,November zi, 1988 I Rules end Reguletlons 47065 payin5 jobs which do nol require them question. SeeJockson v. Metropoifton ~ si 340. In determining the to be subjecisd lo tssiing. In addition, a Edison, 419 U.S. 345 (1974); Moose Lodge reasonableness of a search, the Supreme company administered testing program No. 207 V. Irvis, 407 U.S. 1~3 (1572). Court has repeatedly stressed the would erode the trust which has Assuming that drug testing programs * importance ofthe facts particular to the tvp caliy been aotabliahed between called for under the final rule do eearch whije acknowledging that the management and the working members implicate the government, a second teat of reasonableness "~ ` Ia nut ufamall operations. * issue then arises concerning whether capable of precise definition or Commentere generally supported urine teate under theee programs are mechanical application." Bell i' testing In conlunction with obtaining "searches" within the meaning of the Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, at 559 (19791. In licensee and poat.caeualty testing, but Fourth Amendment Although moat analyzing a drugteeting program, " ~ felt that euch programe ehnuld be ~ courts to address the ieaue to date have what is reasonable depends on the adminiatered by the Coed Guard and ruled that toxicologicalteating of context within which a search takes nut private induatry. There wee a eplit of employeea for the purpose of place;" NewJersey i' 7'L.O., ~ee US. opinion regarding other types of testing determining fitneae for duty is a eearch 3~z, at 337 I e pre employment random and within the meaning of the Fourth In ecrutinizing whether a particular eaaonable cause) those companies and Amendment the issue is not entirely eearch cumpurta w th the Fourth organizations which currently have settled. See Wysnon r. James, 400 U.S. Amendment, courts have adopted a effective anti~drug programs generally 309, 317-338(1971) (government welfare balancing teat. In general, to support a nupported these types of testing, while caseworker's "home vieit" ae a claim that a eearch of an individual or thsae without auth programs did not feel precondition for aeaietance payments is the individual'a property is reasonable, that all types of teeting ahould be not a Fourth Amendment search). See the government muet demonetrate that, required. Even among thoee which had also, Lovvorn v. City of Chottonoogo. on balance, the public'a legitimate existing programs, there wee concern 1968 U.S. App. Lexie 6952 (6th Cir. May intereat in conducting the search that the atrict parameters specified in 23, 1988) (Guy, ).. dissenting); Notional outweighs the individual's legitimatà the proposed rules would force them to Treasury Employees Union r. von Roob, expectation of privacy. See e.g. United abandon their programs in order to 608 F 2d 1057 1060 1062 (5th CIr 1987) States v Montoyo de Hernandez 473 implement the procedures which are (Miggmbotham, )., concurring). Cf Mock US 531 537 (1985)' United States r much more costly and more difficult to v. United States, F.B.L, 814 F.2d 120,125 viiiamdnte.Morquz 462 U.S. 579, 588 admininter but in their view not n 2 (2nd Cir 1987) (1983) Delowan vs Praczse 440 US necessarily more effective. Among - Also assuming, orguenda, that urine 648, 853 (1979). Thus, the courts must individual commenters and labor teats of merchant vessel personnel fi~,r * * consider the scope of the unions, the opinion was almoat prohibited eubatancea are searches particular intrustion, the manner in un venal that mandatory tenting would within the meaning of the Fourth which it in conducted the lustificetion be a violation of constitutional rights, Amendment, it in clear that while for bunting it, and the place in which it with guilt being assumed until the searches ordinarily must be conducted in conducted." Bell v, Wolfish, 441 U.S. individual could establish innocence, pursuant to a warrant issued on 520 at 559 Constitutionol Issues ~Ti~nseri Viewed in thio light. itis beyond Numerous commenters queationn the Almeida.Sanchez v. United States. 413 dispute tharthe public has an overriding constitutionality of mandatory drug U.S. 266, 277 (1973) (Powell, j., interest in aanunng that merchant vessel tenting of maritime employees. Many concurring). Where, fur example, ,,~ * * personnel performing duiien which, commentera requested that the Coast the burden of obtaining e warrant ia directly sffect the safety of a vessel a Gus d nut proceed with this regulatory 1 kely to frustrate the go ernment na igation or operstiuns do an fre of package until these issues have been purpose behind the search " the pruhibited substances. The drug resolved by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court baa routinely held that ~ prciblem in society in general and S p n Althoughth t t fth we r niianocrequiredbytheFourth d fdrug nihem t case I win still evolving in rapid Amendment (citing Comero r industry in particular are d or saed fashion and the Supreme Court has not Municipal Court 387 US 5 3 533 elsewhere in the preamble of this final resol ad many of the relevant nd (1967)) See eg Griffin v Wiscans n rule The impairing effects of dregs and comple issues the Coast Gus ills 107S Ci 3164 3167 (1987) (plurality the substantial risks to public safety confident that testing of employees opinion) New Jersey v TI. 0 469 US posed by merchant vessel personnel under this rule will withstand )udirtal 325. 340(1985). The Supreme Court has who use drugs underlies the compelling err I ny on constitutional gm nds likewise found th t the probable caeae governmental interest n prom tating Of particular concern to the standard is inappropriate where it this rule. rommentera is the relevance of the would defeat the purpose that the In contrast, the drug testing Fourth Amendment to drug teattng The search is designed to achie e See eg requt ementa of the final rule in ot principles of the Fourth Amendment to New Jersey r. T.L.0., 469 U.S. 325 at Minimal invasion of privacy. Aa the the 9.S. Constitution are paramount in 340-342 (1976) (White " ` `some Supreme Court has indicated, where acruitinizing the fundamental legality of quantum of individualized suspicion in searches are undertaken in situations many drug testing programs As a us fly p req s te to roost tuti n 1 whe a I di d at d s p ctu is threshold matter, the Fourth search or seizure (,) ` ` the Fourth lacking, other safeguards must be retied Amendment applies to "searches" Amendment imposes nu irreducible upon to enaure thet the discretion of the rood ciedormandatedhythe req ement fs rho spcon Un ted p rtyc d t gth hi p p ty goverument and protects mdi duals State r Mart nez F erte 426 U 5 543 d f d nd th p 1 th 440 gat'iat unreasonable aea chee and 560-561) 1 m t d S p1w `~ ,j~ k ~ seizures Action of a private party does Rather (t)he f ndam t 1 mma d ~ sue (ies7t Th dreg I t 5 otconstituteStateu Federatactioo fth F thAm dm ti tti t t m t f ii ft tnt pt ntsathre iotsscl nexs he nd reb eetJS325 ~ ~ mptsYdt*~ti between the State end the action in * ` " NewJe~fl3' V. T.L.0.. 4 - PAGENO="0134" ;insaa ;sai Snap aag~sod joj peau 9tfl Wtfl p93UAUO3 01 paen~ Supuais 811fl03 uata JGAaMOH spunoiS B u; ;insai Cow qoçqM spass Cddod 1050D aq; aDuBp!nS P003 awardeS 30 suawpuawv q~annj no wsiSozd 8ugsa~ 55 qans saaue;sqns pooj Jo uoi~sa&q anuasqe aqi sq JSASMOH 6SffL JO Buiids Snip pepspusw-;uaunuaAoS papalas pus aSnip ~oy~jo ungsa~~;uap~spu °qi iw°' $u!tuonqunj sq jon (sw sasso easq s;ino~ °;~;s pus js~apaj jo iaqwnu s8nip ~p~ii~ Jo uopsjsqu~ aAjSssd asaq; u~ sunislanu `(a3!ue~ 5WO5fl3 ~ 15111 saz~u2oaai pisn3 ;ssn3 ~qa. s;jnsaa ;sa; aagçsod-asjsj p sanss; *9fl eqs uj sungjsod aitg~suas Cipnaas (~~~u;o aDliod) (sg~ tg °qi pos~s4 saa~uawwo3 aqj sunsaJ $55, JO ftajsa IsaP~ID ioj siusoqdds jo ounf i;3 pig) cn~ s~xaq ddv sn oo& pus s~s(jsus jo Casanaasu~ peasçeaaed Sugse; Snip Su;pjoqdn) (sent) uot `;a'5 uoj8urqso1M Jo drljsUMoj ASiC 10007 eq; uo Suqse; Snap o; uoq~soddo got `pasuorS pea `(toot `~!3 qio) ott `ussv 30Sf 040003 sueweagfod :(sdepo() ~ essq sIe;uewuzoa iCus~ p~j ste `qoog 004 4 uoniJ seotojduzg (suet) ose sn sit `pewep Jrea £rnsoall (000jJoN q~'~ ,uiepuql `(~l3 pac) flU `SCtt pta set ,epuojq ~;i~'~w ;s~i ffnJciJo £aornaay u~, was; ;xsu penSis eq essa s;q; ;sq A reyowooçrg (szn;saedo we;d iselanu) ieuuusasd srupaasw psaepao seq pus `Ae~urng A UOJJOIOOSSV (suet aj3 qie) eec `too pzj eta `;srq Sq eSssn Snap jn eaueppu~ Sql esseaaep S01pna0Y3Joq07E0Asfj0~ ul JJDJOflJSO JeA10~affqIr~ o.yewqejs.j `A uoaçrsny 009 op swsaSnzd Stigss; Snip ;sq; sessa;sspa Jo ;rme s aoj uogged ;ueunueAnS Sasqad jo unqspsdxe sssCojdwe us aeq;an; ~ isasusS u; SleJaos u; sisixe s pe;usaS seq 31003 swsadn~ eqj peanpet seq uoqsjnSsa e%3ssA.asd eIsqM asqr wsqnad Snapeqi 0$ sunruauj ;nu isuunsasd euqspsw ps;uswnanp ssy;enpu~ uj `uo;açdsns pezpsjna~sasd 5; .ta;snpu; su;asw Sql isqi uonue;uoa pus pssusaq Suge;nSaa jo Sao;s;q Suoj jo sauesqs eq; u; `Sugse; s;sSjsuan paen~ 19803 sq s;inddns uogssuvoju~ 5 seq pasn~ 48803 eqi `Srsnpu~ peoapsa p~eqdn etsq sjssddy JO 5$1fl03 jsaspe~ s;q~ sssssaans asflsu;s ps~aodsa easq sip u; seaus;swnaa;a sip ip Sisquna 0M5 `suosssa aseq~ ao~ ((ta ss sn ss;uedruoa aeq;o ssusaSoad uopa;passu; tsasMOfl ceo ;s P1 ,sesdo!duas gtp `801079 po;yujj A zoqauog-op,ew,v) Snip a;sq; 01 pe;nq;aps eq usa suqasp ~ou `spsnaj;sa Jo sasSsusui pus saeuMo ,wsq~ uodn poaejd sunpa;a;sea eq; n; U s;ip Jo qanw ;eqi pus ~usaaed 05 50505 ;s ps;asa;p 51 unpsjnSsa £;e;ss (psoar;si] ;us5uoa sasjje u;, `pus [(toot) scot `139 Sq pssssaaep ssq ss;usdtuna asqwsw jo ,~;nq ISBA sql, * ;sq; unp150doad tot rs&ng A 5(10,5 ssspj) SasApd Jo sp Suows sausplaul sWp150j sq sqi uo `lied ip `5M5$t 5~j pessq uops;asdxs psanpea 5 stsq ssp;snpu; seqi ~ uope;aosss 5Wfl$1501 10(505 ;;nai;3 q;u;~ sqj, (eaei) coot 139 ps~sjnSsi Sjsso;a qans U; 54mM s s~dwsxe aoj sesSo;dwa a;eq; Suôws sot pejunt8 pea (a;3 ipe) etc pta oqM sunsied `snqj `uogsjnSsi et;sus;xs eSssn Snap u; euopanpsa ps;uswnaop ~ ~fqujng A 00fl0W08SVS0Aflfl~0X3 0; ;as(qns ems sspptpas sseSo;dws us jusatnuS;s 01 ps;jnssa s~sq swsaSoad toqmajAniqroy Su;jss; 0$ mo;id qajq~ u; Sqsnpu; us u; o,poM ssSojdws Su;;ss; Snip psaosuods-Susdwoa leip ;uswi;sdw; joqoa~s ao Snip jo uo;a;dsns eqs emsq~ ssaus;swnaa;a 01 ;us;aodw; s;eo;pu; 01 e;ep ps;pwqns sas;uswwoa pszusjnaqasd jo Su;Moqs s sa;nbsm ;ou Sjas;napzsd 5; s;qj (toot) test `139 Suew ast5M055 sSswsp Ss;snssa op ss;ni sq; ssnsasq jsunpn;psuoaun tot `o8o&~a A100003Q s~qsuosssaun 10 998901 j5005A js;amswwoa u~ ;asJJs 5; suope~npt ~ 10 `s;usp;asq tasAmd jo uope;asdxs ssaSo;dws iesnsa an(sw s ss ~oqoa;s to sSnip jo ssn s;usp;aas u;e;asa asps Su;;ss; supn autos sajsw Sew, , ,sas;d54aoM sq; ps;;pusp; Sjjsaipasds qa;qM 555~ pus pon~q Smo4epuew suopeqs;u;wp~ sq; jo s5;s;(ssa jsuopsasdo sq[3) `ps;ou s~sq $00 pp p ;sq; Supjewsjni pesodoad psoape~ jsaspsj sq ;sqs ssq ;ano3 swsadng sq sv d;qsuops~sa Jo sapou 5~1 JO sjqwssad sqi ul P~15W p~sq sstp un;s;asp ;;naa;3 q;upg ;usasa suswSnjdws sq Jo ;xs;una Sjaesja paen~ ;seoo eqj :ssuodsay sq;~n Si5M5 s~ 0018 pasn~ 55503 sqj, sq; u; psjanpuoa sq 01 5; sspnp sssSn~dws (z is un;ujdo ps;ejsa~SwJss 514315055 Su;wmoJasd swp;asw Jo S0~553 Snip sp;M-Saonpu4 wnpuninws~ Spanass an S;5J55 sssSojdwsjn 5upse; Snip su;an e;epuew 0; pssu pa;ea;ouowsp 00 ussq aqqnd Jo )s5a5;u; sqi uç psw;sn( sq Sew ;smp ;as~ sip s; ;usa;j;uS;s Spsnb~ seq sasqs ;szp ps;asess stsq Sa;snpu; Su;;ss~ Snap Saoeindwoa qa;qM tq ssssa spnssm Su~Suspsqa JOJ sun;sptnad 5011511505 sq; JO suswSss SOOliSA ems easq[i), ;sq; Supnu sssjstpsuou pus spasnSaJss Sao;saoqsj ;usSujm;s A4snpuj awpjro;y amp snq sssSnidwe SausSs us Slwopusa 83904 Jo sadS; 15005 aspun uopaspoa us W9f~04f Snzg oJo aauep;AgJo 5(a07 isa;o; usjd uosjm~jn nssan~ a ssujsSs Supnp Sastjsd Su$pnjau4 spasnSsJss uopaun(uj Smsu;w;isad s Su;nss;) (east ssSo$dws ;ussmodw; Jo asqwnu sssSo4dws 5051fl JO st sun( `l~3 `UN) MVS-ettt8S-3 °N 5 suçs;uoa 5~ni $5U1J sqL a;dzuss asp ;osas;u; Saspmd psanpsa sip sqS;sM;no esaapy A seatojdwg;uawuzaAoQJo jo SpaSa;u1 eqs Supas;oad epq~ Sassjad suopaunJ peisjai-Ssniass in -S;sjss 110ISOJO/3OJ uoarIawv ([aea;JJO saqod saisaemd 01 pauS4ssp SjjnJ5lsa ass 54145055 Su;uuoJasd spqst swa;sSs Jsmp ap Supss; Jo ;aoddns 01 Slqsd;alunw `sjni jsumj sqs u psausiajea SS `ss~dwss 01 sspjoqs;sw Snip an sSnip atsq ;ou op eq; Sq) pesuessad ssotp usip supn Jo uopasjjoa Su;nistnS seanpeanad Sqanpu; unps;aodsusa; sq; u; sssSojdws - s~suoqsa Suqjsdwoa SlOW JSJ s s;ussstd sqj. Sasajmd Jo suops;asdxs sjqsuosssi ;sq; sansus 0) Supess Snip psas;s;upups aslsss;p su;p;s ao(sw 5 )usASad 01 sssSojdmus us ;asdsea 0; psiops; Spsdnad IOJ pseu 4S3$1413 sqj pasu eq[j)) (soot fl aun( 113 pac) one S$Mollsu 515 05j5 5)05 l~"1J spp aspun lsuolsnnssuoa sq 01 pSuIlOm5Wp sq $4;M s;xeq ddvsn suet p491 `(toot (No) susws~dw~ 0; pea;nbea s; asSojdws qass `;usua;asds~ asp u;qq~ suopSl4suWpS - - tot sit ddnsj tte uO7Su:qso~ Jo ;sq; ssanpeaoad Supse; isnias 515,7, ieq;n Sq pesodoad susw;Ssa Supss; drqsuMo~ ~ ~ joao7 09ev 700! 0491109 ssaSo$dws Snip aspw;s pus wsSnad Snip-pus suemuearjod :(ssssamasp s;sjxs we~qnid 01 5550) essqs Su;as;s;u;wps uç spaen~ 55503 aq; ;sq; uops;aodsueaj, - Snap s 5smp uo;a;dans Jo ~ sqs;nbsa unpsaas;p sasSojdtus us ;,w;i 03 Japan u~ JO suewiasdsci sip Jo uo;u;do eq; eqs ssssaau~ asSojdwa psa;sdw; us Jo paqjaaswnaa;a 515astss ate osje Su;;sss sIll sqoop woaj sag Slislos ;ou epq~ S;s;aos o; s;soa sql se ;sq; 5A5145~ SM suspjaas-;sod 10 ssnsa s~qsuosssa ~ `s~qsuoseaa, sj qaasss Snip Sso;spustu uo psssq Supses aoJ sluawsalnbeli sjqi u~ sjsnp;A;pujJo ;ssae;u; Sasqmd eqs S asmpsqM usq; Su;u;wsa;sp ueq~) ao;siausS asqwnu wopusa psssq sqSjsMlnn Sjassja `S;sJss a~jqnd sinsus (( `upls}q) (east ct 5~N ~$3 q;a) ct so -mssndwoa S Jo sense qans isuusw 01 Sqsisqs `pus suop;sod pelsjsa-S;sJss zcso s;xa'j ddysn aaet `oSoouopoq~ ajqs;dsaas Sjjsagpus;as 501 p51555 sAp;auss 0$ Slop tnJ jsuuosaed auzppsw Jo A;~ A UJOAAO7 `89 999 `s;xe;uoa sq 0; aeSojdwa us Jo uopae~ss IOJ sjjsa Jo sssusg au;uus;ap 01 Sqsnpuj auippsw aaqso u; ass;adozdds 5; Supss; Snip ;sq; Supas Snip wopusi ioJ ;uswsa;nbs' aqs sq; u; sjsSjeujIn Sq Supss; Snap pszjuaoaea atsq musaSnad Supses Soap `sjdwsxs aoj Supss; Snap Supaopuo3 uç suops(nBsu ptis 5S(0U / 0050 `it asqWSAO~ `Sspuo~ / ttt `ON `05 `(°A / aa;siSsu ~sapsj coot!' OCT PAGENO="0135" O3SA~Jd PUB `~iPflf~ 19003 Otfl 8UIPUPUI JO dpj 018u!s B JOJ ~ ~ 110 ~"D'~!~ PIIBA B 11MM BOUBjMOØDB UJ UBIUI &IB;!l!w 0fl £q ~B1BfljUJ BWBJSOJd £flUBflbaJJ BJBU~BW ~flM Jta)UflpU~ BSIUp ~ UonB3UpUBP!Bi~~~ apn~oaid 8u~sa; WOPUBH 1OUUOS*9d BW!IJBIU BW9UUW U'fl UT ;UBW&OIdwa jo UJUIBU p~noqBBwan33B UT flUBBI B~) aaflTBod Aq BBU Snip SUTIBUTW!Ia LU 8UTanPaI ZUBTBUBJI eqs POTOU OBJB £aqj paijq BUM paws~juo9 B TB~T £JTIBA 0) ~UB BaAojdwa iCq AT!UT~WW03 BW!1TJBW BIfl 01 B~qauaq B~B JO B~ B3uo WUiSOid 2UTTBO; WO~UB1 UB B)BUjBAB ~UB MUTSIBTUT O~ TTUBUI `tT~J B BPT 0 d filM ~U BBU 8flJ~ ; B Lu dwu3 aq~ O~ T3BIq B Lie; TPUWW ) B) RTBOd pBUUIJUOO ~3BB T~IdJ Tu ~uanapp ~~!fl~Jj~ UB Bq o~ uaAoad UUq aq p~OM pue WBWVflOP B,aaupBw 0) LITJOIJ~UB pBozq Boffli BUj uawpadB 2uDBUT WupUB~ wui8oid BuTTUaT Siup ;uBqtuaw Jo LaTSTSUi Ju BTBDUTTJSO Bip Jo UOfl3BTIODJO awn aqi JB SUD~B) aATpaJJa UB JO Tuauodwua laTuawupuni `aBuaaflJTalfl u~~~qu UT ~B1BB~ uaaq BAUq Bq LBW aqa 40 aq iBiji B8fl1~3 uondp9sa.Id B B) Sn )B~) wopua ~aq~ Ba ~fl 11 PIUOM a~uaa dda qul aip in a maw 01 101 Sal Lu p dat 1 L1yunpoddo p~ 0~) 1 B03 aip SupBa; wopuai JO aIIBB) )B03 aaa~paau B B M Sn ~aa; iuawLoidwa UB Ij1lM lB PT 1~U) ua op Au d aql S p000L1UB BO BBI )B11011 1 1BUOD aid )B1)1 hal ajain wino Lu j aainpaoozd B11J 1J0B01 in) n od aip Supon aj1q~ :osuodsa~j 8uqsa~ JuewAojdwe-aId -aafBJ B anopoid 11181w laIp aSnip 1)11) )BB0d0id io B~9UB1B~OB ~)O0J JO uO1lBahJTluaP!BTw Blp JO ~uapi~ alp ~1)M lualBTBuOa jana~ JBaL BO0)Aald atp ioj waiSoad apniaaad 11W 08 PBd BAD s~ 3 Bfl pp B BaqBqdw033B B)Th1 Sn jdwaa Sullall SO p wupu I But SlI1)0d1311lBd pap)Aoad uaaq BB4 1BI)1 BBBOOJd Ma ax ~uaaxad 09 Blp iBIp aaapaq Baaluaunuoa uaaq BUt) JO P~) S0JP IUB3aI (o~ni) JB9UJO MaJAaB )B31p8N aip aaaqj a;npdoaddB B) LJ1Bnpu) B paBBBd BBI1 )Bnp)A)pu) UB )Bl~) aauap)Aa lBlp BøAaqaq piBO3 )BBO3 aip Ljjau)J awpuaw alp IOJ a)Ui Su11dwBB wopu~i LIOIOUJB1;BB Lq ;aw aq Law ;uawapnbai ajax 1 ~3J d (19 B )Bt)l )BBSSOB axa;uawwoa Supaa) alpo iad aqi i~A~MO}4 ajax aqi PIBOD )BUO361p Lq pannbax auawtaada aip ~o Lpio~aw Bt4j Lpanuua ;uaaaad ~O uopahuawaldw! JO1JB Buopau)waxa azLIauB ~UB aaaaoxd u~ SI-Il-lU Ot )B Supxa)a BB)BJ SIi1hdwBU wopu~i 1an!~qd paajnbai t~)M uopoun!uoa uj alp ~ paJpiao uaaq BUt) pua auOpBjnSa1 Jo aSuat B paaodoxd aaa~uawwoa Pat!nb~ aq jflM Supaa; 3!po!Jad Supaa alp 1MM aaqdwoa 1W)) Lio~aioqaj a aqj uaaaaupnq iiawa ~ L1ia)ooqIBd alp ioj Lad 01 trIOM pian~ )1103 alp aBo Lpzo Law iaLo1dwa try aampanoad uapinq aiwouoaa luaa)J)uS)a J1 aajja P aq PIOOM 43)qM ia~~1dl~1) LpolanaJo-u)aqa p)Sp pua apo~aw a aooduq P1000t pua aA)aaaaXa BUM api aip no aiaoa aaaql aoodw! 01 uoaaai on oppuapa alapdwdda Span Blill Suqdwaa wopuai )uaoaad sit paaodoad a) aiaqj auOpan)waxa ~ao)aLqd paa~nbai aqsjo Loaanaoa pua L~pSapq aip amana aip pqi aaa))aq aia~uawwoo )UOfl 101 aiaoo 0t)1 aia Ba ~nawnaop aiauilaw 0) auaw)aada jo a)aL1aua pna uopaaijoo watSoid Snpaal wopuai a Supuawa)dw) luaqoxaw ao LiiarSai JO 0lU3U)hJ~3 Suunp aaouaiaq puB aipaqo JO wa;aLa JO poq~aw aApoaJja-laoo 110w 0l~ aq aauaoq a Su)qaap noaxad alp Lq awoq a apxaoid anopapiSax aaauj ge6t it PIOOM pua 130JJa luanalap ~ aq Ljalapdoxdda ~)00t)1 Snpaai 11301 JOJ jUdy no (sinsu) aao~ajag nawn)) pua a apxaoid PIOOM luawaldwoo aaLo)dwa 11103 0111 jU~)J alp p pa;dopa uaaq lou lp)B0H JO luawitadaIl aip Lq paqaqqnd aapua Olp JO Supaa; paounouuaun aaq piano ~U03 alp Lq auxoq 04 Sp;na) awaiSoj Supaaj SnIU aoaldMloM - pua ~aaaaA JO pun aJo no ;aaiaa 11301 JOJ 1103 aip; 41 00 bOSS a aqj 11~°P1J 1OJ aaupapln9 LIolapuapi wopuax P411101 axaLoldwa a3IoJ)(ioM lao) o1po1tad B 01 iopd awp alp J1)JB pauxapad IJB auOpa)nSO1 awpuaw P011301 Lja;owai UO1JO PUB Jo popad poqa a no aaoJ aan Snip wax; aaauj ot Ixad to 0810 quawai;nbax pazapaoaLlaP)M Blp 103 papa; ac 0) U)a)aqa 0; api no a a 41 11lp a ~ aq~ lp)M Ljdwoo 4OpiM awaiSold aaaLo;dwa SupoajaaJo P0410W paaodoid p a ap aq B 1 04 anoax Supaa; Snip aapnn puB qaqqa;aa aip 41W pauiaauoo L1aajnopxad a 04) ~jfl p 0) p 3 ~aao~ lp aiaLojdwa )Blp aaqnbax api pup auj 11aM aa)uBdwoa LuBpj alan) aqi p aaaop p ; pu a a a op jo Lpjauopnlpauoo alp paaaazppa awo~ L ? ~~`t ° :~ ~ t:~o,oaad 1B01 Snip alamooa amana 0; paMo11oJ Snpaa) wopuaa JO anaa)aql Snruxaouoo pa?x~rJaiapaad pip aza;uannnoo 041 4pM aq 110W t)3)4M aaxnpaoozd 1p)Idxa pappoid aia~ ajuawwoo anoiaWnN aaaxSa paan~ 11103 auj :osnodsay aappada api P1111 B)UJ~ palonp003 Snqsaj wopuou pa) a qona 0110)111 aan SIU~I WOJJ Lpadoid uaq~ aaiJaoua Lpantqa waiaqa Lpaaodwai Law aaLoldwa na aj pna ~aa~ a;axnooa L1awaxpca 01 a) aanaoaq apait luaUa)aP on aaq Supaa; 1101 0OflUWI)JUOO $pi/33 ~t)j auopajnSax aaaq; Jo a~nawapnbai inpixixwJ pip jaaJ LliaiauaS aia~uawtnoo Lpawoqoad~ aaapj/LqdalSo)owwq3 aip Sn)laaw waxSoad Snpaa; wopnai aaqixnj pian~ iaaoa aip Lq anxoq aa~ Span pawqJnoo 04 B 01 loa(qna uaaq aaq aqa ao aq aq;now 14 ~)flOt)1 Snpaal qona Sutia;awnnpa ~anw pnaax ;aa; Spuaaioa 1a)1)n) aap)aod BAIOM1 anoptaid aip mao ;alp 4a)jqrnaa IOJ A1414)100d10l pó ap~ qoaa 1aq1 panpuxa)ap aaq pxafl3 IBBO3 uao )anp)a)pn) P411)10 UO)1)BOd a*p P41 1naWGaJSa ~ 1UOWjU 041 110111 ~O) LuaJo Loaanooa çrna 1)041 JOJ Sn)Ljdda JO aqlnow x)a U)41)M BUM 11041 Supaa; Snip o;paioa(qna L1)lSolni alP atnana 01 JB~J0 uj aSnip pa; Snip o)po)Jad xo ;nawLolduaald aq pinoqa a~uawnoop a iaunaw Jo aonaaaxd ajqpaod aqi Jo ~O)lU3)~~) anoiaaxd a paaaad aaq aqa 10 aq P4l 1014310W pua Lpl)SOJJO aalaOlJIliOO Lxauonijaxd a plalL 01 LIno pa n aouapjaa LioloaJanBa ap)a0Id nao O4M aaanaoq pa~anat pna IBUISIJO JOJ a) ;aa; Spnaaxoa jB)l)U) Ot)1 iaaaMOlH) janppt)pn) na 410; Snap lnawLoldtua aluaoqdda 1Ut)1 ldaOUoO 141 aoJ poddna ;aal Snpxaazoa ~ap~ na Snpnp pap)aoJd aid B 10041)M aSpi 01 axaLoldwa 1)W10d pao~oa aaa~nawwoo Luaw al)4M uaul)oada UJO alaLlana Su~p Lptawpd 01 pO)J)pOW uaaq BU4 01111 (BUn 041 - 10330 apnaai P11 at)paodaa~aJ Lapoj L)Snlpz033y 20)1101 Soil) InawLoidwa (0MOU0~JO noqoaqddy 091103(7 auawioads 110P)A1PUI Jo noqoa;ozd aid oSiapun 01 paa)nbol axao& `P'M noiionnfizo~ or 8urrsoz arpocJod PUB Loatnooa 05)100)31 SU)lailSnowOp aluao)ldda qof ))1 J) )jnaaI plnOO 20)1101 allnaal 9310301 1A)~U0~C0 papdwoo aaoq ;uapnnpai BBOlp000 1B41 BaSpajM000)oB ;aa; Snip aa)paodaajaJ snoanona aa)iola1O414 Luapi apoqlaW Iaopslaua pian3 )BBO3 aqj nialSold Snap);na waxJ paI3alOld B) )Bnp)a)pu! na qO)4M Lq ~)~41 0) pa;aops)qdoa LISn)saatoul BA4IOOJJO LW Jo nauodwoo Liaaaaoan aaoooid a Bap)aoJd oun na Lq Mel-tax naaq aaaq aa)Io1aaoqa~ aw1 1191 B a) Su)laa; luawLoldwoald )B4) ;napnadapn~ 101 alnawox)nboJ 041 41)M 0311)5 I0)30~ 0l0A)Jd 041 pna LJal)))W aaaa))oq pJUn3 1~UO3 eqs :osuodsoy pajdnoo aaaoold a)aL1aUB da;a0M; 041 Olp u) paonpoaln) auzaiSoid Su))aol ajansaa )B41 BOAO)jOq ptan~ 1~1O3 041 LJawWnB Snip Jo B1)JOB laflJ 041 4))M ~33UJJ0O Jo uojaaaoona a no peLo;dwa Sn)aq UI aaroua;aqna ~0OJ to uO)1d)lOaaid aanaa~ 01041 Jo tj3B3 asnodsoy hSOhP anopajnSau 10111 6010)1/ OSOt. `Ii JI4WIAON `Lapnopj i~~iëz ON `CS i°A / 301B)SaB papaj 181 PAGENO="0136" 132 47068 Federal Reglster'L Vol. 53, No. 224 1 Monday. November 21, 1988 I-Rules end Regulations induatry show declining drug use, evidenced bye decrease in the number of Individuals who test positive for drugs over the course of the drug testing program. The Coast Guard agrees with the commentera who propose a 50 percent random sampling rate end, therefore, baa revlaed the random sampling provision of the rule consistent with tha majority of the commenta received In reaponae to the NPRM. The 50 percent aampling rate will provide a sufficient deterrent to drug use without imposing an undue economic or administrative burden on employers and employees subject to the requirements of the regulation. The frequency of testing and the development of a random selection method for testing has bean left to the employer. The requirement remains, however, that the method choaen enaurea that all employeea have a substantially equal chance of being aelecled for leating and that no employee aball know in advance when such testing will occur. A properly designed unit testing program could meet these requiremenla. For aoree employers, particularly thoae with a large number of employees subject to drug tcating, it may be a substantial burden to move from no drug teating to aSO percent random testing rote. If required to have tested 50 percent of all covered employees by the end of the first year, employers might have to teat at rateu far above 50 percent toward the end of the year to make up for lower rates at the beginning. Employers should be permitted to start out at a lower tcsting rate and work up to 50 percent as experience is gained and the testing procedure becomeu adminiatralively routine. We do not want to create a situation which might' lead to miatskee by requiring initial testing at tee highs rate. The final rule, therefore, providea an implementation procedfsre that would allow employers to phase in random drug teuting during the first 12 months In which tests are conducted. Employers would not be required to reach an annualized rate of 50'percent until the lest test collection. The tests would have to be spaced reasonably through the year to permit the employer to pbeue into theSe percent rate, and the total number of tests conducted would have In equal at least 25 percent of the covered population. Suppoee. for example, that an empteyer baa 1000 aensilive safely. and security-related employees. Ate 50 percent annual rote, 500 tests would have to be conducted during a year. Under the phase-in. however, the employer could conduct only a few drug tests at the beginning of the prngrasjs and then gradually Increase the number of teats until, by the end of the first year. the annualized rate of 50 percent wee achieved. Thee, If the employer's drug teeting plan.,contemplated administering random teats on 12 occasions during the year, the employer would need to administer at least 42 tests (500 divided by 12) en the lest occasion, but could administer fewer teats until then. Overall, the ersployer would have to conduct at least 250 random teats the first year. In subsequent years, the 50 percent rate would be maintained. Post-Casualty Testing Numeroui cnmmentere felt that post- casualty testing was a law-enforcement function and was appropriately the responsibility of the Coast Guard. Employers generally objected to the proposal that post-casualty testing be conducted by crewmembers when medical personnel were not available. Respense: The Coast Guard appreciates this opinion. However, in many instances the Coast Guard would be unaware that a serious marine incident bed occurred until receipt from a veseel mester or owner of Form CG- 2ee2, Report of Vessel Casualty. Since time is of the essence in post-casualty testing, the responsibility for ensuring that it Is accomplished whenever prscticsble has been left with the employer. DHHS Guidelines Many companies expressed concero over the required use of DItHS Guidelines, especially with respect to random testing programs which they presently have in effect. They stated that such requirements would force them to drastically alter testing programs which have proven effective. Response: In the notice of proposed rulemaking for this role, the Coast Guard proposed that all drug testing tske place in accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines fur Federal Drug Testing Programs of the Department of Health sod Human Services (53 FR 11870: April 11, 1988). These guidelines describe the collection and testing procedures applicable to all thug testing In the Federal govemmest, end they include safeguards for accuracy end privacy of testing. The Department of Transportation has determined that certain modifications of the DIll-IS Guidelines are appropriate in the context of this and other DOT operating administration drug-free regulations. The result is the DOT "Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Programs." which will be codified at 48 CFR Part 40. These DOT Procedures are Intended to preserve, to the greatest extent practicable, the Important safeguards provided by the Ill-IS Guidelines. Some of the modifications to the DHHS Guidelines are editorial in nature (for example, references to responsibilities of "agencies" are lihanged to reference "employers"). Other modifications are intended to take into account differeasces in the situations of Federal sg~ncies and DOT regulated industries. For example, in testing at remote sites, DOT regulated industries may f'md It isecessary to conduct some kin4s of testing In medical facilities, through use of mobile units, or in ordinary toilet facilities, rather than the more permanent collection sites contemplated by the DHHS Guidelines. It may not be practicable for the regulated parties to maintain en-site permanent log books. Consequently, the DOT Procedures permit alternative collection and recerdkeeptng procedures in these circumstances. During the comment period en thts drug-free workplace role and these proposed by ether operating administrations, comments were received.cenceming the DHHS Guidelines. These comments will be incorporated in the docket for the Office of the Secretsry (OST) interim final rule creating 49 CFR Part 40. The OST will respond to these comments, as well as comments received during the comment peried for Part 40, toils notice following the cod of that comment period. Applicability Many comments were received that stated the scope of applicability of the proposed rule was tee bread, They feel many positions In the marine transportation industry are net directly related to vessel navigation or safety, this being especially true in amuller vessel eperstiens such as excursion beets, and en fish processing vessels. Requiring testing of caterers, bartenders, and musicians on small passenger vsssele, or people involved In faclery- type functions aboard fish processing veosels would prove excessively cestly to the operators and such testing would net enhance the safety of navigation or vessel operation. Response: The Ceast Guard agrees with this view. The regulations to the final rule have been changed to eliminate pre-empleymsnt, for cause, end random testing requirements for employees whose duties do not directly affect a vessel's safe navigation or operation. In addition to the persons discussed above, the Cesst Guard has determined that scientific personnel on PAGENO="0137" 133 Federal RegIster J Y0L 53, No, 2A/Mondav~ NoveMber 21 19f8/R ! 47069 oceanographic reaearch veanele can he dietri'oution, Importetion. end . tenting coata). Theae have been exempted. interdiction of druga in the United lncreaaed In the development of the E / Statea. Moreover, a significant number final regulatory impact analysis. p yes ss s once rogroms of public opinion potts indicate that the However, becauae of changea included Employee eaaiatance programs American public it deeply concerned in the final rule (e.g., elimination of received wide euppurt with the about the effect of drug use by rehebtlitation requirementa and exception of requiring rehabilitation at individualo in critical safety reducing the random tenting rate to 50 part of the program. There wan strong nccuputionn. including the maritime percent), the eatimeted overall coat of opponition from employers to any industry. Development of thin rule it - implementing these regulattona han mandated rehabilitation program, motivated by the current political dropped.from $t2.30 million to a Employers feel it in ennential for them to climate only to the extent that thene maximum of $9.22 million during the retain the right to terminate a pernon'a ettitudee coincide with the Coent ` f' I t' employment, if they denire, should that Gusrd'n ntntutory dutien and euthority. ir year mpe 1 f 720 pernon teat ponitive for drugn. Union The Connt Guard in Implementing thene constant y recurrn$ 0 a commenta generelly favor tome comprehennive enti-drug reguletiona mi on te e year. requirement for rehabilitation of tenting becaune they are connintent with our Exemption of Seosonol or Temporory in mandated. ntetutory authority and responsibility to Employees Response: The Cuent Guard egreen promulgate minimum etenderdn to that rehebilitetion of en employee in not ennure end promote maritime nafet~i. Numeroun requenta were received directly related to the nafety of the , , from amell pensenger venael operators vesnet. The Coent Guard'n concern in Medico/Renew Officers end othere to exclude neasonel or solely that pernonn who are impaired, or Numeroua comments were received temporary employeea. They exprenned are likely to be impaired, are not which indicated opposition to the sincere concerns that requiring carrying out nefety.releted dutlen. requirement that employern hire a pronpective employeen to undergo pre- Employee rehabilitation should bee Medical Review Officer (MRO) to employment drug tenting end to then be decision of the employer or agreed upon evaluate the renultn determined to be nubjected to a random tenting program between labor end management during ponitive bye tenting laboratory, would renult in many individuals, the collective bargaining procenn. The Employere felt that the leboratorlen notably high school or college ntudents, requirement for mandatory would bent be able to esceitein the necking employment elnewhere. Thin, in reinntetement of en employee who validity of ponitive tent renultn end the turn would greatly increase the successfully completen rehabilitation requirement for an MRC) reprenented en difficulty of obtaining sufficient help to hen been deleted from the final rule. unneceneery expenne. , rune neasonel operation. However, a pereon may not return to a Response: After consideration of the nefety.reteted position efter tenting comments on the innue of the MROs, the Response: An stated previously in thin positive for drugs without the MRO'n Coeat Guard hen determined that the preamble. the Coast Guard has modified reconunendation. The person must agree requirements to utilize en MRO are the scope of these regulations to exclude to unannounced teeting fore period of appropriate. The Coent Guard believes persons who are not involved as 80 months. In addition, the provisions of that the review end evaluation functions "crewmembers" aboard a vessel. Smelt 48 CFR Part 5 concerning suspension or of an MRO, en set forth in 49 CFR Peri passenger vessel operators will not be revocation of e license, certificate of 40, provide crittcel end necesasry required to teat employeea serving en registry, or merchant mariners eafeguarda for en employee who is waiters, waitresses, cooks, bartenders, document, end their restoration, apply. subject to drug tenting under the enterietners, etc, provided their duties C m ts th t th Pr o dR / ~ comprehensive entl~drug program. The do not directly effect the safety of the Po/it/co/ly-Mofivoted p ~ Coest Guard t8 a that the MRO will vessel's navigation oroperetiona. Over 80 commenters addressed the. ~mployees end employera who are fish pron~essing5'vessels are exempted. "short" comment period allowed for eubject to the provisions of the final These changes ehould alleviate the evaluating the propoaed regulations. rule. problems associated with temporary Extentions of the comment period for 30 Neither thin rule nor 49 CFR Pert 40 employees. The Coast Guard to 150 deyn were requested. Meny requires that etch employer have its appreciates the concerns expressed by commentesy sus5eeted that the prop?aed own individual MRO. The Coast Guard panes employing high school or college rules he reissued as en ANPRM, while anticipates that smell entities will ege workers on a seasonal bests. others requested that en SNPRM be become associated with large However, many of these persons are issued before publication of a final rule. companies, or will participate in a solely or primarily responsible for the The general perception of many in the consortium of smell companien, in order f 5~~O of the vest I en induatry wet that the Coast Guard wet to comply with the MRO requirements, a e oper ht 1 h t d ce rushing to final rule in this inttence end that the services of en MRO will not - exemp e, e yec c 1.80 8 mp the up.coming electiont in result in unreasonable costs to small o~ttrtt~ng0~or Response: Becsuee this tesue was ` , fewer passengers. Safety concerns are reined so frequently by the commenters, Costs of Implementotion not leenened because these persona are the Coast Guard chose to address these Many comnsentera sIded that the employed on a seasonal or temporary comments although they do not eddress Coast Guard hes serIously bests, In fact, there Inconsiderable the substance of the rule. The war underestimated the cost of Implementing opinisa, and tome evidence, that the against drugs Is one of this these regulations. Incidence of drug use is higher emong Adminlanretion's top priorities. Also, Response: The Coast Guard egrees the high school and college age group. Congress has enacted, end is then the certain cost estimates in the The final rule does not exempt seasonal considering, a substantial amount of NPRM were lower then can be expected or lemporery "crewmembers" from the legislation eddreeaing the use, (e.g.. initial screen end confirmatory nesting requirements. PAGENO="0138" 134 47070 Federal Register I VoL 53, No. 224 I. Monday, November 21, 1988 / Rulea and Regulationa Alternate Testing Technologies nonvessel personnel whenever Tha secend situation that has Testing of Hair A number of practicable. Hnwever, ifs v'eaael is ma generatad interest in this contaxt comments addressed the issue of using location where such personnel are not concerns foreign entities that are teoting technologies different from those available to conduct such teats, breath contractors to U.S. companies. The proposed by the Coast Guard. Three testing would be required to be done by Coast Guard position Is that a marine comments suggested that Radio vessel personnel. Blood testing can only employer who uses contract personnel Immunneesy of Hair be permitted as an be conducted by qualified medical to perform the duties of a crewmember alternative to urinalysia. personneL The alternative, to forego has "engaged" those personnel. Response: Because the suggestion of readily available evidence concerning Therefore, the final rule subjects drug testing using analysis of hair whether alcohol was involved in a employees of Ibe contrsctsr to the same specimens raises an lease within the casualty, would not be in compliance drug.taeting requirements as direct expertise of DHHS, the Coast Guard with the intent of 48 U.S.C. 8101. employees of the marine employer. This does not intend to include testing of hair Conflict with Foreign, State orLocol requirement is necessary to ensure that at this time. tf DHHS f'mds this drag Lows, or with ExlstingAgreements US, companies do not circumvent the testing method satisfactory in the future, Numerous comments indicated that rule by contracting out for services. ___ Some foreign entities and their end if the DOT procedures in ~ ~"- drag testing of individuals was contrary goVernments, however, have suggested Part 40 are revised to include this testing to existing foreign or state laws that this gives the rule extraterrttorial method, or any other proven testing prohibiting such testing. Other effect, since a foreign contractor, like a technology, the Coast Guard will adopt comments stated that the current U.S. contractor, would have to comply them in their rules also. programs are the result of collective with our rule. Breath l'esting Devices: Many bargaining agreements witb affected However, our nile does not require cnmmentere objected to the requirement unions and that the requirements of the any foreign contractor to conduct dreg in the proposed rotes that all inspected proposed rules wilt send them back to testing of its employees. The rote veseets certificated for unrestricted the bargaining table. ocean routes, and eti inspected vessels Response: The Coast Guard imposes requirements only on the certificated for restricted oversees recognizes that some state or local laws operator, I.e., marine employer. It is the routes, have on board at all times en and eomeforeign laws may prohibit or responsibility of the marine employer to evidential breath testing device (EBT) limit the instingrequired under the final ensure that crewmembers are drug.free. approved by the NettonslHighway rule. Because of the predominant rote as enforced by the drog.teeting program Transportation Safety Administration, assigned the Coast Guard concerning we are today establishing. In that They objected primarily to the high the safe operetion of U.S. vessels in respect, the drug-testing requirements initial costs of obinining this equipment commercial service, itis the Coast are not fandamentatly different from and having to train crewmembere to Guard view that these roles preempt other testing and training requirementa. properly calibrate and operete these state laws. The complexity and variable While it is true that foreign contrsctara devices and to perform post-casualty circumstances encountered in the will have to ensure that their employees breath testing on feliow crewmembers. interaction of US. and foreign law who service US. companies meet our Response: After reviewing the concerning U.S. flag vessels operating requirements. the same is also true fnr comments on this issue, the Coast Guard within the jurisdiction of a foreign US. contractors. has revised the proposed rule to allow country requires each auth situation to Nevertheless, we appreciate the carriage of any breath testing device be separately analyzed. seriousness of the concems expressed capable of accurately detecting the We are aware of concerns expressed on this point. Therefore, the finalrole presence of alcohol ins crewmember's by foreign entities and foreign provides that U.S. companies can system. Some of these devices have governments concerning the potential of continue to use foreign contractor been shown to be very accurate, easy to our rule to have effect outside United employees, whether or not they have use, end Inexpensive. States territory. There are several kinds Instituted drug-testing programs. through Because of the wide variety of hreath of sItuations in which this concgrn December 31, 1989. This short delay in testing devices available under the appears to arise, the application of our rule to foreign revised nile. the Coast Guard wIll The first such situation involves a contractors will provide an opportunity require only that such dqvices he used in foreign citizen employed by a U.S. for additional discussion between sccordsnce with procedures specified company. To begin with, we helinve It is governments. by the msnufscturer. This change will fundamental that a foreign citizen The third situation involves a foreign provide employers with sufficient employed inthe United States by en citizen, employed bye foreign company. flexibility to choose any accurate breath American company is fully subject to one US. vessel opereting In waters testIng device competibte with their US. law, including the requirements for subject to the jurisdiction of the United operetional circumstances. The use of drug insting. With respect to employees States-Under agreement between the alcohol is not automatically of en American company located ins United States and Canada. Canadian disqualifying. The weight to he given foreIgn country, ti is not our intention to pilots are required on American vessels test results in determining whether the require an employer to violate locatlaw. under certain circumstances in both standards of 33 (YR Part 95 hen heen The requirement to ensure that American and Canadian waters. These violated is up to the Administrative Law employees located In a foreign country pilots, moreover, may, at least in some judge who can consider the type of crc subject to drug testing will not instances, be employees of the device and the ccodltions underwhich become effective until january 1,1990. Canadian government. Representatives the test wee administered. This additional compliance period Is of tbe Canadian government have The Coast Guard appreciates the Intended to minimize disruption for expressed the view that requiring testing concerns raised about testing fellow employers and employees while the U.S. of these pilots, even If they are in the crewmembers, and allows blood or government meets with foreign United States at the time of the lest, breath samples to be collected by governments to discuss implementatton might violate the Canadian Human medical personnel or other qualified of the requirements of the role. Rights Act. While there is as yet no PAGENO="0139" 135 Federal Register/VoL 53, No. 224 / Monday, Noven~bcr 21, 198BLRU1a.!!!!4~!!!~!!!b009 47071 ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~- -~ ~ ~ ~ -: ~T- - ~ ! ~ definitive underatanding about the governmente to be aucceesfulty reeponeible for the enttre veacel. be extent end effect of Cenedtenlew on completed. - teatS after each aertoun marine tnctdent random drug teettng by Cenedlene * It is the egencyc tntenttoo to tame a In whtch the venal may be involved. It operattog In the United Stntea. further notIce no later than December 1 1909 Ia alao not the Intent of theae ragulattnna conaultatton with the Canadian that would make any neceatary :to neceaaarlly teat peraonnet after each government aaema advlaabta Under the amendmanta to the rule aa a reault of materIal faIlure whIch may lead to a circumatencaa weliava determIned to dtacuaatona wIth foreIgn governmenta aertoua marIne Incident (a g the poatpone ImplementatIon oftha final Shortly after their iaauanca, any auch helmaman who happena to be on duty at rule except for poatcaaualty teating noticea will be publiahed In the Federal the time ofa ateertng gear failure) lnaofar aa It would affect foreign pttota R~lit&. While we recoenize that thia Section 4.03-5 deflnea a medical and foreign veaaela untlijanuary 1 may create aome anomaloua conditlona facility 1990. THe will allow for conaultatlon In competitive artuatlona. It Ia the &ction 449-6 definea qualified betw t b Intention of the U.S. government tn medical personnel. S lementatlonofth: re ulrements of make every effort to reaolve potential Section 4.03-7 definea a chemical teat. thAule. q conflicts with foreign governments baa Although tl~eae final rulea recognize only manner that accornrnodatea their certain chemical teata of urine, blood There are alao lasues about random concerna while enauring the neceaaary and breath to determine evidence of ~tso~einploylflOfU.S. te level of aafety by thoae we regulate. dangeroua drug àr alcohol uae, the Ut during the year The company Is Sect1on by-SectionAnolysis definition Is written In broad enough required to conduct the teats In Thia final rule refiecta aubstantlel the es ftc ta which ma be added Internatlonsi waters, where feasible or changes to those regulations act forth ~ o r ~ 1 y on board the ahip within the territorial the notice of proposed rulemaking. n;u se~u~r ru 05-I baa be n waters of a foreign country where such These changea have been made as ~ revlsed~~e ulre there orti of a testing does not violate the laws of the reauit of the comments received, Issues q ~ ng ma ecasuatyto e ast a foreign country. Where foreign law raised during the pub ic earlnga an h `lt hich ui prohibits the testing of an employee further review within the Coast Guard ~m~aa~e~al treatment ~eyond regardless of his location, Amendments to Port 4 first aid and, in cases involving Implementation of the finai rule, Insofar Th fin i mi d th i i crewmembers, renders an individual as it would effect seth Individuals, is 5 a e a en 5 a a a ng unfit to erform routine vestal duties. postponed untIl January 1,1990, to allow marine casualty and investigation . This varies from the previous consultations between governments. ~ requirement which required reporting of We have determined not to make the comma al ye ala are I v lv din Injuries which Incapacitated a pereon rule sppheable in any situation where serious marine incidents To accomplish for a period in excess of 72 hours. This compliance would violate the domestic this, It has also been necessary to define eliminates the need to repori auch cases laws or policies of another country. In additional terms utilized in these new as sprained ankles whereby an addition, because of the potential iations individual could be incapacitiated for confusion that may exist Involving Section 4.03-2 defines a serious over three days and stilt not require application of this rule in situations marine Incident. Serious marina professional medical attention. where compliance could viulsie foreign incidents differ from marina casualties A new Subpsri 4.06 is added to laws or policies, we have determined and accidents. Some occurrences address mandatory chemical taating not to make the rule applicable until considered reportable marine casualties following serious marine inc dents January 1 1990. in any situation where ~ would not be considered serioua manna involving vessels In commercial sarvice foreign government contsnds that incidents fag suffering vessel damages These regulations extend those compliance with our rule raises of $ao 000) oth oc urran cons i din 33 CFR Part 95 wh h questions of compatibility with its considered serious marine inc dents require datarminat ons as to whether domestic laws or policies During the would not be considered reportable alcohol or drugs are involved In marine next year the Department of marina casualties fag d scharging a casualties and allow for the chem cal Transportation and other Ut reportable quantity of a hazardous testing of Individuals invol ad in marine government officials will be working substance into tha navigable waters of casualties or suspected of being closely with representatives of foreign the United States) intoxicated The regulations in this part governments with the goal of reaching Section 4.03-4 defines an individual require chemical testing of individuals permanent resolution to any conflict directly involved ins serious marina directly involved loser ous mar ne between our nile and foreign laws and incident This rule requires that these incidents policies. The U.S. and Canadian individuals be chemically tasted for drug Section 4.06-1 outlInes the Governments have already established or alcohol use. For an Individual lobe responsibilities of the marina employer s blisterel worklnggroup in an attempt directly involved in a serious marine following the occurrence of a serious to achieve this obl ctive We believe inc dent, that individuals order action marine Incident A marina employer Is thst considerable progress has alresdy or failure to act must have been a first requlred to make a timely good been made and further meetings will be sigorficant causstree factor in the events faith determination as to whether a held in the near future While we believe leading to or causing a serious marine marinecasualty discharge of oil or that this can bee model for addressing incident This would be indicative of discharge of a hazardous substance Is the concerns of other countries, IsIs not human ermr Chemical testing would be orls 1 kely to become a serious ma roe intended to be the exclusive means The required to determine whether or not incident If the employer determines that Commandant may delay the effective such an error could be s result of drug or the criteria for a serious marina incident date further under this section. If such alcohol unpalrment It Is not intended by has bean. or likely will be met the delay is necessary to permit these regulations that the master of a marine employer shall then datsrmlne consultation with any foreign vessel, who, by virtue of position. Is who, if anyons. abroad the vessel was PAGENO="0140" 136 47O72Pederal Register.! Vol. 53 No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 1988 / Rules end Reguletions directly involved in the Incident. The considered to he e violetioo of collections: blood specimens ere only zosrins employer shell lheo teke sit reguletion end will subject iddividuele permitted to be teken by qualified practicable steps to essure that all holdings license, certificate of registry, medical personnel. persona directly tnvotved In the serious or merchant marine's document to Paragraph (a) of thia section apecifiea marine IncIdent are chemically teeted suspension and revocation proceedings that a vessel certificated for unrestricted for evidence of dangerous drug or under4e CFR Part 5. Individuals, oceaa mutes and a veaael certificated alcohol use. Ataw enforcement officer whether or lot they hold a license, for restricted overseas routee carry on may determine that indtviduala other certificate of registry. or merchant hoard a breath testing device capable of than those designated hy the marine mertner'a document, who refuse to determining the presence of alcohol in a employer ahould also be designated as submit to testing when directed to do 50 person's system. The selection of this being directly involved in the serious by their employer or a law enforcement deviceistefi to the discretion of the marine incident. In auth cases, the officer will be sublect to removal from marine employer. However, the device marine employer must take all eny duties whtch dtrectty affect the - must be used in accordance with the practicable steps to test those safety of vessel's navigation or procedures,ppecified by its individuals also. operations. There mey be instances manufacturer. These devices are not This section is intended to allow the where personnel would be unable to reqt~irTad to be carried on other vessels marine employer to balance the submit to such testing tn order to since their routeg will, in all likelihood, chemical testing requirements of this perform duties In the aftermath of a place them near a medical faciltty where part against the immediate serious marine Incident which would be blood specimens can be taken, near a circumstances surrounding a serious neceaaary for the preservation of life or law enforcement facility where breath marine incident. The aced to control a property or the protection of the testing can be conducted, or ins shipboard fire may far oatwetgh the environment. In such cases, the teattng location where the marine employer or necessity to promptly take a breath would have to be delayed or not the designated repreuentative can bring aample to test for alcohol use. It may be conducted, as determined neceaaary by teating equipment to the veaael physically impossible to transports the marine employer. Paragraph (b) requires that marine crewmembar directly tvnolved in a Secfion 4.06-10 apeciflea what types employers have urine specimen serious marine incident abroad a fishing of apecimena must be taken to miat the collection and shipping ktta readily veaael in the Gulf of Alaska to a medical chemical testing requirements of this available for uae in the collection and facility where a blood sample can be subpart Paragraph (a) requires urine shipping of urine specimens following taken snd shipped for tasting. The Coast specimens tube provided for teating for eeriuua marine incidents. Theae kits Guard expects that timely chemical teats evidence of dangerous drug use. Urine reed not be maintained aboard veaaeta will be conducted on every person specimens must be collected and tested directly involved ins serious marine in accordance with the requirements of it they can be obtained within 24 boura of the occurrence of a serious marine incident It trusts the marine employer to § 4.00-20 and 48 CFR Part ie, "Chemical incident The kits must contain all the make good faith determinations as to Teating." Paragraph (b) allows either when such testing (a required, who Ia blond or breath specimens, or both, to ttemo necessary, including written step- required lobe tested, and when it is be utilized to teat for evidence of alcohol by-atep procedures to be followed, to practicable to do an. use. Becuuae alcohol diaaipstes quickly enaure that specimena are property The regulations alan require the from a person's ayatem, it is necessary collected and shipped, regardless of the marine employer to indoctrinate all that the specimens be taken as soon as location at which the collection ia individuals engaged or employed aboard Is practicable following the occurrence accomplished. Specimen collection and a vessel of these requirements. of a serious marine incident mailing kit requirementa are contained Personnel assigned functions to Section 4.06-20 esta$ishes in I 18.310. implement these regulations ahsll be requirements for specimen collection. II Section 4.C6-lorequiraa that body trained to carry out those duties as is extremely important that specimens fluid specimens be collected from the necesssry. be obtained as soon ss practicable remains of crewmembers who die as a Section 44$-S outllnes the following the occurrence of a serious result of marine caaualtiea. The marine reaponaibtlltles of pareons directly marine incident, that they are not employer is reaponoible for notifying the involved in serious marine incidents. An altered or tampered with, and that they appropriate local authority of this individusl can be determined to be can be positively tracked from the time requirement. The marine employer shall directly Involved Ins serious msrina the specimens are provided until the make a specimen collection and incident by s marine employer or claw time they are-tested. To ensure this shipping kit available to the local enforcement officer. When an individual designated personnel must supervise the authority and assist in assuring that the is directed to undergo chemical testing collection process and make certain that apaciman is properly handled and for evidence of drug or alcohol use by the proper procedures are followed. shipped. Recognizing that there may be the marine employer or the law Ideally, specimen collection would be instances where the local authority or enforcement officer, the individual is overeean by qualified collection the cuatndtsn of the remains may refuse requtrad to comply. However, no personnel or by a firm offerings to allow such specimens to be taken, the individual can be forcibly compelled to specimen collection service, either ins regulations permit the marine employer comply with these testing requirements. designated shoresida facility or aboard to explain why the required specimens In cases wbars an individual refuses to the vessel Because of the nature of the were not obtained in such cases. submit to chemical testing required by maritime industry, however, it may be Section 4.06-4oplacas the burden of this part, an antry will be made in the necessary for specimen collections to be ensuring that blcod and urine apecimenu official log book, if one is required to be carried out in remote locations which are property collected, documented, and malotsined, and on Form CG-2aa2B would necessitate that trained shipped upon the marina employer. (Report of Required Chemical Drug and shipbeard personnel collect specimens. Paragraph (a) specifies shipping Alcohol Testing Following a Serious This latter option would only be requirements specific to blood Marina Incident). Such a refusal is permitted for urine and breath specimen specimens, and paragraph (b) specifies PAGENO="0141" 137 Federal Regiater I VoL 53, No. 224 I Monday, November 21, 1988 1 Rules and Regulationa 47073 requirements for shipment of urine specimens for required chemical test." dangerous drug or alcohol use, the specimens. The soggeeted range of ap'proprlata definilionia written to allow for the Section 4.06-50 requires testing order to be used for this violation will be acceptaoce of other types of tests as laboratories to provide prompt analyses a 12 to 24 month outright suspension of they are proven to be aetisfec~ory. of specimens sent to them for teating. an individual's license, certificate of `yjommi~ment of employment" is The testing laboratoriea are required to registry, or merchant mariner's defined to mean the proof of send teet reports to the Medical Review document employment required by 4e CFR 12.25-5. Officer designated by themarine Amendmenth foSubchopterB "Crewmember' as used In this part, ~ :~at:e that The final rule amends SubchapterB, is en important term as It defines vessel any posit e teetreault is not Merchant Marine Officers and Seamen persoonel to whom the regulat ona o attributable to a prescribed medication * by adding a new Part 10, Chemical this part apply. The Intent of these or some other acceptable reason. Testing. Part i.e Is divided into four reFilationa `~ to chemically test all Pa graph (c) ca twos that a positive subparts Subpart A. Geoeral Subpart B mdl id ale engaged or employed aboard test res It by itself sh Itnot constitate Required Chemical Testing Subpart C ~ vessel who perform duties which a finding that the use of drugs or alcohol Standards for Chemical Testing for directly effect the safety of the vessel or was the probable cause of a serious Dangemus Drugs; and Subpart D, itsoperetsonu. This deftmtlon states that marine incident Such a fact may, Employee Assistance Programs. anyone aboard a vessel who is acting however, be considered as evidence in SubportA of this part contains under the authority of a llcenee, the investigation of a serious marine requirements of a general nature which certificate of registry, or merchant incident and may teed to the conclusion apply 10 the chemical testing of mariner's document lesued under this that the uee of drugs oralcohol was its commercial vessel personnel. subchapter, whether ornate member of probable cause Section 10101 Informs the reader of the vessels crew is esbiect to the Section 4.00-60 details the the purpose of the regulations contained requirements of this part. The wording is requ rements for submittal of chem cal in th a part i e to provide muumwn used to include mdividuale audi as testing information to the Coast Guard. standards, procedures and means to be federal pilots who operate aboard a This Is accompllshed through the use of used to teat for the use of dangerous vessel, but are technically not a member Form CG-29925 (Report of Req ired drugs m order to minimize the use of of the veneel a crew While not members Ch micalDrug nd Alcohol Testing sntoxscentn by me chant marine of the vessels crew they are shoe d Following a Serious Marine Inctdentj. personnel and to promote a drug free serving a function, albeit temporary, Following the occurrence of a serious and safe work environment, which can directly affect the safety of marine incident, the marine employer is Section ieioi provides that an the veseel. tile therefore necessary br required to eubmit this form to the Coast employer may teat the .3ample obtained them to be subject to these chemical Guard. In cases in which a Form CG- under thin rule only for the chugs testing requirements. The second part of 2992 (Report of Marine Accident, Injury required or specifically authorized to be this definition states that anyone or Deathl is required to be submitted, tented under the rule. That is, an engaged or employed to perform duties the Form CG-2ee20 shall be appended employer must test the sample for the aboard a United States vessel which is to It. In rsses Involving discharges of oil five major drugs listed in the regulation, required by law or regulation to be or hazardous substances, where a Form Only if, in the context of reasonable operated by en individual holding a CG-2ee2 may not be required, the Form csuse testing, the Coaat Guard license, certificate of registry, or CG-2e925 shell be submitted to the authorizes testing for additional Drug X merchant mariner's document issued Coast Guard Officer in Charge, Marine under 49 CFR Pert 40 (an approval under this subchapter which directly Inspection having jurisdiction over the which would be granted only afar affects the safety of the vessel or its locatnon where the discharge occurred consultation with ~ie Department of ope t ann s ssmilariy eubiect to the or nearest the port of the veeeel a first Health sndHuman Serveces and only requ emente of this pert Thus state arnvel following the discharge. The on the basis of a DI'IHS.eetablished ~ ` ` ,i sri 1 1 and Form CG-29e2S requires th me in test ng protoc I end pon two ihresholdj undo mented crewm mbe wo Id Il employer to md c to all and eduele m y the emptnyer also tcst the sempi be ubiact to the requ rements of ih directly involved use serious marine for that drug. part Certain of these regulations do not I c dent These mdi sduele e to Absent such an appro 1 if the apply to mdi idusls mploy d boa d provide tpecsmene for chemical testing employer wants to test, In addition, for email passenger vessel such an waitere, as required by this subpart. In instances Drug Y, the employer must obtains waitresses, bartenders, and musicians where md vedu la refuse to prov do a c d sample from the employee The wh ho e no d t s d cily ffe t g lb reque ed spec m ne or where for some bt ng of this eec nd sample is not nsf ty of lbe vessel Sc entsflc perso nd eason specimens can ot be his ned under the euthonty of ii ceo reguletsos a eboa d ace nogr phic research en I thie information ebeli aieo be included The employer must base Its request for and individuals primarily employed in on the form. The macme employer ehall the second sample on whatever other the preparation of fish or fish products eubmit a copy of the poestive or negative legal authority Is available, since the on fish processing vessels are also teat results for each pereon designated employer cannot rely on the Count excluded from certain testing ate person directly involved in the Guard regulation en the basis for the requirements. serious marine incident to tbe same request Officer In Charge Marine I spe i t S ctson 16 iOn d fines no e el terms Dongerous drug is defined whom the Form CG-2e920 w a t hued n Pa tie Dongero a di' g level is def n d a bmited Cit mcolle t ied fn d nbrued Employe ssdefnedtom 1 deb ib enough terms to describe virtually any marine employers and sponsoring AmendmenfstoPrsrf5 typeof h mc lie t Allis gbth g nazi ns adeec b db I w TobleS56Oia e s d nihe final to f alrulenauth nly t n M nyofib g let nainth p to nd d a listing for V tat n of hemicel teats of urn hi d nd t mplo~ a v cc m ri employe In Regulation; Refueal to provide breath is determine evidence of each cases, marine employere may PAGENO="0142" )OU JO ø)UJ IBflUUB UR $0 s~nq wopun a pansind aq U83 sjuawaaiBe 1814) aapao g 119d an ot aapun ;uau'naop uo aaaqwaw~an ~S3~ wnw txaAoiduz~ UJ ~ ~fl pavoqe sUaz~;p US!aaoJ eaaUuew ;Ueqaaaw ~o `LqSJSaI ~ sweaRaid SUgea) o; padsai MuM i~ed a~q;jo S;UawaJ!nbaJ JO °T~°!JTTJ~3 aBUaoTI aaq Jo s~q;sU~e8e TUDTWOqD WO~U8J zpq~ )3fl~UO3 o; SUflSaT 041 Jø UogeTUawaIdw! s8wpaaaoad UOfl83OA~I ~UB UOJBUOdSflB eUO)TeZTUeSJO SUyosUode 9911 espnaeq;o sicejep UU)5395 s~qj sUnnp 05 sae~qns eq UBIp fl)M )enp)A)pU) ao mao; Lew saeiCo~dwe CU)JBW a)eqs;o BUpee; ;)q)qold Lew eMe) U8)eAUJ SqL UO9SSdVU) SU)J~fl `eSJeq3 i4snoptead pessnasqs ~eeq seq ~v s)eeq ewoe `ejqweead 5)9)) U) L~sooptead U) ~~~UJO sSeJeeU eqs o~ ssjusea se; wop~ei B U0 saeqwew~en;o Stzgses pessnas;p s'q eMe) U8)eJoJ qsç~ eqs ~aodea ;sow aeLodwe eatgaedsoad )ea)weqa eq; ao; epptoad U) eaeLo~dwe 553)UUOO seeseippe £0391 U01709S' JO ieLojdwe eqs `sees jea)weqa e~pew seainbeioap, uoyaeg saud s;qs pea~obei e seed os 5))eJ p~e )U9UIflQ0~ peszmpUoo eq )OU ~BBU 550) )53)U109)9 JO S5UeWeJ)flbei SUgees eqi seem o; eateq eJeUpew T~eqaaew 10 4(1)5)801 o~poped e s)se~ ~eojweqa peqobes 50U Op seseig pe))Ufl eqs ~o UOflQ)pspo~ jo eseasqsaee nUeDT) e spjoq eflpApU U) e;edpqssed 0) pessjei 50U seq eqs o iaefqns )OU sieje~ U) SUfleaedo Uej) sUo)seiedo Jo UofleS)ABU ~UB s8nsp snoseSUep so; sees ~ea~weqa s~essea 9fl pseoqe siofid U8)eioj s)essea eq JO Lsejes eqs soe~je e pO))BJ )OU seq SqsUOUI 014CM.) oeq; 550) seqs Ljpep Os Uefl)IM s~(j) qdea8eJe~ Lpzseqp q3)qM sejsnp UIOAJ e)qeagos.sd OU ao; wei8oid 8U))se5 wop~ea pe~deocse sweiSoid se U0O5 SB seq JO w~q esowes UI? 0) sae~qns ueeq seq eqsao eq ;eqi 8Ugses wOpUel JO UoflesUewe)dw) 10 `U) 5UOIU&0)dwe ~eoppqp~~ setjs elOid Uea )eflp)A)pU) 99)) J)iO 5qiUOW eqs U) pesqwaed eq )))M qojq~ LUep scow sees )eo)weqa paqobea e seed XIS soopseid ~9)1 ~ sees ~eaiweqa edes pe;eopei8 eqs seqiceds qdea8eaed 0) e))ej OqM )eflpp4pU) US JO aeLojdwe )UewI(o)dwe-ead e pessed seq eqs 5)9)5 eei SUflees U1O~U~9 )Ue3ied-0S eagoedsoidso aeLo;dwe eqj s8nap ao eq seqs eaosd U83 ~eoppqpuj tie J) B 0) SUflSe) SOIp 0U WOJJ L)e;e)peww) snose8UepJO ices e eq o; peJOp)5U03 ecow Os sieLo~dwe JUJ uepanq 5) s8rup 500seSUep so; ices )ea)weqa ieMeUeI 05U03)) Jo ew)s eqs se ~enppqp~~ eqs Lq ~ enue;sqns e eq LewI) ejqweeid e spe; oq~ seen Lwtj pesoopUoD eqs o~ pepptoad eq ~sow ice; )e3)weqa s~q~ U) aeqaee peseoos)p sv aeeL OUO * eq ;sow )eUuosaed Jo Stqsees )e3)weqo !pea)obes 9)380 Jo 81)0901 eqs s)seq jo poped ew~s ~0~U05X0 Ue 20*0 130110 ;eqs sez)eeqdwe rozer uorpag 3)po)aed e US 5UO98U)wBXe )ea)sLqd ow) ;q8noaq LpenpeaB eq o; eweaSoad Stqses )e3)UleqO pei)flbeIJ0 edL oSiapUn os aep~oq 0~U03fl e eqnbes ~un~ wop~ea SMOfiB (p) qdea8e1e~ eqs seiee~pep sied 5)qi ;og yodqng SUO9B)08e1 eqs U09)M (~j) i~5U03 sUOpe)nBei peUIJep ~) UOqBU)wex3 )BUO)8045 ~ 15803 eseqs qs)M seqdwoo LpnJ qa~q~w wedoid ea;o~gpo;nq eqs 1npa1IMOfeese/5 eqs o;;se; )e3)weqo eqs JO 01)0501 eqs SnippUe eejdwoa e lUewe)dw) Os se)sp)q)sUodsea LiosejoSea ep~*oid isow )U83))dde eqs )Uewnaop ejoa 5)qs JO e;ep OISfl3eJJe eqs seiJe easeL pep)oeds eqs ~ os peso eq U83 sleUpIew ;ueqaaew io 05U039) S OM) UeA)8 018 ;aed 9)9)) JO s)Uewea)nbei OUOfl8Z)UeBI0 SUpsosUods 50883 qane so; paqobea 5) U09BU)wexa )83)SLqd BJ) 01)4 o; sae~qns 500Lo)dwe JBM0J U) sieLojdwe esqiew capt sseLojdwe 1001 Lo~dwe O9)M sieLo~dwe OUiJSfl 0) aeJel )sed s)qs U) sUofle)nBea ie~dsqaqns S)qi U) eieq~es~e ))OU)8)UO3 sUo))e)nSeJ Lq peqnbes 5) UO9BU)4UBXO 0)01 S)~ JO esep eagaeJJe eqs eqs JO LU8fl pe)spoees oie seeLo~dwa )80)sLqd 8 10A~U04M )4S)30)4003 eq se~e easeL 01St) U)qs)M sweiBoid BUflsej z)eqs 10 SJOLO)dwe eupiew q3)qM wopUei qsqqe)se ;snw Leqj swoiBoid ql)M SUO))BZ)UeB1o ieqso 10 5U0)U0 ;sow sOnIp snoie8usp JOJ ises )ea)ulaqa Bwjse; L)op o; wn;es 10)J8 ~US 09083 sUoq~aosse sUoIjBiod103 ewnqaosUoa e seqs SesJ)aeds 033911509393 e~qsuoseai wep~aae-;eod 3)po)Jed se)Uedwoa ~)40)3U) 0) POU)JOP ep~q )UewLo)dwe-eid eqs ;uewe)dw) 0) L)psoiq 9) uopozpzoLzo Srzrzosuodg pieoqd~qs e peUB)sse BU)eq 1)09)1 0) e~nr s)qsJO e;sp eeqae;;e eqs sops ieeL z-coe Un op U) 88 sopid saeqwew qeqs Jo sUofle)nBaI eseqs cue Ue15)8 018 ;isd s~qs Jo sweweqnboi peogep 5) ;uapyaur aurzow snoyag 09M 03U5)41033B U) owes wopuea ~UB eqs os ;ae)qos seeLo~dwe 050) 11 weiBoid Bupses Burp )40)351)003 wewLodweeid )30)4U03 9)3)0M sUo)Un mug Lo)dwe oqa sieLo~dwe eupis~ ujo pied cc so; pepptosd eq Lew Be suopIszJUeB1o BuplosUods q8noiqs weiBoad &zpse; ao JeLo)dwe eqs Lq Lpaes)p peLo~dwa 5)50~~pI)4U)JO Bupqq eqs BU)Mope Snip eqs;o iepu)swei eqs ;uawe)dw) eq Lsw )eoppt)pU) 5)9)5 ozcet un Lq Supse; ;UOUVI0)dweasdjo uepinq o~ ieeL eus PUB weiBoid Bupse; gpu) pe)J)aede seqnp eqs ~no Luea o; eqs jo seLo1dwe eqs seaeqas uopaas s~qs )uawLo)dwaeid 8 ;Uawe[dw) 0) 0)01 IeLo)dwe eq; Lq pe;eu8)sap )eOp)A)pu) Jo Su)pioM eq( else) )ea)weqa paqnbei 8)9)) Jo 0)5)4 e*gae;je eqs aepe sqsuow tie e;iaoiJJ~ *sepiay,oijpepy U) epsd)agasd 0) peonjei ;ou seq 11)5 uetiB tie pied s~qs JO s;uowea)nbo1 pepptoid pus eBoip snoseSuep JOJ 150) ~ea~weqa eqs o; ;aefqos seaLo)dwe 05 usqs eq )4)0O9)5 eauepjnS Lusdwoa UepipIM 8 pops; ;ou seq sq;uow ~1~0M) uoqs 090) esow Lo)dwe O9)M tIeLO)dwe OU)1B504 poeweimbes Lio~n5oSei asjnaspied e )00 )OU IOJ weiBoid Bupse; uloptzsi pe;deaae seplo;eioqe) Supse; Lissa ppn O9)M 0) 08 5)5)110 ;qnop eieqjp~ ue o~ )ae~qns ueeq seq eqs 10 eq4eqs ~ is se~si Soqse; dooiS )10305a01 UOfleOpiS 0015)8 s Jo seaue;swnaa~a 0/told 083 )enppt)pu) eqs j~io sqsuow iqsjqo 0; weqs 0)9)BUO pue suope)nSei eqs 00 puedep uepjo ))4M ;Uewaqnbal 11)0 snopteid eqs u~qs!~ 580) )sa)weqa eseqs Lq paqnbai o;aedse Supse; Lio~e~nSes eqs 504030110 Lpsaqsaeds °9)M a~popied 10 )UewLo)dwee1d e pessed - U)5)Iea 00610*0 0) 00009)3 05 Loqs J) JeLo)dwe eupew eqs o; L))eag)aeds seq eqs so eq ;eqs eitoid U83 )00~~pI)4U) iuoqezuieSio Buuosuods 18)4111)5 ieqso U)epied pied 8)9)) U) SUO))5)nSai 01)) 9 pelt)eM eq Lew we )UaIIIL0)dwe io suops)aosse wioj o~ em)) sieLo~dwe eqs Jo Luspj aSasqa U) Uosied aid eq~ )0t11 5) )uewei)0)fe1 S)qs iepswe MOfiB U) pepptoad 5)0)839 10 ia;sew )U088 sapleqa io~saado wqs aansue o; aaLo)dwe eupsew eqs uodo pqs~npe~5 `q )Jed s~qs jo siuawaqnbai SrqSeusw 100*50 9)0890* eusaw o~ 5)001 uepinq eqj sSnsp snozeSuep IOJ eqs qs)M eausqdwoa 0111) ewoa pou)jep Ljpsoaq s)laAo,dwo 9ujrop~ 500) )ea)waqa e sossed )enp)A)ps) 181)4 o; ciaLo)dwe i0~ 0)835 uops;Uewe)dw) ;oeaaqs Uopeu)qwoa 000)00 )0550A 8 pieoqe aeqwew~eia pe)snpeiS e seqspqe;se sogfr 1509393 ao Snip snoieSuep )O1)Oa)e jo wIn; e 08 )uewLo)dwa Jo ;uew))wwoa -. p9)090J Ueaq e*eq sUo))s)nSOi Lue ~)4iq3U) 0) peuijap s)JiioarXojuj e uaA)S es!~ieqso so peLo)dwe peSeSue eqi iI~ eiOqMas)e p005)400 s)uoweqnbei peuga~ 0) s8nsp 01) 000 011189)1 saqnbei 01391 15017393 papptoid p02)9)01 eq o; we~ ~ea~weqa snoza3ziop~oJ;se; ~oarweqa o sjro4(, )u)od peqnbes 8 p0)58; eaeq oqM s)enp)94pu) se)s)))q;suodsei Lzo)e)nSaJ pag~aads s~qs L;psja a; s;UewuieAoS U8)eioJ qs)M spiwied UOpaes s)qs Jo (a) qdeaSs1e~ 1)11)0; 04 suopsZ~usSio Suprosuods ezqqn suOps)nSe)j pue ~~)°Wf 9061 fl J0~5UI0AON Lepuo~ / flZ ON 59 bA / sew)Sea )OJ0~0J thOZP 881 PAGENO="0143" 139 Federal Register I Vol 53 No 224 I Monday November 21 1988 1 Rules and Regulations 47075 less then 50 percent. Every member of a wherever practicable Whenever such specimen provided for chemical testing. given population must have a testing is conducted, it shall belogged in It is extremely important that each substantially equal chance of selection the vessel's officiallog book, if one is specimen can always be accounted for, to be tested on a scientifically valid required If an individualrefuses to from the time it is provided through its basisThè basis of selection isleft to the submit or cooperate in the * authorized disposition. A property employer. Employers may choose to test administration of a timely chemical test established chain of custody ensures individuals: employers may choose to when directed to do so, this fact shall that the chances of a specimen being test entire units. The important also be entered in the vessel's official altered, contaminated, switched, or lost consideration Is that the testing log book, In the case of licensed or areminimized and that test results frequency and process used in such that documented personnel, this will subject provided are. In actuality, those of the an individual employee's chances of the individual to suspension and indicated specimen. selection remain constant throughout his revocationproceedingunder 46 CFR Section 10.330 establishes specimen or her employment Employees may not PartS. handling and shipping procedures. The receives prewarnlng of when they are Section 16,260 requires employers to regulations require the employer to to be randomly tested, maintain records of chemical teats *obtain a specImen collection and Itte important to note that the performed. These records mustbe shipping kit tobe used to collect requirements of this section apply to sufficient to provide evidence of the specimens and return them to the individuals such as independent results of chemical tests of certified drug testing laboratory Items tankermen, federal pilots, state pilots. crewmembers to satisfy U 16.210(b) and required to be provided in the specimen and certain industrial personneL While 16.220(b), Additionally, the recordainust collection and shipping kit are specified. not members of the vessel's crew, they be sufficiently detailed so as to P~ The list is not sll~lnclusive, and are aboard serving a function, albeit collection and analysis of the additional items may be included as the temporary, which can directly affect the effectiveness of the testing programs. employer considers necessary. It is safety of the vessel ortts operations. It Negative reportrecords must be imagined that the employer will work Is therefore necessary for them to be retained for one year. Positive report closely with the chosen drug testing subject to these chemical testing ecords must be maintained for five laborstoryin*veloping this kit. One requirements. Because such indIviduals years. These records must be made important festore of the kit Is the set of commonly work for or through "third available to CoastGuard officials upon step.by.step instructions which describe parties e g pilots associations or request the proper procedures lobe followed drilling companies, and are not properly Subpart C establishes the standards during specimen collection, handling. employees of the marine employer, ills - lobe met when chemically testing for and shipping. Because situations are incumbent upon the marine employer to dangerous drugs. , envisioned where specimen collection ensure that these individuals are either Section 16.301 requires that drug maybe supervised by personnel not tested under programs established by testing programs sublect to this part be overly familiar with these procedures thelremployer or association, or are conducted ma manner consistent with the s ecimen collection mstructio tested under the marine employers 49 CFR Part 40, Procedures for t b ti I m which is established program. Transportation Workplace Drug Testing easil understandable and will result in Paragraph (d) forbids anyone from Programs. These regulations are based lb s~ cim bel o e I serving as master, operator, or person In upon "Mandatory Guidelines for Federal ~ h ndl d~hi~ edt the charge on a vessel Ins position for Workplace Drug Testing Programs.' `1 bo 1 which a license or merchant mariner's developed by the Department of Health g, ory. document Is required unless all and Human Services (DHHS ect,onl6.34Orequires a crewmembers are subject to the random Guidelines). These were published in the laboratories used to cunduct the testing requirements of this section. Federal Registeron.April 11, ises. mis chemical tests required by this part be Doing so could result In suspension and section cautions readers that the DIIHS certifie T e or en isp ace revocation proceedings being Initiated regulations In this subpart are upon the employer to ensure at is against the individual, This change was summaries of the requirements requirement is met. made because It lsunreaaonsble to contained in 49 CFR Part4O. in Section 16.350 requires that each expect that all holders of licenses or establishing apecificprocedures to carry specimen be analyzed in a manner merchant msrlner~s documents aboard a out the requirements of this part, those consistent with 49 CFR 40.24. DHHS vessel be cognizant of who Is and whole regulations should be consulted. certified laboratories will meet this not In compliance with the testing Section 16.3lOprovldes the employer requirement It also specifies the procedures of this section. The master, with general guidence in the dangerous drugs for which each operator, or person In charge. however, establishment of specimen collection specimen must be tested and defines should be procedures It stresses principal Issues when a specimen is cons de ed to h Section 18.24orequizes thst all which must be considered during tested positive. Specimens which individuals directly involved ins serious program development (general Indicate the presence of a d nger us m rine Inc dent be chemically tested for collection site requirements security of drug mcxc as of the 1ev is eat bi al ed the presence of dangerous drugs and the collections te access to the in 49 CFR 4024 shall be reported to the alcohol In acco dance with the collection site by authorized personnel Med cal Re iew Off'cer as posit e requirements of 46 CFR 406 only privacy of individuals providing Sect on 16360 describes the Section 16.2SOrequlres an employer to specimens, and maintaining the integrity information whichmust be included on chemically teat crewmembers for of specimens after they are gi en) each specimen analysis report Only dangerous drug use when there Is Specif cr quiresnents for these aspects spec meets tested aspos I e on the reasonable cause to suspect such 0588 f testing program are found in49 CFR confirmatory test are lobe listed as The decision to test In such P rt 40. and th se regulations should be posit ye on the specunen analys circumstances should be based on the consult d to en rep gram sdeq acy report Samples which are neg live on observation and concurrence of two Section 16.320 requires that a chain of the screening test and specimens which persons in supervisory positions, custody be established for each are negative on the confirmatory test PAGENO="0144" 140 47076 Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 224 I Monday, November 21, 1988 -/Roles and Rogulationa shall he reported as negative on the Subpart D specifies the requiremepts specimen analysis report. All specimen of employee assistance programs. analysts reports shall be tent to the Section 16.401 requires employers to Medical Review Officer designated by provide an Employee Assistance the employer, rather than to the Program (RAP) for all crewrnembers employer. The employer may establish the RAP as Section 16.370 requires employers to part of its infernal personnel service deèignate or appoint a Medical Review program or the employer may contract Officer (MRO). The primary function of with an entity that will provide RAP to a the MRO is to review and interpret each crewmember. The trAP must contain an confirmed positive test in order to education program and a training detemine If there is an alternative program for all pereonneL At least 60 medical explanation for a positive test minutes of RAP training must be result The MRO maybe employed provided for each supervisor. directly by the employer, or the E.O. 12251 end DOT Regulatory Policies provision of MRO services may be and Procedures contracted as part of the drug testing program. The MRO verifies positive teat These regulations are considered to results throogh interviews with the be nun-major under Executive Order crewmember who tested positive, 12291. However, they are considered to reviews of the crewmember'a medical be significant under the DOT regulatory history and biomedical factors, and policies and procedures (44 FR 11304; verification of the laboratory report and February 26, 1979) because they initiate assessment The MRO may, if he or she a substantial regulatory program. considers It necessary, request the The Coast Guard baa prepared and original specimen be reanalyzed to placed in the rulemaking docket a final determine the accuracy of the reported regulatory evaluation addressing the test result economic impact of these roles. It may The MRO provides the final report to be inspected or copied at the Marine the employer or the employer's Safety Council, Room 3600, U.S. Coast designated agent The MRO may Guaad Headquarters, 2100 Second determine there is a legitimate medical Street, SW., Washington. DC 20593- explanation fore confirmed positive test 0001. from 8;00 am. to 3;00 p.m. result that is consistent with legal drug Regulatory Evaluation use. In such casea-thaMRO shall report a teat result as negative. The MRO may The Coast Guard has developed a conclude, based on reviews of final regulatory impact analysis and laboratory inspection reports, quality placed it in the docket As previously assurance end quality control date, and stated, the estimated overall coat of other drug test results, that a particular implementing theae regulations will be a drug test result is insufficient fur further maximum of $9.22 million during the action. In such cases the MRO shall alto third year of implementation to a report a teat result as negative. If the constantly recurring annual cast of $7.26 MRO determines that there ia no million after the fifth year. Although legitimate medical explanation for a revisions to the vessel casualty confirmed positive test result that is reporting program have recently been consistent with legal drug use, the smo effected, existing date does not readily shall report the positive test result to the Identify drug-related cauuelties. employer for further proceedings in Therefore, the Coast Guard has not accordance with the employer's anti- eetimated the total cost benefits of this drug program. rulemaking. However, the following The MRO also determines when an must be kept In mind. individual who has felled a chemical In 1984 there were approximately 2300 drug test for dangerous drugs may return commercial vessel casualties (excluding to work. The decision lamade after the fishing vessels), resulting In $237 million MRO determines that the individual Ia in damages end 68 deaths. Of these, drug-free and the risk of subsequent ~ 1133 of the accidents were directly of dangerous drugs by that person Is attributable to personnel-related causes, Paperwork Reduction Act sufficiently low to justify his or her te. carelessness, misjudgment, etc., return to work. resulting in $77 million In damages end This rulemaking contalna Information Section 16.3&lmendetes that 29 deaths. (It ehould be noted that these collection requirementa in the following employers shell not release Individual elatistics do not include personnel sections; Pert 16, subparts Bend C, plus tact results or other personal deaths or Injuries which were not section 46 CFR 4.00. These collection information from anti-dreg program associated with vessel accidents.) requirements are being submitted to the recarda except' to the Coast Guard According toe 1987 NIDA report on Office of Management and Budget for where requirefly-theSe regulations, to Btretegic Planning for Workplace Drug approval under the Paperwork jgcelflcellyldenlified persons Abuse Programs, abusere of drugs end Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 at seq.). oeaignated by the individual tested, or alcohol have 3.6 times as many Under I 4.06-80, the employer Is personally to the Individual tested. accidents in comparison to other required to submit a Form CG-26s2B workers. There is no reason to believe a similar correlation does not exist in\the maritime industry. On that basis, it would be reasonable to assume that detecting 7.5 percent drug users In the employee population would have the potential for preventing up to 27 percent (3.6 x 7.5%) of the accidents attributabte td personnel-related causes. If 27 percent~f the $77 million in damages and 29 deaths attributable to personnel- related causes is prevented some $20.8 million in damages and eight deaths could be prevented. (Additional savings would also Be achieved as a result of reduced compensation claims, lower medical coats, ançt less time lost due to sick leave.) - The Coast Guard believes that if drug screening can prevent evens low percentage of accidents through drug testing end rehabilitation. the program will more than pay for itself. Using the minimum accepted value of a human life of one million dollars, the saving of but a few lives annually, along with reduced property damage, will more than match the cost of the progrem. This goal is believed achievable, given the success of other drug testing programs. Regulatory flexibillty Act The Regulatory flexibility Act of 1980 requires ruview of proposed rules to assess their impact on small business. in consideration of the cost information discussion under the regulatory analysis, the Coast Guard concludes that this final rule could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small eptites. The Coast Guard has provided viable alternatives for small employers to adopt which would reduce the cost of compliance while achieving the levels of protection sought by these rules. Although unit costs for small entitles for certain services required under these regulations maybe somewhat higher, email operators have the latitude to utilize cooperative services, or form associations, which will result In a reduction of unit costs. A regulatory flexibility analysis discussing this issue In more detail has been placed In the docket PAGENO="0145" (Report of Required Chemical Drug and Code of Federal Regulations, is Alcohol Testing Following a Serious amended os follows: Marine Incident) to the Coast Guard whenever personnel are directed to PART 4-EAMENDEDI provide spec mens for mandatory 1 The table of contents of Part 4 is chemical testing after the occurrence of amended l~y adding the following: a serious marine incident. Employers are also required to maintain records of the results of chemical testing for dangerous Subpart 4.08-Mandatory Chemical Testing drugs under * 16.260. Foltowlng Serious Marine Incidents Involving Vessels In Commercial Service Federalism Implications 4.06-1 Responsibilities of the marine This regulation has been analyzed in mptey accordance with the principles and 406~ R1 p i i d ri criteria contained in Executive Order i i~ 12612, and it has been determined that 4.06-10 Required specimens. - ~,er1ousmarlnelncldent~' VS S C the proposed rulemaking does not have 4.06-20 Specimen collection requirements. . sufficient federalism implications to 4.05-30 Specimen cottection in incidents The term"tndivsdual directly involved warrant the preparation of a Federalism involving fatalities, in a serious marine incident" is an Assessment, The rules affect the safety 4.09-40 Specimen handling and shipping. individual whose order action or failure of vessels in interstate and foreign 4.09-50 Specimen analysis and fottow.up to act is determined lobe, or cannot be commerce and are directly related to the f ~ d ruled out as, a causative factor in the qualifications of personnel licensed by m sa~ons repo san test events leading to or causing a serious the US Coast Guard and their working manna incident. conditions on vessels. These are express statutory responsibilities of the U.S. 2. The authority citation for Part 4 is l~-~ MedICal? Coast Guard and there are no similar revised to read as followa: ` . State responsibilities or programs in Authorliy: 33 U.S.C. 1231,43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 The term medical faciiit3v means an these areas. USC. 2103,2305,9101.5301.6305, ~ usc. American honpital. clinic, physicians 199:49 CFR 1.46, except Subpart 4.40 for office, or laboratory, where blood and Environmental Assessment which the authority is: 49 U.S.C. 1903(a)(1)(Ej; urine specimens can be collected 49 CFR 1.46. according to recognized professional The Coast Guard has consinered the environmental impact of these 3. Subpart 4.03 in amended by adding 101 or n. regulations and concluded that, undcr new *14.03-2, 4.03-4,4.03-5,4.03-6, and section 2.B.2.1, of Commandant 4.03-7 to read as follows: §4.03-9 Qualified medical personnel. Instruction M16475.IB, they will have no I) ` The term "qualified medical significant environmental impact and u part 4.03- efinil 0115 personnel" means a physician, are categorically excluded from further physician's assistant, nurse, emergency environmental documentation, medical technician, or other person §4.03-2 Seriousmartne Incident, authorized under State or Federal law or List of Subjects The term "serious marine incident" regulation to collect blood and trifle 46 CFR Part 4 includes the following e nts n olv ng spec mess a vessel in commercjal service: Admtnsstr Ii e practice and (a) Any marin s lty or a d nt 403 7 Ch ic is procedures Invest gattons Acc dents as defined in 1403-1 wh ch in requ red Marine safety Reporting and by §405 1 to be reported to the Coast The term chemical test means a recordkeeprng requirements Alcohol Guard and which results in any f the scient ficali~ recognized t st wh ch and alcoholic beverages Drugs following analyzes an mdi d ala breath blood 46 CA1Z Part 5 (1) One or more de thu urine salt a bodily fluids or t ssues for (2) An njury to c ewmember evidence of dangerous drug or alcohol Administrative practice and passenger, or other person which use, procedures, Investigations, requires professional medical treatment 4. Section 4.05-1(e) is revised to read Administrative law judge Invest get ng beyond f i-st id and n the case of a as follows officer, Seamen, License, Certificate, person employed on board a vessel in Document Administrative hearings ommercial service whi h rende s th §406-1 NotIce of marine asuatly Navigation (Water), Suspension and individual unfit to perform routine revocation, Marine safety. Alcohol and , i d t'e' alcoholic beverages Drugs (3) Damage to p op rty as d f ned in (e) Injury which requt sprofe onal 46 C'FR Part 16 ~ of this part, in excess of ~thcase of a perso~ engaged or Seamen. Marine safety Navigation (4) Actual or con tru t i t I loss of empi yed o board a xensel in (Water) Alcohol and alcoholic any sd s b;e Ito t spectto d r commercial service `. hich rende s the beverages, Drugs. 46 U.S.C. 3301: or individual coLt to perform routine ~ I (5) Actual or constructive total loss of vessel dulies. a Rule any self-propelled vessel, not subject to For the reasons set out in the inspection uader 46 U.S.C 3301. of 100 5. A new Subpart 4.06 is added to read preamble, Title 46, Chapter I. of the gross tons or more. as follows: 141 Federal Regletes / Vol 53 No 224 / Monday November21 1988/ Rulee and Regulations 47077 (b) A discharge of oil of 10,000 gallons or more into the navigable waters of the United States, as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1321, whether or not resulting from a marine casualty. (c) A discharge of a reportable quantity of a hazardous substance into the navigable waters of the United States, ore release of a reportable quantity of a hazardous substance into the eiil.rirónment of the United States, whether or not resulting from a marine casualty. PAGENO="0146" 142 47078 Federal Register LVoL 53, No. 224 `1 Monday, November 21, 1988 I. Rules and Regulations Subpart 4.06-Mandatory Chemical chemical tests required by 54.06-10 a breathiesting device may be Testing Following Serious Marine when directed to do so by the marine conducted by any individual framed to incidents involving Vessels in employer or a law enforcement officer. conduct such tests. Blood specimens Commercial Service (b) If the individual refuses to provide shall be taken only by qualified medical blood,breath or urine specimens, this personnel. 04.06-1 ResponsibIlities of ttte marine refusal shall be noted on Form CG- employer. 2920 and in the vessel's official log 14.06-30 Specimen collection in incidents (a) At the time of occurrence of 5 book, if one is required. bnvoM~~9 fatalities. marine casualty, a discharge of oil into (c) No individualmay be forcibly (a) When an individual engaged or the navigable waters of the United compelled to provide specimens for employed on board a vessel dies as s States, a discharge of a hazardous chemical tests required by this part; result of a'serious marine incident, substance into the navigable waters of however, refusal is considered a blood and urine specimens must be the United States, or a release of a violation of regulation and could subject sbtainedfrom the remains of the hazardous substance into the the individual to suspension and . individual for chemical testing. if environment of the United States, the revocation proceedings under Part 5 of practicable to'do so. The marine marine employer shall make a timely, this chapter and removal from any emp1oy~r shall notify the appropriate good faith determination as to whether duties which directly affect the safety of local authority, such as the coroner or the occurrence currently is, or is likely the vessel's navigation or operations, medical examiner, as soon as possible, to become, a serious marine incident. of the fatality and of the requirements of (b) When a marine employer 54.06-10 Required specimens, this subpart. The marine employer shall determines that a casualty or incident Is, Each individual required to submit to provide the specimen collection and or is likely to become, a serious marine chemical testing shall, as soon as shipping kit and request that the local incident, the marine employer shall take practicable, provide the following authority assist in obtaining the all practicable steps to have each specimens for chemical testing: necessary specimens. When the individual engaged or employed on (a) Urine specimens, collected in custodian of the remains is a person board the vessel who is directly accordance with 54.06-20 and Part 16 of other than the local authority, the involved in the incident chemically this Chapter. marine employer shall request the tested for evidence of drug and alcohol (b) Blood or breath specimens, or cuatodian to cooperate in obtaining the use. both, collected in accordance with specimens required under this part. (c) The determination of which 54.06-20. (b) If the local authority or custodian individuals are directly involved tn a b §~O6-2o S~imen collection of the remains declines to co?perate in erious artne ci e t a e m C Y requirements. obtaining the necessary specimens, the thef marine ~m~oye.. A l7 ` th (a) All inspected vessels certificated marine employer shall provide an y f in I d e t d all explanation of the circumstances on additional individuals are directly Inspected vessels certificated for Form CG-2692B (Report of Required 1 d I th se o a marine n dent ~ 1 re eq ted Chem c 1 Drug nd A h 1 Te ts g I 0 ch p ~ ~0~oY~:~:il to h e n b d t all t mesa br th Following a Ser a Ma me I cod 5) individuals tested in accordance with testing device capable of determining 14.06-40 Specimen handling and paragraph (b) of this section. . the presence of alcohol in a person u shipping. (d) The requirements of this subpart system. The breath testing device shall (a) The marine employer shall ensure 1 not p e e t vessel personnel who be s d in d nce w th procedures th t blood spe m 11 ted n are required tube tested from ~7i~ The n~ai Icr aill ensure accordance with II 4.05-20 and 4.06-30 performing duties in the aftermath of ~ that urine s ecimen coll~'ction and are promptly shipped to a testing serious marine incident when their . . . . . I d t th shipping kits meeting the requirements iT q per orm nce is ecess ry th of 18.330 of this part are readily such specimens. A proper chain of I' p y available for use followin oerioua custody must be maintained for each protection of the environment. i i t m specimen from the time of collection (e) The marine employer shall ensure . .` ~°. £ th h th th d d .t I ti th t 11 nrhvid Is engaged..or employed collect nands pp ngkit need tht be up c BI d p me s m t be on board a vessel are fully indoctrinated , , y shipped to the laboratory in a cooled in the requirements of this subpart, and cat~s ot 2~r~ise e rea ~ fth condition by any means adequate to that appropriate vessel personnel are °~ e ensure delivery within tweniy.four (24) trained as necessary in the practical i d t hours of receipt by the carrier. applications of these requirements. (c) The marine employer shall ensure (b) The marine employer shall ensure I ~i t th S V ~ that specimens required by I 4.06-10 are that the urine specimen collection th~° be S I d c with th collected as soon as practicable procedures of 5 16.310 of this part and implemo~°ntstton schedule provided in 46 following the occurrence of a serious the chain of custody requirements of CFR 16.205 and 16.207. marine incident, 5 16.320 are complied with. The marine (d) When obtaining blood, breath, and employer shall ensure that urine §4.06-5 Responsibililies of individuals urine specimens, the marine employer specimens required by §14.06-20 and directty Isvoived In serious marine shall ensure that the collection process 4.06-03 are promptly skipped to a incidents, is supervised by either qualified laboratory complying with the (a) Any individual engaged or collection personnel, the marine requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Urine employed on board a vessel who is employer, a law enforcement officer, or specimens must be shipped by an determined to be directly involved in a the marine employer's representative, expeditious means, but need not be seriosa marine incident shall provide (e) Chemical tests of an individual's shipped in a cooled condition for blood, breath or urine specimens for breath for the presence of alcohol suing overnight delivery. PAGENO="0147" § 4.06-50 Sp.clmen analysIs and follow- up procedures. (a) Each laboratory will provide prompt analysis of specimens collected under this subpart, consistent with the need to develop all relevant Information and to produce a complete analysts report. (b) Reports shall be sent to the Medical Review Officer meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 40.27, as - designated by the marine employer submitting the specimen for testing. Whenever a urinalysis report Indicates the presence of a dangerous drug or drug metabolits, the Medical Review Officer shall review the report as required by 49 Viol lion of Rag I to CFR 40.27 and submit his or her findings Refusal to provide spent. 1224. to the marine employer. Blood test mens for required chemical reports indicating the presence of alcohol shall be similarly reviewed to _______________________________ determine if there is a legitimate medical explanation. (c) Anslyuis results which indicate the presence of alcohol, dangerous drugs, or drug metabolites shall not be construed by themselves as constituting a finding that use of drugs or alcohol was the probable cause of a serious marine incident. 4.06-60 `iubmlssion of reports and test results. (a) Whenever an individual engaged or employed on a vessel is identified as being directly involved in a serious marine incident, the marine employer shall complete Form CG-2692B (Report of Required Chemical Drug and Alcohol Testing Following a Serous Marine Incident). (b) When the serious marine incident requires the submission of Form CG- 2692 (Report of Marine Casualty, Injury or Death) to the Coast Guard in accordance with 4.05-10, the report required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be appended to Form CG-2692 (c) Inincidents invttlving discharges of oil or hazardous substances as described In 403-2(b) and (c) of this psrh when Form CG-2892 is not required to be submitted, the report required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be submitted to the Coast Guard Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. h ving jurisdiction ov r the location where the discharge occurred or nearest the port of first arrival following the discharge. (d) Upon receipt of the report of chemical test results, the marine employer shall submit a copy of the test results for each person listed on the CG- 26920 to the Coast Guard Officer in Charge. Marine Inspection to whom the CG-2692B was submitted. 143 Federal Register I Vol 53 ?~o 224 / Monday November 21 1980 / Rules and Regttlatldns 47070 PART 5-IAMENDED] personnel and to promote a drug free and safe work environment. 6. The authorl~r citation for Part (b) These regulations prescribe the continues 5 o owe. minimum standards, procedures, end Authority: 40 U.S.C. 7101, 7301. and 7701; 50 means to be used to test for the use of U.S.C. 199:40 CFR 1.40(b). dangerous drugs. § 5.569 (~mesded) (c) As part of a reasonable cause drug 7. In § 5.569 add to Table 5.589 the testing program established pursuant to following new offense after this part, employers may test for drugs Incompetence: in addition to those specified in this part only,wlth approval granted by the Coast Guard under 49 CFR Part 40 and for ________________________________ substances for which the Department of Type of offense Range of order (In Health and Human Services has mantha) established an approved testing protocol and positive threshold. §16.105 DefInItIons of terms used In thIs part. Chemical test" means a scientifically recognized test which analyzes an individusl's breath, blood, urine, saliva, & A new Part lOis added to bodily fluids, or tIssues for evidence of Subchapter B to read as follows: dangerous drug or alcohol use. Commitment of employment means PART 16-CHEMICALTESTING the proof of employment required by 48 CFR 12.25-S. Subpart A-General "Crewmember" means an individual sec. who is: 18.101 Purpose of regulations. (s) On board a vessel acting under the 18.105 Definitions of terms used in this part, authority of a license, certificate of Subpart B-Reqslred ChemIcal TestIng registry, or merchant mariner's 18201 AppIl document issued under th:s subchapter 18.205 Implementation of chemicul testing whether or not the individual is a programs, member of the vessels crew; or 10207 C 11111w ih f gn I or (b) F.ngaged or en:ployed on board a 10.210 Pre.employment testing vessel owned in the United States that is requirements. required by law or regulation to engage, 16.220 PeriodIc kesting requirements, employ, or be operated by an individual 18 40 S ri mm ~d ~ g hold ng a Ii ense con ficate of registry or merchant manners document issued 10.250 Reasonable cause testing under this subchapter, except the requirements, following; 10.250 Records. (1) Individuals primarily employed in Subpart C-Standards for Chemical Testing the prepsrstion of fiSh or fish products for Dangerous Drugs. or tn a support ponition not related to le.301 Procedures for Transportation navigation on a fish processing vessel: W kpi U gT 11 gP g m (2) Sclentif c personnel on a 18.310 General. oceanographic research vessel; and 18.320 Chain of custody. (3) Individuals not required under Part 18330 Speclm h dli g d ehlppi 15 of this subchapter who have no dut es 18 340 To ii bo I ry req rem I wh oh directly affect the safety of the ~, vessel sos gatlon or operations 16370 ~t d 16 ~ o~n Dangerous drug means a narcotic 18350 6 1 on f f in Ho drug controlled substance and marijuana (as defined in section 102 of Subpart D-Employee AssIstance the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 18.401 Employne Assistance Program (EAP). U.S.C. 802)). Aslhortly: 40 U.SC. 2103.3300.7101.73111. Dangerous drug level"means the 01.49 C `RI. . amount of traces of dangerous drugs or Subpart A-General drug meisbolites in an individual's breath, blood, urine, saliva, or body § 16 101 Pu pose of reg laiions fluids or tisa Cs (a) The regulations in this part provide "Drug test"means a chemical teat of a means to minimize the use of an Individual's urine for evidence of intoxicunts by merchant marine dangerous drug use. PAGENO="0148" 144 47080 Federal Register I VoL 53, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 1988 / Rifles and Regulations "Employer"mesns a marine employer the vessel's navigation or operations as I le.20r'Confllet wish foreign laws. or sponsoring organization, anon as practicable. - (a) This part ahall not apply to any Foils o chemicol test for dongeross (e) An Individual who has failed a person for whom compliance with this drugs" means the test result Is reported required chemical test for dangerous part would violets the domesttc laws or as poaitivs for the presence of drugs may not be reemployed aboard's ppltctes of another country. dangerous drugs or drug metabotites In vessel until the requirements of (b) This pert Is not effective until an individual's system after s Medical l le.37o(dj of this pert end 48 CFR Part January 1, 1990, with respect to any Review Officer's review In accordance 5, if applicable, have been satisfied person for whom a foreign govemment with 49 CFR 40.27. contends that application of this part "fntoxicont" means any form of 118.205 ImplementatIon of chemical reuses questions of compatibility with alcohol, dangerous drug. or combination ~ Pl'0W551s. that coun'try'I domestic laws or policies. thereof. (a) Each employer who employs more On or before December 1, 1989, the "Morine amployer"means the owner, than 50 employees required to be tested `Commandant shall issue any necessary managing operator, charterer, agent, under this part shall tmplement the pre~ amendment resolving the applicability master, or person In charge of a vessel, employment testing program required In of this part to'Sucb person on and after other than recreational vessel. 18.210 not later than June 21, 1959. All January.'l, 1990. "Medicol Review Officer" means an other employer testing programs Individual designated by the employer required by this part shall be I 16.210 Prs.'employment testing to carry out the duties specified in implemented not later than December requIrements. * 15.370 of this part. 21, 1989. ( a) No marine employer shall engage, "Serious nsorine incident" means an (b) Each employer who employs from employ, or otherwise give a commitmant event defined in 48 CFR 4.03-2. 11 to 50 employees required to be teased of employment to, any individual to "Sponsoring orgonizotion"ls any under this part shell implement the pra- serve as a crewmember unless the company, consortium, corporation, employment, serious marine Incident, tndivldual passes a chemical test for aaaocistion, union, or other organization and reasonable cause testing prngrams dangerous drugs for that employer. with which IndivIduals serving to the required by this part not later than (b) The individual Is not required to marine Indastry, or their employers, are December 21, ieee. The random teating undergo the pre.employment test associated. pmgrams required by 18.230 of this required by paragraph (a) of this section "Vessel owned in the United Stotes" part shall be implemented not later than If the individual provides satisfactory means any vessel documented or December 21, 1590' evidence that he or she has; numbered under the laws of the United fc) Each employer who employs 10 or (1) Passed a pre-employment teat for States; and any vassal owned by a fewer employees required to be tented the marine employer or another citizen of the United States that is not under this part shall Implement the employer, or a periodic chemical teat for documented or numbered by any nation, employer testing programs required by dangerous drugs, within the previous aix this part not later than December 21, months; or Subpart B-RequIred ChemIcal TestIng ~ (2) Been subject to a random testing ieioi Application. Id) During the first 12 months program meeting the criteria of I 10230 a) Chemical testing of peraounel must following the institution of random drug of this part during the previous twelve be conducted as required by ~ tenting pursuant to this section, an months, has not failed a chemical test subpart. employer shall meet the following for dangerous drugs, and has not refused (b) if an individual fails a chemical conditions; to participate in required chemical tests. test for dangerous drugs under this port, (1) The random drug testing Is spread the individual will be presumed to bee reasonably through the 12-month period; g 16.220 PeriodIc testing requirements. user of dangerous drugs. (2) The last test collection daring the (a) Whenever a physical examination (c) if an individual holding a license, year is conducted at an annualized rate Is required for an individual by this certificate of registry, or merchant of 50 percent; and subchapter. a chemical teat for mariner's document fails a chemical test (3) The total number of tests dangerous drugs must be Included as a for dangerous drugs. the Individual's conducted during the 12 months is equal part of the physical examination. If a employer or prospective employer shall to at least 25 percent of the covered physical examination is required for a report the test results In writing to the population, license or merchant mariner's document nearest Coast Guard Officer in Charge, (a) The periodic testing requircmcnta application, the applicant shall provide Marine Inspection (OCMJ). The of I 16.220 apply to phyoical the results of the chemical teat individual shall be denied employment examinations performed after December administered as part of the physical ass crewmember or removed from 21, isso. examination to the Coast Guard duties which directly affect the safety of (ft When a vessel owned In the United Regional Examination Center (REC). For the vessel's navigation or operations as States Is operating in waters that are nut those individuals required by this soon as practicable and shall be subject subject to the jurisdiction of the United subchapter to receive physical to suspension and revocation States, the testing requirements of examinations on a periodic basis, the proceedings against his or her license, *1 16210 and 16.230 do not apply to a Individual shall provide the result of certificate of registry, or merchant citizen of a foreign country engaged or each required chemical test to the REC mariner's document under 46 CFR Part 5. employed as pilot in accordance with at the time the individual applies furs (d) If an Individual who does not hold the laws or customs of that foreign renewal of his or her licenae. Only the a license, certificate of registry, or country. results of those chemical teats taken merchant mariner's document fails s (g) Upon written request of an since the Individual's moat recent chemical teat for dangerous drugs, the employer. Commandant (C-htMl) will license renewal need be submitted. individual shall be denied employment review the employer's chemical testing (b) The individual is not required to as a crewmember or removed fmm program to determine compliance with undergo the periodic chemicul test duties which directly affect the safety of the provisions of this part requirad by parsgraph (a) of this section PAGENO="0149" 145 - Federal Register I Vol 53 No 224 1 Monday Nosember 21 1988 I Rules and Regulations 47Ol~1 If the IndivIdual provIdes satiafactory under tHe subchapter who Is certtfled by lbs Department of Health evidence that he or she hat: reasonably suspected ofuain~ a and Human Services (DHHS). (1) Passed a pm-employment or a dan~emua drug to be chemically tested periodic chemical teat for dan~eroua for dan~emua druga. 1t3 5MM drugewithin the previous aix months or (14 The marine employer a decralon to (a) Collection site The employer ahall (2) Been subject to a random leafing teal moat be based on a reasonable and ensure that the cc?llectioa site Is program machog the criteria of § 10 230 articulabla belief that the mdi idoal has ad~qoate to prov da fortha collection of the part darIng the previous twelve used a dangeroas drug based on direct security temporary storage and months, has not failed a chemical test observation of specific. shipping of specimens to a certified drug for dangerous drugs, and has not refused contemporaneous physical,behevioral, lasting laboratory. to participate in required chemical tests. or perforahance indicators of probable (hj.Secorisy. Procedures shall provide use Where practicable this belief for the collection site to be secure. § 16.230 Random testing reqslremenis. should be based on the observstion'of Collection sites dedicated solely for (a) Marine employers shall provide for the Individual by two persons In speconan collection must be secure at the selection of crawmembera for supervisory positions all times Collection sites which are not chemical testing for dangerous drugs 00 (c) When the marine employer dedicated solely for spec men collection a random basis Random selection of reqwres lasting of so individual under moat be secured during specimen Individual crewmembers means that the provisions of this section the collection every member of a given population has Individual must be Informed of thaI fact (c)Access to outhorized personnel a substantially equal chance of selection and directed to provide a urine only. No unauthorized personnel shall one smentlficslly valid basis The specimen as soon as practicable This be permitted in any part of a c llection testing frequency and selection process fact shall be entered in the vessel's site when specimens are collected nor shall be such that an employee a chance offic sl log book if one Is required shall unauthorized personnel be all w d of selection continues to exist (d) if an individual refuses to provide access to stored specimens. throughout his or heremployment. a urine specimen when directed to do so (d)Prii'ocy. Procedures for collecting Random selection may be accomplished by the employer under the provisions of urine specimens shall allow for by periodically selecting one or more this section this fact shall be entered in individual privacy unless there is reason vessels and testing all crawmsmbars th r ` ftc' 11 b k `f i to believe that a particular individual aboard, provided each vessel subject to aet~le so i a og 00 . ~ may sitar or substitute the specimen to the marine employer's lest program q . he provided. remains equally subject to selection § 16250 Records. (e) Integrity of specimens Collect on (h) Marine employers may form or (a) Employers shall maintain records site personnel shall take precosilona in otherwise use sponsoring orgemzstiuns of chemical tests which the Medical ensure that each specimen Is not ormsy use contractors to conduct the Review Officer reports as positi e for adulterated or diluted dur ng the random chemical testing programs a period of a least a years end shell collection process. requiredhytiuspert. alt th rd 1 hI I C I (c) Each marine employer shell ensure Guard officiala upon request Records of §15320 Chain of csiatody thai crewmembere are tested on a tests reported as negative" shall be (a) A chain of custody fur each random basis elan annual rate of not retained for one ear specimen lobe chemically tested shall less than 50 percent. ` . , be established and maintained from the (d) An individual may not be engaged a ecor as a a su c en 0 time of specimen collection through the or employed, including self employment, (1) Satisfy the requirements !~ testing of the specimen. one vessel ins position as master §1 33210(b) and ie 220(b) of this part (h) ifs ape imen is not imm d siely operator, or person in charge for which a (2) Identify the total number of prepared for shipment, It shall be license or merchant mariner's document individuals chemically tested annually safeguarded during temporary storage. is required by law or regulation unlees for dangerous drugs in each of the (ci Every effort shall hem de to all crewmerebere are subiect to the categories of sealing requ red by this minimize Ihe number of pa sans andom testing req i emenis of to part includ ng the annual numbe of handling specimens section. individuals failing chemical tests and the number end types of drugs for which § 16.330 Specimen hsndsng end shippiag. §1~ 240 SerIous msrineincideat seating Individuals tested positive (a) The employer shall obtains The marine employer shall ensure that Subpart C-Stsndsrds for Chemical specimencac~onsadshippmgkiio all persons directiy involved ins sertaoa Testing for Dsngerous Drugs them to the cart fled drug teal ng marine incident are chemically seated § 16.301 procedures forTrsnsporlstion laboratory. or cvi ence o engerous rugs en Workplace Daug Teasing Progrsme (h) The spar men collection and reqoireoienlsof4eCliR4 o~ Drug test ng programs subject ta th shipping kit as requ red by 49 CFR P rt part shell be conducted in accordance 40. shell contain. § 16.250 Reasonable cause testing with 49 CFR Pert 40 Procedures for (1) Plastic urine specimen bottles i requiremenla. Trensporiet an Workplace Drug Testing auff'c ens quantity to eccommodat lh (a) The manna employer shall require Proc ma This a bpe I summari people lobe tested sny crewmember engaged or employed requirements for drug test g programs (2) Means for seal ng and ident fy g n boards easel owned In the Untied contained In those regulations `lhoae specimen botti St tee that is required by law o regol lions should be consulted to (3) Chain of custody fo m regulation to engage, employ or be determine the specific procedures which (4) A set of step'by-step Instructions opereted by an nd vidu 1 holding mast he eat hi sh d nd utilized Drug wh ch des nba the proper procedur s to 1 cense cart frele f reg stay or teat ng p agr ma q d by this part be followed di log specimen colic tin merchant meriner a document isa d shell use only drug I I ng 1 ho tortes hanoI ng a d sh pp ng end PAGENO="0150" 146 47082 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 224 I Monday, November21. 1988 / Rules and Regulations (5) Shipping materials. (c~ The marine employer shall ensure that specimens are promptly shipped to a certified testing laboratory meeting the requirements of 16.340. Chain of custody documents must accompany each specimen from the time of specimen collection through shipment to and testing by the laboratory. (d) Specimens shall be shipped by an expeditious means. * 15.340 Test laboratory requlrsmsnts. (a) The employer shall ensure that all chemical testing for dangerous drugs required by this part is conducted bys DHHS certified laboratory. (b) The laboratory shall meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. * 15.350 SpecImen analysis. (a) Each specimen shall be analyzed in accordance with 49 CFR 40.24, which requires testing for (1) Marijuana; (2) Cocaine; (3) Opiates; (4) Phencyclidine (PCP); and (5) Amphetimlnes. (b) A specimen which indicates the presence of a dangerous drug eta level equal to or exceeding the levels established in 49 CFR 40.24 is reported to the Medical Review Officer as positive. *16.340 Spedmensnslysis reports. (a) The laboratory shall report all test results as required by 49 CFR 40.24(g). Reports are made within an average of five days after receipt of a specimen by the laboratory. (b) The laboratory reports as negative all specimens which are negativeon the Initial test or negative on the confirmatory test. Only specimens confirmed positive are reported positive to the Medical Review Offlcerfor a.. specific drug or drug metabolic. * 16.370 MedIcal review officer. (a) The employer shall designate or appoint a Medical Review Officer (MRO) meeting the qualifications of 49 CFR 40.27. If the employer does not have a qualified individual or staff to serve as MRO, the employer may contract for the provision of MRO services as part of its drug testing program. (b) The MRO shall review and interpret each confirmed positive teat result in accordance with 49 CFR 40.27. (c) lithe MRO verifies a laboratory confirmed positive report, the MRO shall report the positive teat result to the employer or the employers's designated agent. (d) Before an individual who has failed a required chemical teat for dangerous drugs may return to work aboard a vessel, the MRO shall determine that the individual is drug- free and the risk of subsequent use of dangerous drugs by that person Is sufficiently low to justify his or her return to work. In addition, the individual shall agree lobe subject to increased, unannounced testing for a period as determined by the MRO of up toOt) months. * 16.380 Release of Information. (a) Except as provided for in this pert and in * 4.06-60 of this chapter, an employer shall not release individual test results or other personsl information for anti-drug program records. (b) Individual results from drug tests required by this part may be released if the individual tested signs a specific authorization for the release of the.. results loan identified person. - (c) Nothing in this section shall prevent an individual tested under this part from obtaining the results of that teat. Subpart D-Employee Assistance Programs §16.401 Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The employer shall provide an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for all crewmembers. The employer may establish the EAP as a pan of its internal personnel services or the employer may contract,with an entity that will provide EAP services to a crewinember. Each EAP must include education and training on drug use for crewmembera and the employer's supervisory personnel as provided below; (a) LAP education program: Each EAP education program must include at least the following elements; display and distribution of informational material; display and distribution of a community service hot.line telephone number for crewmember asaistance, and display and distribution of the employer's policy regarding drug and alcohol use in the workplace. (b) HAP training program: An EM' training program must be conducted for the employer's crewmembers and supervisory personnel. The training program must include at least the following elements: the effects and consequences of drug and alcohol use on personal health, safety, and work environment; the manifestations and behavioral cues that may indicate drug and alcohol use and abuse; and documentation of training given to crewmembers and the employer's supervisory personnel. Supervisory personnel must receive at least 60 minutes of training. . .. November 14,1986. Clyde T. Luck, Jr.. ViceAdmirol, U.S. Coast CuardActing Commandant. [FR Doc. 8e-2ae14 Filed ii-is-aa 3:50 pm) 5ILUNO COOS 4819.14.5 PAGENO="0151" Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary 49CFR Part 40 Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Programs Interim Final Rule 147 Monday November 21, 1988 Part II I I PAGENO="0152" 148 47002 Federal Reglalar I Vol. 53, No. 224 I Monday, November 21, 1988 I Rulea and Regulationa DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Tranaportation Admtniatration, and the safeguarda for accuracy and priva~.g Research and Special Programs in drug tasting established by the HHS Offic. of the Secretary Administration) are issuing regulations Guidelines whtla ensuring that parties 49 CFR Part 40 requiring antidrug programs in the regulated by DOT can practically aviation, motor carrier, railroad, implement the requirements. [Docket No.45924 Notice No. 55"171 maritime, mass transit, and pipeline We would call particularly to the RiN 2105-AB42 industries, respectively, attention of commentem the following The proposed regulations for these revisions. This is not an exhaustive list Procedures for Transportation operating administration rules proposed of all modifications to the HHS Workplace Drug Testing Programs that employem conduct drug testing Guidelines published in this document. AoaNcY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. according to the "Mandatory Guidelines The Department seeks comments on all for Federal Workplace Drug Testing aspects of this interim final rule. ACTION: Interim final rule. Programs" of the Department of Health In § 40.2, definitions of "employer" SUMMARY: The Department of and Human Services (DHHS). The "totS and "employee" have been added. The Transportation is adopting ~ Guidelines," as this document is known, former definition includes consortia, but modification of the Department of were published in the Federal Register points out that individual members of a Health and Human Services' on April 11, 1988 (53 FR 11970). They consortium are not relieved of their "Mandatory Guidelines for Federal were based ens notice of proposed responsibilities under the rule by virtue Workplace Programs." The purpose of rulemaking (NPRM) published August of participation in the consortium. As the modification is to adapt the 14, 1987 by DHHS, and on comments to provided in the operating administration procedures and safeguards developed that Nt'RM. drug rules, the testing rate of 50 percent by the Department of Health and The HHS Guidelines include can relate to the entire employee Human Services more closely to the procedures for collecting urine samples population covered by a consortium; the `circumstances of drug testing programs for drug testing. procedures for definition does not mean that 50 percent in industries regulated by the transmitting the samples to testing of the work force of each consortium Department of Transportation. Antidrug laboratories, testing procedures, : member must be tested ins year. program rules published by the procedures for evaluating teat results, Under the FtHS Guidelines, a Federal Department's operating administrations quality control measures applicable to agency may teat a urine sample only for wilt require employers to conduct drug the laboratories, recordkeeping and certain specified drugs. The testing according to these Procedures. reporting requirements. and standards Department's Procedures echo this DAna: This rule is effective December and procedures for HHS certification of requirement Under § 40.21(c). an 21, 1988. Continents should be received drug testing kaboratories. The intent of employer may teat the sample obtained by )anuary 23, 1989. Late.filed comments' the Guidelines is to aafeguard the under a DOT drug rule only for the drugs wilt be considered to the extent accurancy of test results and the privacy required or specifically authorized to be of individuals who are tested. tested under the DOT drug rule. That is, practicable. The Department believes that the an employer must test the sample for the ADDRESS: Comments should be sent to basic requirements of the Guidelines five major druga `listed in each DOT drug Docket Clerk, Docket 45928, Deportment must remains vital component of DOT regulation. If the DOT agency involved of Transportation (0-55)4007th Street drug drug testing regulations. However, authorizes testing for Drug X under SW., Room 4107, Washington. DC., the Department is aware that the 1 40.21(b), the employer may also teat 20590. In order to expedite handling of Guidelines, aa written by HHS to apply the sample for that drug. If the employer comments, commenters are requested to to tasting by Federal agencies, do not fit wants to test, in addition, for Drug Y. the refer to the docket number for this rule perfectly the circumstances of employer must obtains second sample and to provide an original and four employers regulated by DOT. There are from the employee. The obtaining of this copies of their comments. Commentera many references to legal authorities and second sample is not under the authority wishing to have their comments ` other matters which are peculiar to of the DOT regulation. The employer acknowledged should include a Federal agencies (e.g.. references to the must base its request for tha second stamped. aelf.addressed postcard with Privacy Act and to Executive Order sample on whatever other legal their comments. The docket clerk will nsa's). Terminology referring to Federal authority is available, since the time and data stamp the card and mail it "agencies" rather than to "employers" employer cannot rely on the DOT back to the commantar. maybe confusing in the DOT regulated regulation as the basis for the request. FOR FURTNER INFORMATION CONTACt `industry context One purpose of this As alluded to above, an employer may Robert C. Aahby, Deputy Assistant rule Is to make necessary editorial submit to the DOT agency Involved a General Counsel for Regulation and changes to adapt the content of the HHS protocol for testing another controlled Enforcement, Department of Guidelines to the context of industries substance (see § 40.21(b)). DOT agencies Transportation, 400 7th Street. SW., regulated by DOT. have discretion whether or not to Room 10424, Washington DC, 20590. Mr. In addition. DHSS drafted the entertain such requests; if a DOT agency Aahhy's phone number is 202"388"9308. Guidelines to apply to the physical and approves such a request. then the sUPPLEMeNTARY INPORMATIOIE The organizational circumstances of Federal employer can test for the drug as part of Department of Transportation (DOT) agencies. Obviously, the circumstances its DOT-mandated program. believes that a drug-free transportation of industries regulated by DOT are very The HHS Guidelines require Federal workplace is essential to transportation different from those of Federal agencies, agencies to keep a permanent log book safety. For this reason, the Department's For this reason, the Department is at the collection site. This isa operating administrations (the Federal modifying tome provisions of the HHS requirement that is likely to be difficult Aviation Administration, Federal Guidelines to work better in the for many employers to meat, particularly Highway Administration, Federal implementation of drug testing programs where them are scattered or remote Railroad Administration, United States by DOT regulated industries. These locations at which testing must take Coast Guard, Urban Mass revtaions are Intended to leave intact place. Consequently. the DOT PAGENO="0153" sejrn weiSoad eae4th4ioM 8 4~M SuflaeJuOa eejaue8e ~eiepej ieq;o U; usqi Jeeqa,, Os 8A9U8Dqi uope~aodsusii eeij-Snip uopeiss;u;wpe er~nbei seuqepps~ sr-n-i eq~ `Rpepw;s .ze;eeaS 8 eaeq (sw eeee(ojdwe `sees Supecedo eqs io; senSjeue `((L)tz'ot §) e*p~sod puoaee 8 P10*804 eaeq ppsoM ~bedw; Lso;e~nSea ao suogenjeae ewp (us 48 Lsoseioqej 8 pedsu; seeAo;dwe seqi oaeaUOa eq5 pus `sSnsp AiosejnSei eqs u; pezAjeus ueeq Lew aeAo~drne Lue Jo `95110 `LOU ewos JO Siege Suows Seisi wepqp;aei e*eq seinpeaoJd amp qp~ Su;waojuoa `ie*ewoj-j suewea;nbei s;qs e;eu;wqe ue*;8 `pip 5; uo;e;aoid sqs ao; ~ Sp;ne; Snip Supanpuoa jo ejena eqs eernpeaoid ~ eqs `saeAojdwe pews eqj `weiSoid Supee; eap;eod-seod earns `peindeid ueeq ;ou seq uoqenjeie A~iejnapied `eie&o;drne ioj ewoeuepanq ao weiSoid uojse;p;qeqee 810 seed p £iojejnSei `q `sep~enpu; pe;e;nSei .i;ep 004 eq ~j0OM ;uewei;nbei 8 qane sep sSes seqi ueq~ 8; peitieeqo eq usa ge; 8 pue ouopeqs;u;wpe Supeiedo ;eie*ee Su;*eqeg `pepieMe 8; 53D1jUO3 Sii;iees qa;qM U~ eauesswnaep ;suopppe sty spajje 51 ease `seanpeaoad pus se;aqo~ 8 eio;eq se;ao~eaoqe4 saedsu; p sesaseSe `eeauessuenaip qane U; peseupupe io Leo;ejnSeu s,;uewjaede(j etp iepun cpu ;meepe~ ei;nbai oeupep;n~ 94-111 eqj pesppow eq p;noqe ~uewesrnbea e;qi sesp iseaqisSis 8 cut `I6ZZt JepJ~ e*qnaex~ `((Avzo, §) peunae~~snH eq qane `alpep 8 peaS 004 00588330 ~flOM aepun e;ne iofew 8 40U p s;qj, osje ;snw qa5qM `Stoisioqe; saessuoaqne JO 4;naijj;p op eq ~4flOM uopezpoqine ,~ eqs Sq ejdwee 8101 Ssp;q;suodeea pus jo e;qs Su;u;s;qo qa;qM p eeaussewnaa;a 54 SM We! 05 4 814 Su;seeaoad eiejdwoa epn4au; euop;puoa em amp aetpeq~ 00 suewwoa `j4eM eseq~ `suop~puoa pepoeiuoa Sj;njeesa qees ;uewpede~ eta `((czXfln'ot 1) se qaeoadde s;qi so juewwoa mpes aepun Sugaeasuoaqns ;~waed ~400M uopeaeesqo aepun e;dwse 810 ;uewpede~q eqj, (`Supse~ pupq pnpuoa eernpeaoad a,ou eqs `eeeSo;dwe 101 Su;pptoad eqs Supepeo eiojeq iopseedne os eteq 405 ee;Mieqio sqS;w oqM pep s~serneSse.ue Sspaeaiuoa jo Sip;q;xep ;eae;-aeqSq 8 woq uopszpoqlne ;sep;aae-ssod pus ennea ejqeuoseei JO iseieitq eqi eq `ar-tOM Supees Snap pSo~ eiteq P45~M teoe,eed else jo saeqwnu qS;q qp~ saeSo;dwe qeq~ jo Sue saeaiuoaqne 01 eepo4sioqe; uopaepoa eqs `essa 184181 8qi sq `e;dwee cmos epn~au; iqS~w qa;qM `seeSo;dwe pwied iOU OP seupep;n~ 94-p-4 eqj~ 8 qi~ iedwsi 04 idwesie us Supeppe; sxso'z sep iepea suewpede 0001 `-Se) `ewoeuepinq eec; eq ~5OOM Speaopnbeun pus Spee;a ;anpuoa p aeeS 8 p ieSo;dwe eqs Sq pess;wqne isp seqaeoadde aeqio e~ cap aeqieq~ uoeisd else uopaepoa eqs Sq uopeeaeeqo suaw;aede jo ieqwnu eq; SO j3O503 pus pepees 5; suewea;nbea e~qs aeqieq~ io eupipeesa p uope.queauoa io SspseiS ep eesq oi eq P1~OM uea~e~ eq pjnoa uo ;ueunsoa cajees ;uewsaede~ eqj apaede etOs-OO5 8 peq qa;qM e;dwee ieqs qasoidde ieq;osy ~pesn eq ;jo;na `swioj ;oassoa pus Spoinna cur-rn uS;e 05 e uea~S S;nnoptesd Stir-seq eeSo;dwe eqs ieqS;q s p;noqe `Sseageseeisv `eepptoid eeSojdwe aeq;o ao aeSesew Sao;eaoqe; JO ~1033J e e~dwse eqs Jo eane,eedwc; Supdwee pupq qa;qM sweiSoid e eea;nbei (g)(S)jg'op uopaeg eqs p Sauederae;p e epn;ap `pampas Ssprn Snip sne-Sjnedoad jo eausinsss `p 438ii03 01 MO~ `oe j~ eq p;noa so;se*aesqo qa;qM aepue eqs steSojdwe atom jo seeSojdwe ~10JJ5 `pus wejqoad sseapuS~e e eq p~noa e~qs seauessennaep ea;enjaxe eq~ eec qa;qM 0545 ppsoet s;qj, isieoidwe pasejnSea aeq;eq~ uo ;uewwoa sajeee luewsiedeci `eeaue;ewnaqa eeeqj, `((g)(e)gz'o, 11 ,1,O~ ernoe ieee; ;e woq Sp;ne; eqj `Spoisna jo s;eqa eq; 5s deS e eases peseasqo Su~eq epq~ e;dwee pspq 01 sae)qne eq 5340DM seposeaoqe~ p400a e;qj, `uuaeed esse uojsaepoa eqs Sq e epS Os pasaee;p eq ppeoes eeSo~dwe seq; Sjepj sse; 1s eajew 05 iepao p apesi eqs s~ pejees eq j53M ULIOJ Spoisna US qa5qM uo epunoaS eqs ;no pede `penn eq (seeSo;dwe peaeaoa ooo' "S-el jo peqa eqs `aeaeMoH `Siossioqe; eqs p seanpeaoid ,55x5 eqs `eeeSo;dwe steno eq jjo~na ieMoj 8 p~noq~ jeuo ejqesoeeee 5; epses ueq; oqen `eeSo;drne wool pew 101 wasSoed Spices Snip es; qsr-sn peu~eS s jjoina eeSojdwe peaeaoa coot 5 01 ieno p use; pus aepew s u; e~dwse eeq Lou eauepedxe eqs uo peeeg eqì n; `opv ~ieneq eq qasoidde aeqsoue eqs sod Sew soeied eqe soqaepoa `(WQ)zz'ot (c)(q)zz'o, p~noen ~o `e~qeuoeeei s;qi p `Su;sses eqi `e4dwsxe aoj `Saoseaoqej eqs :(e)gz'o, §~ eec) uewpede e esnpp eidwes pspq op 53400M oqen ee;i;sUe qs5M 05 Spaepp e~dwse eqs pew ao ;aodousis Os peen eq 505 p;noa Seqi Sep aeneue 8)3811503 eaeq ~ou eeop q;!en aj,ioM Seqi p;en soased else uo;saepoa eqs ;eqs 01 pelp;uow ao pensaee etc eeaenoe Sio;eioqp eqs j; sejdnses pupq s;wqns `seauslownaisa cmos 5; `S;eap; 5!;; ieq;o eqs J; Ss;;;aej eqs u; e;q;ee;weed os sleSo1drne ei~nbea p;noen ejas eqs jo `S,topaoqs; eqs Os see esaeeoe aessen aeqso pus eustoeled eSenSus; eqj, ~eq esuodnea e,~uewpsde~ sonied esrn uossaopoa eq; mop uewpede cs;e uo;saepoaJo ;oaiuoa socpp eqs eqi p~ooqe seqen `5055 )1 `;aenoa eqsjo aejsusas suieasoa ((g)ffltz'ot 5) aepue eec ee;dwse J; peso eq ppeoa ees;s eq p (jeap; 5; uo;sdwnsps s;qi ieqseqen uo~paosd qane eso `sae)qne uopaepoo JO) pespdweiuoa epeenSe;ss uo ssewwoa eajeee ;uewpede~ eqj, pqs qs;M jeep `trot I u; Spsjna;sied Ss;ioaee eqs ;;e snoqs;M Ss;pasJ `Spices ejdwee pupq cmos os sae)qno `seanpeaoad eqs jo ~uosepwd e :(Sjpseb p;noa pun epqow 10 Sp;psj eq eaojeaeqs TISM pus `sessrsuc e&tsj ieqso p ieqwnu v `peu;esu;sw e; Spossea ;sa~pew e "Sc) S;;paej e;qss;os Sue ao ce;aueSe ;siepej eaow 10 euo qs~M jo u;sqa aedoad e isqs eeoeue p p 8~O4355 01 pew,5ep crc sepe up;ae;;o~ s;aea~tsoa eaeq 4pM eeposeaoqej ppj;saea eeaopeaoe~ eqs jo seeod,tod eqs jo eu~ `(nsees eeoea e;qeuoeeea pue 1U8P5335 -9Hr-; ps souj; `scow ssqs uoqdwoese j(Su;sses ee;s;eod-seod jo aceS puoaee -;eod Spepedee) ssees saopuoa o; eqs so `tied U; `pessq e; se;5;sue Jo ;Si;j eqs `esnel caps io OM5 sep eesq eeeSo~dwe qa;q~ U; eeausscwoaap items aoj jepar pqj, `((p)(g)(p)g'op I) eqs `Se) pesseeqo eq p;ooa esees qpqsn jo Sser-sse eqs jo M85* U; `ses;e uo;sae;;oa caslaatd pq; t~o;5oj os peeu (cpu Supnp por-sed eqs uo uo;ses;w;; jsaodwes p ceo pus ea;oqa eqs os Ss;;sq;xeu Snap uopsa;e;punps Su;seaedo e;qsapdds 8 eq e~eqs pjooq~ £55e81 JO eer-~ee (545505 ajees OpD setopssaoed ,uyj eqj eqs aepseo Spsees Snip os ;ao(qos so ises ie;oapaed s Suseop uo;sssseeqo `peejoap SaueSe seeSojdsue atom ao ooo'~ qs~n esoqs 55555DM 04 S;cspj e; eeSo;dwe iou eqs jo ;snosdde eqs qs;en `ajooq "e-~) eeeSpdwe eSes; S;uo sep epptoid ae;na~sasd s ;eqs uu;ssu;waesep Sn; sueuewaed e 10 `waoj suc;eqobe eeiopessoe~ LOU eqs `S;sueobeesoj e eajew os eaeq ;e;apjo espedosdds seq sucseJj;p e ceo p;eoa aeSo;dwe `eaeSojdwe pews eo~ Sjssoa acqso a oaw eqs pjnoqe `e;dwsase ue `Ssp;qpsep jo cajse eqs aoj `eeeodeod pus ewosuepenq Sacs eq ~j503 5; soq - JOe! jsuo;sen;;e eeeqs u; esse; pseaceqo peoaca ~ueusisued aoj pcu;ssas eq `ee;aucSe jsaepcj 10) cjqsuoeeea p oe scopuoc os escSojdwc jo Sspoqsos eqs ppSOM qa4qM jo Sdoa e `((,)(qfl-tz'o, Susou `Saeaoaas e,Saoseaoqe; eqs ices os so sso~ssqw;~ eq eseqs p;ooqg `ejeuo;ssa ~e pcqr-saeep) 050) 011UO3 pus Sposeoa e Stosasoqe; eqs p ,,ecjdwse pspq,, puss 55 (5518 UOzpeo,sd pqs 50 suewwoa Sen (~OOM escSo;dwe `psc;euj `aooq So; Spsa~ppaed Os Saossaoqej asina;ssed eqeee ,uewsaedeu cqj, `Seoussewneaw sucusw,sed e aspsbea lou ;peo esaopcaoe~ SCOtt esopspsSeqj pus sejn~j / 5861 `It acqweao~,j `Sspsopj I tZZ `°N `CI `°A / acseEeqj jeape1j 61'I PAGENO="0154" 150 471)04 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No, 224 / Monday, November 21, 1988 / Rules and Regulations This rule will affect small entities in all the industries covered by DOT operating administration drug rules. The basic small entity impacts of each rule have been considered as part of the operating administrations' rulemakings. The Department has taken steps, as described in "Supplementary Information," to reduce small entity Impacts in such areas as Inspections, submission of blind samples, and permanent log books. Consequently, the Department certifies that 49 CFR Part 40 will not have a significant economic impact one substantial number of small entities. The Department has considered the Federalism implications of this rule under Executive Order 12612, The Department has determined that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. Federalism implications of individual operating administrations' drug rules are discussed in those rulemaking documents. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements referenced in this regulation have been submitted for Paperwork Reduction Act approval to the Offic~ of Management and Budget by the respective DOT operating adminisfrationsin connection with their own drug rulea..ThIs is because It is the operating administration rules, rather than this rule, that actually Imposes the requirements on regulated parties. However, the Office of the Secretary is seeking 0MB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act for the form described In 40.21-1(a). A Federal Register notice will be published when Paperwork Act approval is obtained. This rule has been published without prior opportunity for notice and public comment. The Department finds that It would be impracticable. unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to seek prior public comment for this rule. This finding Is made on the basis of the overriding public interest in ensuring a drug-free transportation wcrkplace, in order to ensure transportation safety andes a step toward controlling the nationwide problem of drug abuse. (There have been previous opportunities for public notice and comment on this subject, obtained by DHSS on the i-il-IS Guidelines, which served as the basis for this rule, and on the operating administration drug rules. which proposed use of the HHS Guidelines.) It is necessary to publish final rules on this subject at this time, so that all parties affected by the operating administration drug rules will know what is expected of them with respect to testing procedures as they develop their drug-free workplace programs. The Department will review comments received on this rule and publish a notice responding to the comments. The Department will also make any appropriate changes to the rule at that time. The operating administrations have received some comments on the HHS Guidelines in the course of their drug rulemakinga. These comments will be made a part of the docket for this rulemaking and the Department will respond to them along with the other comments we receive. (Many of the changes in the HHS Guidelines made in this rule appear to be responsive to these comments.) List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40 Controlled substances, Transportation. Issued this 34th day of November leaa, at Washington. DC. Jim Burnley, SecretoiyofTronsportation. 49 CFR Subtitle Ala amended by adding Part 40 to read as follows: PART 40-PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATiON WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS Subpart A-General Sec 40.1 Applicability. 40.2 DefinitIons. Subpart B-Scientific and Technical 40.21 The drugs. 40.23 PreparatIon for testing. 40.25 Specimen collection procedures. 40.27 Laboratory personnel. 40.29 Laboratory analysis procedures. 40.31 QualIty assurance and quality control. 40.33 Reporting and review of results. 40.35 ProtectIon of employee records. 40.37 Individual access to test and laboratory certification results. Subpart C-CertIfIcatIon of Laboratories Engaged In Urine Drug Testing 40.41 Use of DHHS.certlfied laboratories. Appendix A to Part 40-DHHS Certification Standards Appendix B to Part 40-Urine Custody and Control Form Autbedty 49 U.S.C. 102, 301. Subpart A-General 401 Appllcsblllty. This part applies to transportation employers (including seLf.employed individuals) conducting drug urine testing programs pursuant to regulations Issued by agencies of the Department of Transportation and to such transportation employers' officers, employees, agents and contractors, to the extent and in the manner provided In DOT agency regulations. 40.2 DefInitions. For purposes of this part the following definitions apply: Aliquot. A portion of a specimen used for testing. Chain of custody. Procedures to account for the integrity of each urine specimen by tracking its handling and storage from point of specimen collection to final disposition of the specimen. These procedures shall require that an approved chain of custody form be used from time of collection to receipt by the laboratory and that upon receipt by the laboratory an appropriate laboratory chain of custody form(s) account for the nample or sample aliquots within the laboratory. Chain of custody forms shall, at a minimum, include an entry documenting data and purpose each time a specimen or aliquot Is handled or transferred and Identifying every individual in the chain of custody. Two forms of chain of custody documents are utilized under this part. An external chain of custody form or "urine custody and control form" (described in 40.23) is used to document chain of custody to the laboratory. An internal chain of cultody form is utilized to document handling and transfer of the original sample container and aliquots within the laboratory. Collection site. A place designated by the employer where individuals present themselves for the purpose of providing a specimen of their urine to be analyzed for the presence of drugs. Collection site person. A person who inntructa and assists individuals at a collection site and who receives and makes an initial examination of the urine specimen provided by those Individuals. A collection site person shall have successfully completed training to carry out this function or shall be a licensed medical professional or technician who is provided Instructions for collection under this part and certifies completion as required herein. In any case where: (a) A collection Is observed or (b) collection is monitored by non-medical personnel. the collection site person must be a person of the same gender as the donor. Confirmatory test. A second analytical procedure to Identify the presence of a specific drug or metabolite which is Independent of the initial test and which uses a different technique and chemical principle from that of the Initial test in order to ensure reliability and accuracy. (At this time gas PAGENO="0155" 151 Federal Register I Vol 53 No 224 I Monday November 21 1988 I Rules and Regulations 47005 chrematography/mass spectrometry recognized organization which acts on (t) A preprtnted specimen (GCIMS) is the only authorized behalf of the Secretary in implementing identification nwnber, which shall ha confirmation method for cocaine, this part. unique to the particular collectiolL manluana, opiates, amphetamines, sod (ii) The employee's Social Security or phencyclidme ) Subpart 0-Sclenhlflc and TechnIcal employee Ident fication number which DHHS The Department of Health and RaqulreiI1enl~ shall be entered by the employee Human Servicesorany designee ofthe ~ 40,21 TM drugt (lii) Specification of the type of test H manServii~s en o ea an (a) DOT agency drug testing programs conducted (pre employment random DOTagency An agency of the United mquim that employers test for etc) which shall be entered by the Stales Department ofTransportalloa manluana cocaine opiates employer representative or collector administering regulations requinag amphetamines and phencyclidine (acting for the employer) compl nca with this part lncludmg the (b) An employer mayinclude In its (iv) A block providing that Collector United Slates Coast Guard, the Federal iealiii~ protocols other controlled must note temperature of specimen has Aviation Adminlairailon, the Federal substances or alcohol only pursuant to a been read and record here ifnol within Railroad Administration, the Federal DOT agency eppmval, If testing for the range of 32,S--37,7C/5O,5-S~,aFf' Highway Administration, the Urban those substances is euthorizedunder with an area for the required notation, Mesa Transportation Administration, agency regulations and if the (v) A chain-of-custody block providing and the Research and Special Programs Department of Health and Human areas to enter the following information Administration, Services has established an approved for each transfer of possession: purpose Employee, An Individual designated testing protocol and positive threshold of change: released by (signature/print Ins DOT agency regulation as subject to for each such substance name): received by (signature/print drug urine testing and the donor of a (c) Urine/specimens collected under name): date. The words "Provide specimen under Ihia part As used in ils DOT agency regulations requinng epecimen for testing and DONOR pert employee includes a final compliance with this part may only be shall be preprinted in the initial spaces applicant for employment Employee used to teat for controlled substances (vi) Information lobe completed by end individual or mdsvidual to be designated or approved for testing as the collection site person ident fymg tested have the same meaning for deacnbed in this section and shall not thaI person and provid ng the dale of purposes of this pert. be used to conduct any other analysis or collection the collection site and the Employer An entity employing one or test unless otherwise specifically telephone number (if any) of the more employees that is subject to DOT suthonzed by DOT agency regulations collection site a space fur remarks at agency regulations requiring compliance (d) This section does nut prohibit which unusual circumstances maybe with this part. As used in this pert, procedures reasonably incident to described: and a certification statement employer is inclusive of a industry analysis of the specimen for controlled as net f rth below ends signature block consortium or joint enterpnse comprised substances (e.g., determination of pH or with date which shall be completed by of two or more employing entities, but teats for specific gravity, creetinine the collection site person: no single smploymg entity Is relieved of concentration, or presence of lie responsibility for compliance with edullerente). I ceriify that the epecimen identified en his this part by virtue of erticl etion in form Is the specimen presented ia me by the such a consortium or joint enterprise. esan spsreilon 5~ tes5ng emplnyee providing the certificaiian belaw, The employer and certified laboratory l~ tJi t~d I~ ~ern~tl ~ Initiol test (olso known os screening shall develop end maintain a clear end d th ii~ h bm c 11 i dl b lied d test) An inimunoeseey screen to well-documented procedure for as led a req ired by th n trecil eliminate "negative" urine specimens collection, shipment, end acceenloning provided. from further consideration of unne specimens under this part Such Med col Rev ew Officer A licensed s procedure shall include ate minimum ( ) A block to be c mpl ted by the physIcian responsible forrecelvlng the following laboratory efier analysis of the laboratory results geaereled by an (a) Utilization of a standard urine specimen prov ding a apace for entry of employers drug testing program who custody end control form (carbonless the laboratory accession number ends has knowledge of substance abuse memfoldj The form shell be a multiple certification to reed as follows togethe diaordere and has appropriate medical pert carbonless record form with en with spaces to enter the pnnled name training to interpret end evaluate en original (pert 1) that shell accompany and signature of the certifying individuals positive test result together the specimen to the laboratory Copies laboratory official end date with his or her medical history end any shall be provided for the Medical ice i fy th i th p in Id IS d by th other relevant biomedical information Review Officer (pert 2 to god redly to cc I nanbe lathe same pa Im n th I Permonent Record Book A the MRO) the employee (pert 3) the b ar th Id tit ti ambe ni f rth permanently bound book in which collection site (part 4) (if distinct from b s th I th pecim h be a ml d ideniifylng date on each specimen the ~mployer), and the employer upen recelpi. handled and anslyned in collected ate collsction site are representative (partS) The form should sccaçd cs1w thd~lt bI F I h d permanently recorded in the sequence of be a permanent record on which req c re collection. May be used in conjunction Identifying data on the employee and on with a modified urine cuslody and the specimen collection and transfer (21 InformatIon to be pro ided by the control form to document collection, process is retained The form shall be employee which shell appear on parts 2 Reoson to belIeve Reason 10 believe constructed to display ate minimum through 5 of the form only Employee that a particular Individual may alter or the followmg elements which shall name (prinledl duty location job title substitute the urine specimen, appear on its respective parts as date of birth: ends certification Secretory The Secretary of md sted sislement as set forth below together Transportation or the Secreisry s (1) The following information shall with a ign sure hI ck w th date which designee may bee contractor or oiher appear on all parts of the form shall be completed by the employee PAGENO="0156" 152 47000 Federal Regiater I Vol. 53, No. 224k! Monday, November 21, 1988 I Rube and Regulationa tcertify that the mice spaciatenidentined aesoctated paperwork may be eource of water for washing hands. es this form is my ewn: that It is fresh asd transferred and which can be sealed which, if practicable, should be external has set been adulterated In asy manner ssd and initialled to prevent undetected to the enclosure where urination occurs. ~ tampering. (b) Security. The purpose of this correct. th b fthi (d) Written procedures, Instructions paragraph Is to prevent unauthorized specimes to the certified laboratory sod trsinirtg shall be provided as access which could compromise the designated by my employer, to the soatysis of follows: integrity of the collection process or tho the specimen for controlled sobstasces as (1) Employer collection procedures specimen. pravided by Federal requirements, aod to the and training shall clearly emphasize that (11 Procedures shall provide for the release of teat reeotte from that eoelyele to the collection site person is responsible designated collection site to he secure. If the Medical Review Officer designated by my for meintaining the integrity of the a collection aite facility is dedicated employer, specimen collection and transfer solely to urine collection, it shall be (3) A block to be completed by the process. carefully ensuring the modesty secure at all times. If a facility cannot be employee, which shall appear only on and prtvacy of the employee, and t5 tO dedicated solely to drug testing, the parIs 2 end 3 of the fortn, containing a avotd any conduct or remarks that mtght purilon of the facility used for testing statement as follows: "If you wish to be conatrued as accusatortal or shall be secured during drug testing. have prescription or ovor-the.counter otherwtee offensive or mspproprtate. (2) A fadllity normally used for other medications you may have taken or (2) A non-medtcal coliectton otte purposes, such sea public rent room or been administered within the pant ~ person shall recetva tratnong to hospital examining room, maybe dayn considered en your test results are compltance wtth thte part and nhsll secured by visual innpection to ensure reviewed, you may list them here:" demonstrate protIctency to the , other persons are not present and followed by an adequate writing urn to applicatsonof thts part poor to serving undetected access (e.g., through e rear list auch substances. as a collectton otto person. A medtcat door not in the view of the collection A form meeting the requirementn of this çro enalona cc 0 ogsat or tcisn site person) is not possible. Security paragraph Is displayed at Appendix B to a~le itt ~te `urisctri'9 whch during collection may be maintained by this part. The urine custody end control ~ollection occu~ ma sore ~ effective restriction of access to form may Include such additional collection site person if that person Is collection materials and specimens. In information as may be required for provided instructions described in this the case of a public rest room, the btlltng or other legitimate purposes part and performs collections in fsctltty must be posted agatnst access necensory to the collectton, provtded accordance with those instructions, during the enttrs collectton procedure to that personal identifying tnformstioo (3) Collection site persons shall be svoid embarrassment to the employee (.,ther than the employee identification provided with detailed, clearly or dtstrscttoo of the collectton site number) may not be provided to the illustrated written Instructions on the perettn.,,,,,, laboratory sod employee medical collection of specimens in compliance (3) If tt ts tmprsctncst to matntorn information may appear only on the with this part Employer representatives continuous phystcst necurtty cf a copies provided to the employee and to and employees subject to testing shall collection otto from the time the the Medical Review Officer. In lieu of a also be provided standard written spectmen ts presented until the sealed form meeting the above-described instructions netting forth their matter is fronsferred for shtpment. the criteria, an employer may choose to use renpoasibilities. fullowtng mtnimum procedures nhsll a multiple-sample chain of custody form sppl~ The specimen shalt remain undrr tugether with a permanent record book t 40.25 Specimen collection procedures. the direct control of the collection site maintained at the site of collection to (a) Designotion of collection site. (1) pernon from delivery to its being seated document collection and transfer of Each employer drug testing pregram in the mailer. The mailer shalt be sp mensunderth p ri solongas the h llh cone m des go t d Immed telyma led m ota nod n data elements set forth above are collection sites which have all necessary secure storage, or remain until mailed documented, personal identifying personnel, materials, equipment. under the personal control of the information is not disclosed to the facilities, and supervision to prtivide fur collection site person. laboratory, and the record syetem is the collection, security, temporary (c) Choin of custody. The chain of designed in such a msnnqr as to storage, and shipping or transportation custody block of the urine custody and maintain the confidentiality of medical of urine specimens to s certified drug control form shall be properly executed information, testing laboratory. An independent by authorized collection site personnel (bj Use of a temperproof sealing medical fscil(ty tnsy also be utilized as upon receipt of specimens Handling and system designed ins manner such that a collection site provided the other transportation of urine specimens from the specimen bottle top can be sealed applicable requirements of this part are one authorized individusl or place to sgsinst undetected opening, the bottle met, another shall always be accontpltshed can be identified with a unique (2) A designated collection site may through chain of custody procedures. identifying number identical to tbst be any suitable location where a Every effort shall be msde to minimize appearing on the urine custody and specimen can be collected under the number of persons handling control form, snd spece has been conditions set forth in this part. specimens. provided to initial the bottle affirming its including a properly equipped mobile (d)Access to outitorized personnel identity. For purposge of clarity, this facility. A designated collection site only. No unauthorized personnel shall part assumes uss of a system mode up shall be a location having an enclosure be permitted in any port of the of one or more pre'printed labels and within which private urination can designated collection site when urine eeals (ore unitary label/seal), but use of occur, a toilet for completion of specimens ore collected or stored. Only other, equally effective technologies is urination (unless a single-use collector is the collection site person may handle authorized, used witlt sufficient capacity to contain opecimeno prior to their securement in (ci Use of a shipping container In the void), and a suitable clean surface the mailing container or monitor or which one or more specimens and for writing. The site must olse have a observe specimen collection (under the PAGENO="0157" asuni paq!lQSald aip ap~s~no salco; U ajq;ssod JI aznpaooad uopøaiioa S)U388 2u;n~q ~aflOi `aj~s U0930jJ03 04$ $0 Suç~~ej aIn$RJOdWO$ suaw~oads aq; 04) Suynp OJO300 apow aq IW1~ 43$4M SUGW$DOdS jo UO$$flfl~ alp ao;ap 01. U) Sq 998083 000I$30d9 041 polnlpsqne 10 WOOl $803 oj~qnd 94$ 010$ $Uflp$A$pU$ 90$J$lUOp$ 59391103 poe pouçelqo p3101)0 0484 Sew )eflp$A$pUl 941 o~o1)o4 Otis Suedwoa3e $$845 $eflp$5$P0$ 018 euawaods ~01010$)fl~8Ufl 1841 310500 o$ 008891 94$ 1010003 01 03099140 041 88 iopuoS owes asp jo uosiad o; 00)181 eq jjeqs suopneoaid wnw;uçw 9p$AoId 0$ uo~e~ oin;eiodwo~ 101019410 a$J8 uo;$30))03 `8i sasnpaooid Sup&ojIo; StqMopoJ ~`u P9$30~03 SUM uow;oado 8$4 0494 01199100)04 Sew )809$4t$90$ 0%' 941 0$ 801)110338 Paso eq Sew wooa 1801 041 WO4M wol) )eflp)A)p0$ 041 SJpOOp) `8u~joo; 10J SIo$eloqe) 9410$ popleM$OJ 3$)qfld e `(uope8psoku) 10091338 ue Ba) 083 UUOJ $011003 Poe Spoisno 0U90 asp oq ))848 809w$39d8 q;oq poe uoeaod 9118 UO$$39903 uow)39d8 1oJ $uOwal$T$bOl 00 ~08 op~oq ouoi asp uo 0O~8W10J0) 00$139))03 iopuo8 owes e JO uo;~eiuooqo 01e$poww$ 098$ 0194$ 908 0)4)859338100 seqi poe aanpaaoid uopoopoo $301$9 19)100 p9130))03 eq ~~eqs 09w$39d8 55998 00930903 peleuBIsop-laSoIdwa 041 Btqanp 9010)1910 p019101)ope 1941008 poe uOw$39d8 941 P0$011$84~~ 001041 $0040 4euo~jdooxo 011 0$ (~) - 04 $00 uow~oade 001108 1841 010800 10 99191)0 9494 Sew )e09$A$959 0411041 000J $051003 0$ suo~1oeooad 01501 ))848 sioSo~dw~ 9A9$)0~ 010099018 8$ 1941 3 *9~,9$$5 poe ~ 00110 04$ 00 ooueieadde uowpedsfot;puop;puo £;yffa;uj Q) /3 .hLC-.TZC Jo o8uei 941 99$8100 ~1 10 10$AeqOq ~ensnun Sue o;ou 0349105 03 010101 101)8 8upso~ do uowioodo 0 Jo 9104e19dw9; 941 J) (st) $5848 utselod 0155 U0$$30))03 00~(g) -M0))OJ 10) Sopj*oid 0098)0201 Sauo8e Soe*jad )eflp$A$pO) IOJ JflQ8 10)30010 `uopel$pqeqel paiçobaa sojou~w p 9093X0 4)848 0883 000$ 908 )83$$U3 5) 8M0))8 104$ 58018 9900)$918d 0e)M10410 Sue l9$J8 03)410501010101 uo `OSelSold ainseaw oio;e~odwoi 04 00980110 WO1J 10)1018 0 Jo S38341d 041 0$ oew)30d5 194 00)4819)48401 8 JO ~ed flØ 90130)1003 awq aqj uawçoodo ~41 918010181003 /8)1 ap)Aold Sew ~enppqpu~ 04), (4 80)048) 1501 le)fl0)$18d eqs poe `uaw)oeds 041910101)09801 O0)18Z)109900 )83$pOW 1004$)M 930048408 100 900 uaw~3ads 941 JO ~~niei0thoe1 9980 049)003 43$44~ 9)811348w 19410 Sue pono~uoo e peso 0*84 01 900)000109 ~41 139)J91 S)9491o338 480W )3980 931*0)1 1010989 805080)3 `1950081819 duos `19308J uoaq 55500)449181594 aaSo~dwa 943, (4)) 8u~~ooeow aio1eiadwa aOL `UOw$39d8 `0$81000J 195DM Sue 0$ 850338 0484100 `(`310 poioesoid uawpods oj 041 JO om$elodwo$ 04$ 010800W ))848 $308 oosaod 91)8 UO$$39))03 344J0 0S~ 00)4 `0895* U$e)d 0$ 00)10 040498405 p948 uosaod 9418 001139)403 941 `99430903 eauoooid 941 0$ U)8w91 $5845 )80)1)A440) `So) a~dwes 041018101)0)1010 0101)18409 8$ 0901)39818 911101)8 S0$e4poww Ut) eqs uosj Su$488M 10$JV (a) 0$ $dOSO$$8 oe Sogeolpu) S))000a)ob000 8)1084194108144880801 99M0))9 009805100) POe S51eop 1309003 80419840 04 $5948 $809141901 941 `uosiad 91$9 ao~id 8909119410 8$4 Sip poe 4880801 ooaiad 01)9 00939900 00,3(111) UO$139))03 94$ 04 p011$wqOS poe p99)40181 901391480) eq 5)849 $009495905 9O~, (c) i/S g' 080)04009811003003 0904 884 uow;oeds 941 191J%' (it) 104)80810110 00)0)1891309080901 0859 899) `U9)$91 04 04005138 041 00 8)40)0101 Sew )eop)41p0) oqj, `spuawieS JO £449812 o$J$30d8 8948404 Slo$eloqe) aouep~o8 018140 0151)10410894951810181818 10100 041 41$M 0$8w01 0800J9$1q10 044 Sq )10U$0510109 SUM (oo~oeooo 941 4391003 4)849 uosaod 9449 U0$439))03 osiod a se 4308 sSo4Boo$9q jeoossad 5)8 800)49181 e 00 "o~) ooSo~dwa oqi Sq 041 `00410 Jo 9191$)4))$W 09 9p$Ao1d 1841 010800 5)948 00949819118 001139)103 pO$$)*01d oowpods 00)10 158) 043 (1;) 0$ 008891 Sue IOJ S9eJ $909141901 343, `uowçoads 035108)80)1)41)10) `000430818 044 JO $841 941J) `(104808 JO 888)28 `-2-a) osodiod 941 910191)09810 41$M zodwe; poaoxa 10 ~oobo $00 8Oø~ 01o$elodwo$ 814$ IOJ 35051)1 01 p10)3qJO ~uoowe 019980 oq 9)003 1941 saoue;sqos 10 581004110 `~0d S$q1 JO (gg)Q) qdea2eaed 0)490098919 ua*j2 oq Sew ~eopç*~pu~ 0w91$ $893003 1421w 1944 40)1395104803 01 pop~ao.sd so `lølowowloql 0)51948 Sq oq~. (`leoçe$uoo 900 0$ 900$~WO3 oq 8 984308 8400009819400514458030000 0104810dW04 Spoq $810 Jo $09W910080W 1)948 soowioads $8541881 941 908 `0011399 Sue oaowps 04190)11*190! 041 8095*018104 090930)1 aeSoidwo ~141Jo UflU) 48181891881 41$M ~ 3598 $5848 uoslod 0110 00930403 oqj, (p) asp poe `08081 e10$81081w04 $80000 01 901099901 aq 5)949 190184003 _`o9)Ie$ eq 01 005138 0449)119100 8914 4819 uow~oeds 00110 948188108 438901 uawpods 19111881 34100 oooep~o2 o~e~qo o;S;yoqine 8 pe;oooeld seq oo5ojdwa eoj Q) 944JO 91n481981w04 04),) `91941)1))1t0 018$1d01~'0 041 4384003 ))949 oosiad uaospods 0410101)1840810 $)9JO 58101 0438010$ 190$84003 9$e18d98 0455 0011305)03 019 `005$) 9992)098044 104)8 Sew 18091*940) 019 $041 0*05)0904 8 01 p01305)03 aq 5)948 9011058001119)18 18 0*019 04 S9eJ 580)11*1)10) 044 J) (9) 009891 8 2oi;n~i~suo3 89180012 04$80)3X0 `00930903 041 41)08 019 018 8930048W031$3 S0)M0))OJ `190$84003 04101 90110 JO 81911)1)410109 pooooid;ou 1)848 oooiod a;~o 00930)503 94$ `$led 8)41 Jo sesodind 103(g) 0819 090) 9)01941 J) `00510)0 81011)1)9w 09 $900) 4880584003111841 9050819499 1)840 041 `p04804810001100003 51$$oap$ `48181801881 5j80p)A$p0$ 04$ J) -(oape$o38318101 0)19 0$ p04113999 l94$IOJ 5899)15*018104 0081981 911~ 00$130))03 041 `1809141901 044 s1eSo)dwo 944 Sq 00118391100)0 0$ OOW)3ed8 019 310114840810104)8 Sew woq uow$oods 041 Su$a$9391 ood~ lot) 10 0O$483$JIluOp$ oloqd JO 009840953181 580)3)455905 1e)03910d 04841 0*01)9404 `80109930181 Sp04803 - 4800159 "So) 2o~;oa; 10) 99130)00 0098018)01019 S80)00S38*$1d )enp$*$pU) JO 08043 941 2u$19)dwO3 0) 0091981 0050)8105904480 p01J9O9)1$ 5)04)1)0081 MO$)0 ))eqSS000S)3081800)10 Supoo~~oo 3419 0O$430))03 941591080488153141881 8$ $809141905 044 4841 010000)1049 10J 5010~03O1~j (),) `5oost~,j(o) 01 5308 10)101 01(4 4809 04994381480$ 0081381 34$S 00)4395)03919 `o4$8 001130)103 04)8 019 p3)10810)3884 oaSo~dwo 0~ $5108 $009141901 944 `uow$39819 041 944 4809*51185893141)3010800MM (g) 044 908 `994030X0 0004 884 WIOJ JO uo~ssossod 8040091381 0$$8 0014391)03 `oOOI$30d9 $011000 900 Spossno 90)10 344 `p098910) 015$ IO$JV `00019819419 0051395)03 94480140)1)1 IOJ 0310088 se (p0430135300) poe pjeao 0004 seq op~oq aopn asp 34101991041)0901000430818 941 9050 4009111 01000001 p8104)000510 00408 oiejdwoo 8) oanpaooid 00930)503 $1400 10)501 0141901104300 )~0)31*153181 0151 9010305 S)0*1430JJ0 04)1848 4) `01000)309 8 `osodind 8)441030059004)8 Sos $381480) 5)8140 008198104)8 001439)103 044 044 0$ 191808 Jo931008 1941008 8)81041)) $80109030181 001130903 000 S~oo $389003 0090)153 oow~oodo 10$9~ 0$ 3)~8))~*0 8) `810330 001180510 81040801090430005901 ))840 008108104)8009309008 `80001$33810 ;uo2e 50944 OUJI `p0430903 8$ 0005)39818 (35018101008049 00 -2-a) IO48MJO 001008 JO OOI$83lJI$00p) 04$ 0$ 00)50)003 019 $5400 `5)840 014 09)8400 104 05001 4891 10410 0001 peqs 91944 `0$qeo)43e1d Son 150$85e alnsoapue 0091981 04$ 010)80581 )$8q8 00510810145 001130)503 3104M `00)4 80)~W31 sSeM)u )M0~ 10904 0118 00930903 341 JO 00938148)p p10*0 ~n -~oe~ ~opos a)q$500338 Sue pus 9144 0)104808 Jo 1$Oo10801 alp os `ajq$SSod `s000l)OodsJo Synoeo o;owwd 0113910 $0804 044 0$ p038)d 04 $5848 40928 Sulo)q 104310408 835084495)04 0) p038181 04 ))et$5 05 `(51881914401939)39818 8005319003 ~P 000$4991299 908 83109 / 996t ig 19(4~0~0N `58900444 / pgg `0(4 `59 `)°A / 10)1450)5 l~933 891 PAGENO="0158" 154 47(J1J3 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 224 I Monday, November 21, 1988 I Rules and Regulations (14) immediately after the specimen is concerning medications taken or shall be nullified and (at the election of collected, the collection site person shall administered in the past 30 days. the employer) a new collection begun. also inspect the specimen to determine (ill) When specified by DOT agency (g) Collection control. To the its color and look for any signs of regulation orrequired by the collection maximum extent possible, collection site contaminants. Any unusual findings site (other than an employersite) or by personnel shell keep the individual's shall be noted on the urine custody and the laboratory, the employee may be specimen bottle within sight both before control form, required to sign a consent orrelease and after the individual baa urinated. (15~All specimens suspected of being form authorizing the collection of the After the specimen is collected, it shall adulterated shall be forwarded to the specimen, analysis of the specimen for be properly sealed and labeled. The laboratory for testing. designated controlled substances, and urine custody end control form shall be (18) Whenever there is reason to release of the results to the employer, used for maintaining control and believe that a particular individual has The employee may not be required to accountability of each specimen from altered or substituted the specimen as waive liability with respect to the point of collection to final described in paragraph (e)(2)(l) and (iii) negligence on the part of any person disposition of the specimen. The date of this section, a second specimen shall participating In the collection, handling end purpose shall be documented on an be obtained as soon as possible under or analysis of the specimen or to approval chain of custody form each the direct observation of a same gender indemnify any person for the negligence time a specimen is handled or collection site person. of others. transferred and every individual in the (17) Both the individual being tested (23) A higherlevel supervisor of the chain shall be identified. Every effort and the collection site person shall keep collection site person, ore designated shall be made to minimize the number of the specimen in view at all times prior to employer representative, shell review persons handling specimens. - its being sealed and labeled, As and concur In advance with any (h) T ~stton to laboratory. provided below, the specimen shall be decision by a collection site person to Collection site personnel shall arrange sealed (by placement of a tamperproof obtain a specimen under the lirect toelsip the collected specimens to the seal over the bottle cap and down the observation of a same gender collection drug testing laboratory. The specimens sides of the bottle) and labeled in the site person based upon the shall be placed in containers designed to presence of the employee. If the circumstances described paragraph minimize the possibility of damage specimen is transferred to a second (e)(2) of this section. during shipment (e.g., specimen boxes bottle, the collection site person shall (24) The collection site person shall and/orpadded mailers); and those request the individual to observe the complete the chain of custody portion of containers shall be securely sealed to transfer of the specimen and the the urine custody and control form to eliminate the possibility of undetected placement of the tamperproof seal over indicate receipt from the employee and tampering. On the tape sealing the the bottle cap and down the sides of the shall certify proper completion of the container, the collection alte person bottle. collection, shall sign and enter the date specimens (18) The collection site person and the (25) The urine specimen and chain of were sealed in the containers for individual shall be present at the same custody form are now ready for shipment. The collection site person time during procedures outlined in shipment. If the specimen is not shall ensure that the chain of custody paragraphs (f)(l9Hf)(22) of this section, immediately prepared for shipment, it documentation is attached to each (19) The collection site person shall shall be appropriately safeguarded container sealed for shipment to the place securely on the bottle an during temporary storage. drug testing laboratory. identification label which contains the (26)(l) While any part of the above (i)Faium to cooperate. lithe date, the individual's specimen number, chain of custody procedures is being employee refuses to cooperate with the and any other identifying information performed, It Is essential that the urine collection process (e.g.. refusal to provided or required by the employer. If specimen and custody docwnenta be provide a complete specimen. complete separate form the label, the tamperproof under the control of the involved paperwork, initial specimen) the seal shall also be applied. .collection site person. If the involved collection site person shall inform the (20) The individual shall Initial the collection site person leaves his orlier employerrepresentative and shall identification label on the specimen work station momentarily, the specimen document the non.cooperation on the bottle for the purpose of certifying that it and urine custody and control form shall wine custody and control form. Is the specimen collected from him or be taken with him or her or shall be her. secured. After the collection site person ~ Laterstory personnel. (21) The collection site person shall returns to the work station, the custody enter on the urine custody end control process will continue, lithe collection (a) Day.to.day management. (1) The form all information Identifying the site person is leaving for an extended laboratory shall have a qualified specimen. The collection site person period of time, the specimen shall be individual to assume professional, shall sign the wine custody and control packaged for mailing before he or she organizational, educational, and administrative responsibility for the form certifying that the collection was leaves the site. laboratory's wine drug testing facility. accomplished eccording to the (ii) The collection site person shall not instructions provided. leave the collection site in the interval (2) This individual shall have (22) (i) The individual shall be asked between presentation of the specimen documented scientific qualifications in to read and sign a statement on the by the employee and securement of the analytical forensic toxicology. Minimum urine custody end control form sample with an identifying label bearing qualifications are: certifying that the specimen identified as the employees specimen identification (I) Certification as a laboratory having been coltected from him or her is number (shown on the wine custody director by the State in forensic or in fact that specimen he or she provided. and control form) and seal initialled by clinical laboratory toxicology or (ii) The individual shall be provided the employee. If it becomes necessary (ii) A Ph.D. in one of the natural an opportunity to set forth on the wine for the collection site person to leave the sciences with en adequate custody and control form information site during this interval, the collection undergraduate and graduate education PAGENO="0159" 155 Federal Regleter I Vol 53 No 224 I Monday November 21 1988 I Rulee and Regulatiooe 47009 -~--~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~[" [ ~ ~ ~ ~ z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C b ology chemistry and ph no colegy characteristics f cc h test and tett I 40.2e LeboretorY enslyele prseed rn or toxtcotogy, or system. (a) Securiiyondchoifl ofcustody. (1) (iii) Training and expertence (7) This individual shall be Di'~g testinglsborstortes shall be secure c mpsrabte te a Ph D in one of the responsible for tak ng 11 m d at t II t met They shalt have in place natur 1 sc ences such as a medical or act ons necessary to m I tam suff nt s cunty measures to control scientific degree with additional training satisfactory operation and performance access to the premises and to ensure nd laboratory/research experience In of the laboratory in response to quality that no unauthorized pereonnel handle b ology chemistry end pharmacology or control systems n t he ng within specimens or gain access to the toxicology: and performance apecifications, errors in laboratory processes or to areas where (i ) In addition to the requirements in result report ng or in an tys a of records are stored Acc as to these p ag aph (e)(2) (t) (ii) end (lii) of this P rformance test ng results This secured arees shalt be tim ted to tection minimum qualifications also nd idu I shalt ensure that e mpte specifically authorized individu ts require results are not reported unt I all whose authorization is documented (A) Appropriate experience in corrective actions have been taken end With the excepti n of personnel eneiyticei forensic toxicology including he or she can assure that the tests authorized té conduct inspections on experience with the analysis of results provided are accurate end behalf ofFederal agencies for which the biological materiel for drugs of abuse, reliable. * * leboretory is engaged in urine testing or end (b) Test clidotion The laboratory e on behalf ofDHHS alt euthonred (B) Appropriate ire mng end/or urine drug testing facility shell have a v e tore end maintenance end a rvice experienc in foren Ic epplicat one of quehf ed md iduel(s) who rev ewe all pe sound sb 11 beasco ted at 11 tim a nelyticel toxicology e g publicetione pertinent d te end quel ty control Document tion of mdi iduel acceeeing court testimony ieee rcb conceming reaulte in o der to attest to the validity thete areas dates end time of entry end analytical toxicology of drugs of abuse of the lebocetors' e test eporte A purpose of entry must be maintained roth r factors which qualify the laboratory may designate more than one (2) Laboreton e eh 11 i..ee che n of md v dual cc en expert witneos in person to perform this function This cu tody pr ceduree toot mt n c ntrul forensic toxicology individual(s) may be any employee who end accountability of specimens from (3) this individual shell be engaged in is qualified lobe responsible for day-to- receipt through completion of teuting. end responsible for the day-to-day day management or operation of the reporting of results, during storage. end m n gement of the drug testing c D doo eZt nd cool nuing until fnel d pee I on of laboratory even where enotber ~ ervifon o'à" a'Y eta The specimens The date end purpose shell d du thee over tlreeponeibibly for lu~'o at urin 3' b do ume I don aneppr pi tech n an entire molt epecielty lab retory shall b:~en ~ ~ y of c otody form each I me a spec m n (4) This individual shall be responsible for day-to-day operations handled or transferred end every reeponeible for eneunog that there are end to supervise the t cbnicel enelyete md id 1 o the h n ebell be enough pereonnei with adequate , This individual(s) shell have at leeet ~ identified. Accordingly, euthonced training end expenence to supervise end bachelor'e degree in the chemical or te~hnmcien~ shell be ~eepo~meible for each conduct the work of the dreg testing biological scienceo or medical urine specimen or eliquot in their laboratory He or she shell eeeure the technology or equivalent. He or ehe possession end shell sign and complete conti ed comp tency of leboretory hell heve training and experienc in the che n f custody forms to those pereonnel by documenting their theory end precttce of the proceduree spec mene rat quote cc lb y re ineervice treming, reviewing their work used in the leboretory, reuutting in his or received. performance end venfying their skills her thorough underet nding of quality (b) Rece ring (1) When e ebipm nI of (5) This individual shall be control preclicee and procedures; the specimens is received, leboretory responsible for the laboratory's having a review, interpretetion, end reporting of pereoonel shell mepect each peckege for procedure menuel which Ia complete, test resulie; meintenence of chain of evideece otpeeeible tempering end p to dde aveiteble for personnel custody end proper remediel ectione to compere Informetion on specimen perf rming tests end followed by those be taken in response to test eyetems bottle with n each p ck g to the personnel The procedure manual shall being out of control 1 mite or detecting inform lion on the ccompenying the n be reviewed signed end dated by this eberrent test or quelity control results of custody forms Any d ccl e dence of renponemble individuet whenever (d) Otherpersonnel Other technicians tempering or discrepancies in the procedures are first pleced into cc or or nontechmcel staff shell have the Information on specimen bottlee end the cha ged or when e new mdi duel neceeeery training and chills for the employers chain of c etody forms assumes reeponeibility for management teeke assigned attached to the shipment shell be of the drug test ng leboretory Cop cc of (e) Training The laboratory e unne immed etely reported I the employer eli p oceduree nd dates on which they drug testing program shell make nd shell b noted on th 1 b dory re in effect shell be mcml ned a a table continuing education progreme hem of custody form which ebell (Spec I contents of the p cedure tomeet the needs of lebor tory eccomp ny the ep cimene white they menu I are deecnbed in I 40 2g(n)(1)) personnel a clothe 1 bor tory e poeeeeemon (6) Thie nd idu 1 shell be (f) Flee Laboratory pereonnel flee (2) Spec men bottles w 11 norm Ily be reepone ble for mcml ning a quality shall include resume of Ire ning end ret ned w thin the leborelory nec program to assure the pr p r e penence certification o I cenee it cceee on r a nt 1 cit nelyoee have pe form nec nd eporting of all test eny efere eec job deecnpt one been complet d Al quote end the eeutle for maintaining acceptable reco d of performance evet elion end 1 boratory e b n of uet dy forms tyt eel pe f maceec for all contrele edvencement incident reports end shell be sed by lebo tory pe coon 1 end etenderde for maintaining quality results of tests which eeteblieh for conducting iniliel and confirmatory en trol test ng d to a e r ng nd empl yee comp ten y for the poe lion tests doe ment ng the vet dity reliability he r she holde such as test to color Ic) Short term refrige otedit age ccc y p eels on a d performen e bt dneee f app op Ic Sp c mene that do not receive a mnitiel PAGENO="0160" 156 47010 Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 224 I Monday, November 21, 1988 / Rules and Regulations test within? days of snivel at the laboratory shall be placed In secure refrigeration units. Temperatures shall not exceed 6'C. Emergency power equipment shall be available in case of prolonged power failure. (d) Specimen processing. Laboratory facilities for urine drug testing will normally process specimens by grouping them into batches. The number of specimens In each batch may vary significantly depending on the size of the laboratory and Its workload. When conducting either Initial or confirmatory tests, every batch shall contain an appropriate number of standards for calibrating the instrumentation and a minimum of 10 percent controls. Both quality control and blind performance test sumples shall appear as ordinary samples to laboratory anaiysta. (e) Initial test (1) The initial test shall use an lmsnunoassay which meets the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration for commercial distribution. The following initial cutoff levels shall he used when acreening specimens to determine whether they are negative for these five drugs or claaees of drugs: te5& test LeeS tee/mt Met$eata metabewtee ~.. - inn Geese meSeten.. ...._. 306 Opiate metabeless_._._. `300 Pfreecscfreee 2a Mepfrstsmiaes___ 1.000 * `sOne/sS 5 iaseaeeeseey epecite fur free mw~ (2) These test levels are eub)ect to change by the Department of Hesltti end Human Services aa advances in technology or other considerations warrant Identification of these substances so other concentrations. Initisi teat methods and testing levels for other druge shall he submitted in writing by the employer for the written approval of the DOT Agency under that agency's regulations. * (f)Conflrmatoiytest(1)AU epecimene identified as positive on the initial test shall be conflnned uelng gee chromatography/mace epectrometry (CC/MS) tachnlquee at the cutoff values lleted in this paragraph for each drug. All conflrmstione shall be by quantitative analysis. Concentrations which exceed the linear region of the standard curve shall he documented in the laboratory record as "greater then higheat standard curve value." tey test iev~$ns/ telephone. The laboratory and employer must eneure the security of the date transmission and limit access to any date transmission, storage, and retrieval system. (5) The laboratory eheil send only to the Medical Review Officer the original ore certified true copy of the urine custody and control form (part 1), which shall be signed (after the required certification block) by the inde dust responsible for day.to.day management of the drug testing Isboratory or the individual responsible for attesting to the validity of the test reports. end attached to which shall has copy of the test report. (6) The laboratory shall provide to the umployer official responsible for coordination of the drug free workplace program a monthly statistical summery of urinalysis testing of the employer's employeea end ahsli not include In the summary any personal identifying information. Initial end confirmation data shall he included from test results reported within that month. Normally this summery shalt be forwarded by registered or certified mail not more then 14 calender dsys after the end of the month covered by the summary. The summery shell contain the following information: (I) Initial testing: (A) Number of specimens received: an~ Number of specimens reported out: . (C) Number of specimens screened positive for Marliusna metsbnlitea Cocaine meishulites Opiate meisbolitea ~n~clai~e ~ (ii) Confirmatory testing~ (A) Number of specimens received for confirmation: (B) Number of specimens confirmed sitiv f r ~ Marijuana mstabulits Cocaine meisholite ~orPhln~reine ~p~tamin Nt thmeph t mine * (7) The laboratory shell make available copies of all analytical results foeemployer drug testing programs when requested by DOT or any DOT agency with regulatory authority over the employer. (8) Unless otherwise instructed by the employer in writing, all records pertaining to a given urine specimen shall be retained by the drog testing laboratory fore minimum of 2 years. Mattjaane metatielite ` Cecasta eetabutits ` OPla~~, Cestes Pfrencycllaee - Ainpfretamees: ~ is 100 ~® 300 25 eon an `Oeea.S.tatrsfrydrecaenstsnel.s.cstfrueytc ccitt - Senzey . (2) These test levels are sub)ect to change by the Department of Health and Human Services as advances in technology or other considerations warrant identification of these substances at other concentrations Confirmatory test methoda end testing levels for other drugs shall be submitted in writing by the employer for the written approval of the DOT agency as provided in that agency's regulations, (g) Reportingresults. (1)The Isboretory shell report test results to the employer's Medical Review Officer within an average of 5 working days after receipt of the specimen by the leboretory. Before any test result is reported (the results of initial teete, conflnnatory tests, or quality control data), it shell be reviewed end the test certified sean accurate report by the ~7t ~ for, whether positive or negative, and the cutoff for each, the specimen number assigned by the employer, and the drug testing laboratory specimen identification number (accession number). The reeults..(positive end negative) for all specimens submitted at the same time to the laboratory shall be reported beck to the Medical R,eview Officer at the same time. (2) The leboratory shall report os negative all specimens which are , negative on the Initial test or negative on the confirmatory test Only specimens confirmed positive shall be reported positive for a specific th~. (3) The Medical Review Officer may request from the laboratory and the laboratory shall provide quantitation of test reeults. The Medical Review Officer may not disclose qusntitstion of test results to the employer but shall report only whether the test was positive or negative, (4) The laboratory may transmit reaulte to the Medical Review Officer by various electronic means (for example. teleprintere, faceimils, or computer) in a manner designed to ensure confidentiality of the information, Resulta may not he provided verbally by PAGENO="0161" 157 Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 224 I Monday, November 21, 1988 I Rules and Regulations 47011 (h) Long-term storage. Long.term inspect the laboratory at any time. (ii) There shall be written procedures frozen storage (-20' C or less) ensures Employer contracts with laboratories for for instrument set-up and normal that positive urine specimens will bs drug testing. as well as contracts for operation, a schedule for checking available for any necessary retest collection site services, shall permit the critical operating characteristics for alt during administrative or disciplinary employer and the DOT agency of instruments, tolerance limits for proceedings. Drug testing laboratories jurisdiction (directly or through an acceptable function checks and shall retain and place in properly agency) to conduct unannounced instructions for major trouble shooting secured long-term frozen storage furs inspections, and repair. Records shall be available minimum sf1 year all specimens *` (m) Documentation. The drug testing on preventive maintenance. confirmed positive. Within this 1-year laboratories shall maintain and make (4) Remedial actions. There shall be period an employer (or other person available for at least 2 years written procedures for the actions to be designated in a DOT agency regulation) documentation of all aspects of the taken when systems are out of may request the laboratory to retain the testing process. This 2-year period may acceptable limits or errors are detected. specimen for an additional period of be extended upon written notification There shall be documentation that these time, but if no such request is received by a DOT agency or by any employer procedures are followed and that all the laboratory may discard the for which laboratory services are being necessary corrective actions are taken. specimen after the end of 1 year, except provided. The required documentation There shall also be In place systems to that the laboratory shall be required to shall include personnel files on all verify all stages of testing and reporting maintain any specimens under legal individuals authorized to have access to and documentation that these challenge for an indefinite period. specimens; chain of custody documents; procedures are followed. (i) Refesting specimens. Because some quality assurance/quality control (5) Personnel available to testify at analytes deteriorate or are lost during records; procedure manuals; all test data proceedings. A laboratory shall have freezing and/or storage, quantisation for (including calibration curves and any qualified personnel available to teutify a retest is not subject to a specific cutoff calculations used in determining test in an administrative or disciplinary requirement but must provide data results); reports; performance records on proceeding against an employee when sufficient to confirm the presence of the performance testing; performance on that proceeding is based on positive drug or metabolite. certification inspections; and hard urinalysis results reported by the (j) Subcontracting. Drug testing copies of computer-generated data. The laboratory. laboratories shall not subcontract and laboratory shall be required to maintain shall perform all work with their own documents for any specimen under legal §40.31 Quality assurance and quality personnel and equipment. The challenge for an indefinite period, control. laboratory must be capable of (n) Additional requirements for (a) Genes-al. Drug tooting laboratories performing testing for the five classes of certified laboratories.-(1) Procedure shall have a quality assurance program drugs (marijuana, cocaine, opiates, manual. Each laboratory shall have a which encompasses all aspects of the phencyclidine, and amphetamines) using the initial immunoassay and procedure manual which includes the testing process including but not limited confirmatoty GC/MSmethoda specified principles of each test, preparation of to specimen acquisition, chain of in this part procedures. This paragraph reagents, standards and controls, custody, security and reporting of does not prohibit subcontracting of calibration procedures, derivation of results, Initial and confirmatory testing, laboratory analysis if specimens are results, linearity of methods, sensitivity and validation of analytical procedures. sent directly from the collection site to of the methods, cutoff values, Quality assurance procedures shall be the subcontractor, the subcontractor is a mechanisms for reporting results, designed, implemented. and reviewed to laboratory certified by DHHS se controls, criteria for unacceptable monitor the conduct of each step of the required in this part, the subcontractor specimens and results, remedial actions process of testing for drugs. performs all analysis and provides to be taken when the test systems are (b) Laboratory quality control storage required under this part, the outside of acceptable limits, reagents requirements for initial tests. Each subcontractor is responsible to the and expiration dates, and references. analytical run of specimens lobe employer for compliance with this part Copies of all procedures and dates on screened shall include: and applicable DOT agency regulations which they are in effect shall be (1) Urine specimens certified to self it were the prime contractor, and maintained as part of the manual. contain no drug: other relevant provisions of this part are (2) Standards and controls. (2) Urine specimens fortified with observed, Laboratory standards shall be prepared known standards: end (k)Laboratoryfacilities. (1) with pure drug standards which are (3) Positive controls with the drug or Laboratory facilities shall comply with properly labeled as to content and metabolite at or neat the threshold applicable provisions of any State concentration. The standards shall be (cutoff). - licensure requirements. labeled withthe following dates: when In addition, with each batch of samples (2) Laboratories certified in -received: when prepared or opened: a sufficient number of standards shall accordance with DHHS Mandatory when placed in service; and expiration be included to ensure and document the Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug date. linearity of the assay method over time Testing Programs must have the (3) Instruments and eqw~oment. (i) in the concestration area of the cutoff. capability, at the same laboratory Volumetric pipettes and measuring After acceptable values are obtained for premises, of performing Initial and devices shall be certified for accuracy or the known standards, those values will confirmatory tests for each drug or be checked by gravimetrlc. colorimetric, be used to calculate sample data. metabolite for which service Is offered. or other verification procedure. Implementation of procedures to ertnure (I) Inspections. The Secretary, a DOT Automatic pipettes and dilutors shall be that carryover does not contaminate the agency, any employer utilizing the checked for accuracy and testing of an individual's specimen shall laboratory. D1-tFtS or any organization reproducibility before being placed In be documented. A minimum of 10 performing liboratory certification on service and checked periodically percent of all test samples shall be behalf of DHHS reserve the right to thereafter. quality control specimens. Laboratory 55-369 0 - 92 - 6 PAGENO="0162" I! `weiSoid uoge;jjçqeqaz Jo SDUS1S!9$B £aua8e LO~ °qL 8u~sa; Snip eupu pa;sa; aq aaAotdwa ~aRoiduza oqi 01 9800 Btfl ~e;ai s4ioieaoqej aip jo ~uewo8uuew Asp o; s~ ueuzpads aqi qoyq~ ao; S3UB)S~fl 4CaljOd s,ia&ojdwa alp uj papjaoid vu -oi-Aup aoj ajq~suodsaa~enpyajpu~ oqi aip Jo; SUflS8) aaueuuojaad pu~~q fleqg 183U10 Ma!aau I~~!P0P4 aqj jnsaa £q pauS~a ;uawa;e;s u £q pe;uawnoop qons waopad 0; uogaos app £q paajnbaa ;ea~ OA itsod e jo UOUUDUPOA SUIMOIIOA eq j~eqe 8u;;se~az 8~t(J 91313 aaAojdwe uoj;epodeueai aeq;ouv aeq ao uqq IflJM W~~' ;ee; eqi ~ 1~~1 e3UeWJOJfld Moioejej;es iset aq;;o £~; ao £3ueSu IBJCPC5 C £q IWBJSOM 0) XflUfl)lOddO ue w~Pi~cP"~ Cip CAjS CWfl eIjJ 0) ~peq lone etp;o uoqn~osei Sunsci 8n~u eae~d~po~ i'~~a ioj ;jeqs JCOUJO MCIAOU jea~pepj aip `z~neaz 1aug10 CW9 Olfi WOJ3 aiqoqejew eeuqapçn~ MOICPUflAJ 6111-lU Wfl JO ~~ed 1801 OAflJSOd a £jpoa 01 U019110~ 1~1~13~ ~o Snip aLp £03 OAIIIeOd P0Z&ISUB app aopim Stipso; eouaouopod puqq SUpjOW 01 £Olld ~ 7903 OIsjflSOd(3) sUoW110ds flu 180101 flø~8 Mo~aioqe~ 0; ;aofqna £pUoIIno speq Lio;esoqe~ pad opp qpst 03U0~JO33R UI possoooid 041 `uop;ppe UI potooouoø £ouo8u a 8OZ411fl loatojdWe 430831 lied 8141 ao ~0U~9140 )OU ass ;eqi soidwes oujinjo iou sip o; uoWpode at;psod sate; 4flM oaUeIldWoo Supjnbai suoge~n8ai 8110901 041 aop;euoo `1088M04 IOU 11~4~ ~41 P~P°P°1 4314M suow~ooda 3041184 £ooo8e 100 010W 10000 10~U0 aiejt1eoe 1031330 MO~AO~ 1031P0fl 04j `ooysaojpom 04101013 eop 1011003 £lfleflb us ;;mqna 103 IDOL aod aoom;aode ooito)dWo poqpoaaid £119801 W013 p01)0801 01 £101810481 Sifl ;onaieii; 11048 ioLo1dmo 0001.0941 10M03 8fl104n8 1841 lOLoIdWO 0*84 ~Jii03 1801 0A11180d ~0UL1)3UO38 011 `10110 1831801oP040b0b0 )01104301 0801 Lidde IOU fl948 aioowoajnboi U04M IenpptIpU) p01801 041 Lq o~qa~~eae seq 01 pOUlUllOl0p 8110110 041 ~U8 Su;;ao; oauewaojaod po~q osoqj. (jy) SpeW 8)110301103410W flU M0)A01 oowpooda 1801 03080L10jI0d puqq DUO `aojienb 11840 103fl3Ø MOJA0)J 1031)10W oqj 1033010.00 o*;~;eod 081838 ~j0049 (9) iod pou;wqne (osz 30 WOW)XBW 8 01) `8101383 )93J)1OWO)4 1080010110410 Loajo auotoiooda aojduisa us ;ol11o3Iod 01.30 WI1UIIUIIU a MCI 0110 £101914 1831)10W 8)00)1~t)~U) mu Lianolaoad;o eloLleusol poa M0j*O.I ~ p00 (aoIdwaa 00930 WIIWJXCW 04430 M0)401 `lOnPIAlPip ~4; 4~ aitnboa 0819 Low £30088 LOU 041 e o; do) po;;;wqna aoldweojo 1040100 MOIAIOUI 1831P0W 8 Suq3npooa 0~flj314 3;;owolaLo 0004 0*94 P10031Ol.IO041 18101 04130 ;ooasad 09189011830 3000100 P1003 001130 814.1. `1108011801 oapiaod 0A0fl04 010089018)0104131 )1U8 .010103 04401 4flM 84381100311 LIoleloqel Los aoj aooq008IdxoIoaIpoW 018010118 04101 aoao 1e1n31118d 04130 0300.110330 439001 SUOWI3Od8 1801 o3oe000jaod 0UIWUX0 118481031330 MO1A0U )531)10fl 04101)040)0101001138 841113011030)101 pui~q 11W400 11848 loLo1dwo ot~; L;q~q)ooodao.l app ;no 8UjLuo3 ~ 01 £10101048) 041 oajnbai 11848 aaLojdwo 4300 `welSold Sopaoi Snap MOO Lue 30 woiBoid So ;ao; a .ioLO1dW0 asp q8noaq; 41 )1U5 300 8.1.00002 p00103003 pouod Lop-os js~nn oip Siipnu (;) (z) )1OU 8140 81108011801 oAploOd ;oadao;uj 3U0 8.LOC011 31100 11 80)101810484 pus M0J410.1 01 8103flJ~ MOTOOll d 118481 01 010041 310 0)150! 030010301 ~U8 aaood 411M poaedwo 1831p0W 04130 OJOI 043 `oood.md 8)41103 01 00 1 3)1013,101100 .18118.UIWPD 8) O3U8WIO3IOd 84101810481041 p00)0101 U0)3)8Lqd o;eapd 010 lOLOIdWO 08 O14~1 )1OU~0101O)1 8110110041)108 4314M Lq aLoiuna 8o~;ao; 0308WI031Od Uonepodoue11 ~ 00L0~dWO ~ 10330 ::r O3uowlOpO poflq su~ 1041001)10881003008) UOfled)3)110d 04 Low )1U0 810)1108)1)08048030918408 011 0 J~)80 09183 )1I~~'1S ~ Lao;oaoqoiq -owoaSos.j 8011001 jo oSpolMowl q1)M o8,31aLqd p08003)) ~ 8L3d~? ~ ~ ~ Snaci 0301d)JIOAJ1. 1910)103103800)10)1)03 804118481031330 M01A0U 183410W Ru dC.i ~ LIolopuow 011 41)M 0300)1103380) ooj -ooqzyq juuodsat pun suopoojjzjonb 04130 IlOdOl 8 iaLoldwo woaBo~d U0)1831J)11OZ1 )10Z)U80301-S1-iJ4Q `JooiJIoaaMow!ooIpon(q) 041 cqluown3opatppuo:floqsL3uoSe 04111911e)U110pe 1OLO1dUio 018110801 ~ ~8ita0 pJ8 1utAosouow ~ ffO4O 810L0~d1U3 (j) 8010)10301d 3000)88)118081104401 10J111 103030 -o;-Lep 011 103 oiq)auodaoa 0180)1P14PUI 1001 0308w1o310d P1414 10a~o1dwa 0~) MObs)) 193410104 041 Lq J)0UI10310d 041 Lq p00*18 pus )1040)1 04 11848 )110301 P010001030)1 0411043 M0P101 81111 `81)080130 1041)108 `110101040) oip Lq 00)183 Uoq38 04081011818 U0W)30d8 8,1901P1*1PUI M0)4101 04101 1911000808) 800ISUU1dX0 0*11301103044)100 aSu)pU)3 o14108)1a3*u) 11030 Soiaoi 01)1 018011091003 100 800)1 153410010100101)0 01q)880d30 02[10JM00)1 041300)180104 flPqa p10301 V lo*0L1193 10440108000180151)10304 P01)8bPS 411M )8141)A))10) ~ .1108011801 03U8UL10J10d Laol3ojops0051 30 uOfloluoWfldoq p840011030)) U0)lejnSOl £300801008300011810141 04130080830411301103010011390)191 L118341o1a0d 0411048 P0110W U) 881111) p08080)40485 108311dd8 11048 £101010401 ow `ooiisSqao*uj 8141 04130 Uo)a)3oId pUB £1118001100.1. /ooLoJdwo US L3)~oop~ L1183J19W0108 00)10884)1081)0801*011001 0300W1OJlOd 030103) 100800)11)08011801 a4fl)aod V 81)080130 L.io;oejaqoaun Lua `ooqaSnaa&o) 1)10480141 04118001019 01)1040100! M0)401 180)3 041 8) Wt1801d Sopao; Slop 10394111001103011191810 01081180*14 10 Snip oip IpIM 810111103 0411180d to) 04130 pud 10800800 IIV SJJ090JMOfiIOJ 11018)100103003 LouoSo iou oqi (p) p098)118)10018 UMOU)1 ~oqoJo3,JJo /.aejiIogfoorpapJ(s) -Luau 18103)11W 4))M P0411103 8uOW)3Oda 0U)1fl to) `811n80100 MS$W pus S&jpan~a~g ~`~pj 030 L1)3)3)30d8 041 Ljpo* 0110)11001 801)1000)011103 `040)ldOldda £1183104301 89 `ap000dwo3 01 p013)1103 000wj3oda oupç~ (t) `14980111330)00 (50)1031010) L11811001od) 1041030 5u1)1Ida :0)10)30) 11°4° p0WlI3003 hIM 10110 0411941 Supnaao L~qeooseoa p01)41404 01 p00118003 0410011848 0401 au0Ui)30d8 30051.5 1838LI8U8 4383 8041 `00)1810004 Lpuaqa 884 00)138 4d818918d apuj. -Bonsai 8) loLoJdwo 041 81a01U0)1010113003 103 a100W01)TIbOl 041)1301103 43)14M 0)10110~OO)1O888OJ3O 43)4M 10) 8801)108041 hIM £100 )10)ffda 1011003 L1)Ionb L.Ioloaoqeq (3) 000 8) 0883 0413100)18104 U0fl38 1041.013 0411848 801dw8a 04u))aod oqj -080011843 a01dW88 001841 So)p0000003oI 1000)1830)110) 30 a0)3000bOI3 bobs £1o;awpcoldds JO11003 L1))snb woo 84101810401 04101010481044 Soppoodana 10 SUpJoAoI 0)1)0)10130)010)181801 eq o; aSnip 04104 ~sqa `O1dWea auo 1880119 30 uo)~do 04188491-1110 `LIoo8a LOU 0411101041435180080411)81)1814 01dW88 30W100)UIIUO 43)M `10)1 439030 )u0310d 041 £q p0)1)404 oo~seuuo3u) 00 ~08S9 aod aSrup 0100110000103 oA)1)aod 000 `alaLJoos £10191048101 sojdtnus -110191048)84130 00)181ad030 0.1004 0411~48 801dW88 Supqewoa 041 )1U8 191010088 isoddu )1Jfl040 )108 001 Los Supnp p0300000000 pOl3IbpUO3 (Snap 00148)00301 p0)3)1103 `-0-)) )J0844 04114 P~P°1~14 04 ~oqa 0011011403003 04 Low 43)4M £10181048104130 M0)A01 0411048 aoJdwea 1801 03U8ULi0310d P1414 P00)0110184)30 801dW08 00)111 po)hbda 01)8-00 05 01)nboI Low ~0U103U03 04130 100310d 09 £10;SW)xolddV to) 01013 po.iodoid `soIdweB 1011003 LIbJeub 8°0)1s1n~°u pus ~0J0)) / 9061. `1.1. 10~W0A0~ `Lepuojsj / POE `ON `99 `bOA / 1018120)) 1810p0A SlOtS' 891 PAGENO="0163" 159 Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 224 / Monday. November 21. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 47013 applicable, to the management official empowered to recommend or take administrative action (or the official's designated agent), or both. (d) Verification for opiates; review for prescription medication. Before the Medical Review Officer verifies a confirmed positive result for opiates, he or she shall determine that there Is clinical evidence-in addition to the urine teal-of unauthorized use of any opium, opiate, or opium derivative (e.g., morphine/codeine). (This requirement does not apply if the employer's CC/MS confirmation testing for opiates confirms the presence of 6.monoacetylmorphine.) (e) Reanalysis authorized. Should any question arise as to the accuracy or validity of a positive test result, only the Medical Review Officer In authorized to orders reanalysis of the original sample and such retents are authorized only at laboratories certified by DHHS. The Medical Review Officer ahall authorize a reanalysis of the original sample on timely request of the employee, as provided in applicable DOT agency regulationa. (f) Result consistent with legal drug use. If the Medical Review Officer determines there is a legitimate medical explanation for the positive test result, the Medical Review Officer shall report the test result to the employer as negative. (g) Result scientifically insufficient. Additionally, the Medical Review Officer, based on review of inopection reports, quality control data, multiple samples, and other pertinent results, may determine that the result Is scientifically insufficient for further action and declare the test specimen negative. In this situation the Medical Review Officer may request reanalysis of the original sample before making this decision. (The Medical Review Officer may request that reanalysis be performed by the same laboratory or, as provided in § 40.33(e). that an aliquot of the original specimen be sent for reanalysis loan alternate laboratory which ia certified in accordance with the DHHS Guidelines.) The laboratory shall social In this review process as requested by the Medical Review Officer by making available the individual responsible for day.to.day management of the urine drug testing laboratory or other employee who is a forenoic toxicologist or who has equivalent forensic experience in urine drug testing, to provide specific consultation as required by the employer. The employer shall include in its annual report to the DOT agency a summary of any negative findings based on scientific insufficiency but shall not Include any personal identifying Information In such reports. §40.35 ProtectIon of employee records Employer csntracts with laboratories shall require that the laboratory maintain employee test records In confidence, an provided In DOT agency regulations. 540.37 individual acceseto test and laboratory certification result.. Any employee whole the subject of a drug test conducted under this part shall, upon written request, have access to any records relating to his or her drug teat and any'records relatings to the results of any relevant certification, review, or revocation.of'certification proceedings. Subpart C-Certification of Laboratories Engaged In Urine Drug Testing §40.41 Use of DHHS-certified laboratories. Employers subject to this part shall use only laboratories certified under the DHHS Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, 53 FR 11970, April 11, 1988, and subsequent amendments thereto. DM1-IS certification standards are set forth in Appendix A to this part fIr information and reference. Information concerning the current certification status of laboratories is available from: the Office of Workplace Initiatives, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 5000 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Appendix A to Part 40-DHHS Laboratory Certification Standards Note: Reproduced beisw is subpart C sf the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace DrugTestisg Programs issued by DHHS. Croso.referencen are to sectisns of thsse DUStS Guidelises. Equivalent prsvislsns in this part stay be determined by reference to the following table: Part 40 DHHS Guidelines: Section 1.1 § 40.1 Section 1.2 840.2 Sectiss 2.1 840.21 Sectios 22 840.25 Section 2.3 § 40.27 Sectiss 2.4 § 40.28 Section 2.5 040.31 Sectios 2.8 Section 2.7 §40.33 Section 2.8 §40.35 Section 2.9 §40.37 Subpart C-Cerilflcstloo of Laboratories Engaged in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies Section 3.1 Introduction. Urine drag testingis a critical component of efforts to combat drag abuse in our society. Many laboratories are familiar with good laboratory practices but may be unfamiliar with the special procedures required when drug test results are used In the employment context. Accordingly. the following are minimum standards to certifylaboratories engaged Is urine drug tenting for Federal agencies. Certification, even at the highest level, does not guarantee accuracy of each result reported by a iaboratsry conducting urine drug tenting for Federal agencies. Therefore, results from laboratories certified under these Guidelines meet be Interpreted with a complete understanding of the total collection, analysis. gnd reporting process before a final conchinlon Is made. Section 3.2 Goals and Objectives of Certification. (Is) Uses of Urine Drug Testing. Urine drug testing In unimportant tool toidentify drug users ins variety of settings. In the proper context. arise drug tenting can be used to deter drug abuse in generaL To be a useful tool, the Seating procedure munt be capable of detecting drugs or their meiaboiites at concentrations indicated is nectlon 2,4 (e) and (0. (bi Need to Set Standards; Inspections. Reliable discrimination between the presence, or absence, of specific drugs or their metaboliteo in critical, not only to achieve thegoatu of the tenting program bat to protect the rights of the Federal employees being tested. Thus, standards have been set which laboratories engaged In Federal employee urine drug tasting must meet 1st order to achieve maximum accuracy of tent renults. These laboratories will be evaluated by the Secretary or the Secretary's designee as defined in oectionl.2 in accordance with these Guidelines. The qualifying evaluation will involve three rounds of performance testing pluo on.nlte inspection. Maintenace of certification requires participation loan every.other.month performance tenting program plus periodic. on.sitelnspections. One Inspection following successful completion of a performance tenting regimen is required forinitlal certification. This must be followed by a necond Inspection within 3 months, afterwhich biannual inspections will be required to maintain certification. (c) Urine Drsg Testing AppliesAnalyticsl Forensic Toxicology. The possible impact of a positive teat result on as individual's livelihood or rights, togetherwith the possibility of a legal challenge of the result, sets thin type of tent apart from munt clinical laboratory testing. Intact, urine drug testing should be considered a special application of analytical forensic toxicology. That is. in addition to the application of appropriate analytical methodology. the upecimen most be treated as evidence, and all aspects of the testing procedure must be documented and available for possible court testimony. Laboratories engaged In urine drug testing for Federal agescien wilt require the services and PAGENO="0164" 0 PAGENO="0165" 161 Federal Register I VoL 53, No. 224 I Monday, November 21, 1988 I Rules andkegulations 47015 (c) Effective Date. A suspension shall be Section 3.18 Performance Test Specimen (5) For any individual drug, an applicant effective immediately. A proposed revocation Composition. laboratory ahait ouccesafuily detect and shall be effective 30 days after written notice (a)Descripfion ofthe Drugs. Performance quantitate in accordance with paragraphs is given or, ifreview Ia requested, upon the teat specimens shall contain those drugs and (a)(2), (a)l3), and (a)(4) of tins section at teaot reviewing official's decision to uphold the metabolitea which each certified laboratory flOperceot ofthe total drug challenges, proposed revocation. If the reviewing official must be prepared to assay in concentration Fatiwe to successfully quanlitaleat least 50 decides not to uphold the suspension or ranges that allow detection ofthe anatyte by percent ofthe challenges for any sdimduat proposed revocation, the suspension ehatt commonly uaedimmun000say screening drug will result to dtsqualtfication. terminate immediately and any proposed techniques. These levels are generally in the b. Ongoing Testing of Certified revocation shall not take effect range of concentrations which might be Laboratories. (1) False Positives ond (d) DHHS'Recogaized Certification expected in the urine of recent drug users. For ProcedsreaforDealing with Them. No false Program. The Secretary's responsibility under some drug anatytes, the specimen drug identifications are acceptable for any this section maybe carried out by DH}tS- composition wilt conoist of the parent drug as drugs for which a laboratory offers service. reco ized certifi atio j~ wail as major metabolites. In some cases, Under some circumstances a false poaitive d ith th G Id t' - more than one drug class may be inctudedin test may result in suspension or revocation of one specimen container, but generally no certification. The moot serious false positives Section 3.16 Recertification, more than two drugs will be present in any are by drug class, such as reporting ThC iou Following the termination or expiration of one specimen in order to imitate the type of blank specimen or reporting cocaine in a any suspension or revocation a laboratory specimen which a laboratory normally specimen known to contain only opiates. I f sir ti `U lb encounters. For any particular performance Mioidentificationo within a classo leg., submission of evidence satisfacto to the testing cycle-the actual composition of kits codeine for morphine) are stun false positives S I tt'at lb I b t t' going to different laboratories will vary but, which ore unacceptable in an appropriately th th Guid ~~`DM1S ~` within any annual period, all laboratories controlled laboratory. but they are clearly participating wilt have analyzed the same less serious errors than misidentification of a recogn ze ccitt cation program ~` total set of specimens. claus. The following procedures shall be accordance with ese Guide toes, an any (hi Concentrations. Performance test followed when dealing with a false pooitve: other conditions imposed as part of the specimens shall be spiked with the drug (i) The agency detecting a false positive suspension or revocation, the Secretary may classes and their metabalites which are error shall imniediatety notify the laboratory recertify the laboratory or accept the required for certification: marijuana, cocaine, end the Secretary of any ouch error. recertification of the laboratory by 5 DHHS~ opiates, emphetamined, and phencyclidine. (ii) The leboralory shall provide the recognized certification program. with concentration levels set at least 20 Secretary with a written explanation of the Section 3.17 Performance Tent Requirement percent above the cutoff limit for either the reasons for the error within 5 working daye. If f C if t d y h hi Sm q dbyp g pt'(b)(l)( )b I w th ((Alt! dC t gRqrem t ~ tip m myb ~YdthIh~mlhff The performance testing program ins part of identified for Ce/MS essay onty. Blanks a sb t I d d th fat ositive the initial evaluation of a laboratory seeking shall contain tess than 2 ag/mI of any of the ~ . p certification (both performance testing and target dregs. These concentration and drug (iii) `the Secretary shall review the laboratory inspection are required) end of the types maybe changed periodically in t b t ` Ia atien within 5 workin continuing assessment of laboratory response to factors ouch as changes is d- d d d h ~ th ti fan performance necessary to maintain this detection technology end patterns of drug certification, use. U (If lb cI t rmincd to be en (b) Three Initial Cycles Required Section 3.19 Evalaoiion of Performance administrative error (clerical, sample mixup, Successful participation in three cycles of Testing. etc.). the Secretary may direct the luboratory testing shell be required before a laboratory . to take corrective acliou to minimize the ineligible lobe considered for inspection and (a) Insticl Certification. (1) An app cant occurrence of the particular error, in the certification. These initial three cycles (and a oratory s a not report any a se p085cc future and, if there ix reason to believe the any required for recertification) can be resut tiring per ormance en ing itO error could have been systematic. may compressed into a 3'month period (one per eatomatically di~quaIifya1absratory from require the laboratory to review and farther consideration. reanalyze previously run specimens. (c(Stx Challenges Per Year After t 1 b h 11 t ` (vllf the error a deleraxined tube a certification, laboratories shall be challenged en averall grade level of in~trcent for the technical or methodological error, the every other month with one set of at least is three c des of performance teeting required laboratory shalt submit to the Secretary eli specimens-a total of six cycles per year. f `1 1 Vt t .~ t ctt quality control data from the batch of (dl Laboratory Procedures Identical for identify end confirm 00 percent of the total~ specimens which inctuded the false positive Performance Test and Roaiane Employee drug challenges for each shipment. Any specimen. to addition, the taboratury shatl Specimens. All procedures associated with laboratory which achieves a score on any retest all specimens analyzed positive by ihe the handting end testing of the performance one cycle of the initial certification such that laburatory from the time of final resolution of test specimens by the laboratory shalt lathe it can no longer achieve a total grade of ~a the error back to the time of the last greatest extent possible be carried satins percent aver the three cycles wilt be satisfactory performance test cynic. This manner identical to that applied to routine immediately dioqualified from further relenting shall be documented bye statement laboratory specimens, unless otherwise consideration, signed by the individual responsible for the specified. -(3(An applicant laboratory shall obtain day.to.day management of the laboratory's (e( Blind Performance Test. Any certified quantitative values for at leant 80 percent of wine drag tenting. Depending on the type of laboratory shall be subject to blind the total challenges which are loin percent or error which caused the false positive, this performance testing (ace section 2.5(d)). ±2 otenda~d deviations of the calculated relenting maybe limited Inane anatyte or Performance on blind test specimens shall be reference group mean (whichever is larger). may include any drugs a laboratory certified at the same level as far the apes or nan'blisd Failure to achieve 00 percent will result in under these Guidelines must be prepared to performance testing. disqualification, assay. The laboratory shull immediately It) Reporting-Open Performance Test. The (4) An applicant laboratory shall not obtain notify the agency if aiiy result on a retest laboratory ahalt report results of open any quantitative values that differ by more sample must be corrected because the criteria performance tests to the certifying than 50 percent from the calculated reference for a positive are not satisfied. The Secretary urgenination in the same manner as specified group mean. Any quantitative values that may suspend or revoke the loboratory's in section 2.4(g((2( for routine laboratory differ by more thea 50 percent will result in certification for alt drags or for only the drug specioiess. disqualification, or drug class in which the error occurred. PAGENO="0166" L I 0 t I 0 0. 0 0 N PAGENO="0167" - Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 1988 I Rules and RegUlatiOns 47017 URINE CUSTODY AND CONTROL FORM STOP 1 -- TO BE COMPLETED DY EMPLOYEE/APPLICANT (epioyee 1.0. H__________________ (PRO-PRINTED SPECIMEN 1.0. N] Eçioyer Moe: ______________________ Social Security No. or Ee~loyee No. STEP 2 -- TO BE COMPLETED BY EMPLOYER BCPRCSENTATIVE/OR COLLECTOR Reason for Test (Check One) [I] Pr-en~ioynent [] Post Accident [I] Randos [I] Periodic Medical [I] STEP 3 -- COLLECTOR MUST NOTE THAT TEMPERATURE OF SPECIMEN HAS BEEN READ. RECORD IF NOT WITHIN TUE RANGE OF 32.5 . 37.7C/ 90.5 - 99.8 F: * [] RIOIiIN BADGE STEP 4 -. TO BE INITIATED BY THE PERSON COLLECTING SPECIMEN AND COMPLETED AS NECESSARY THEREAFTERI Released By* I Received By STEP 5-- (SEE BELOH -- TO BE COMPLETED BY EMPLOYEE) STEP 6 -- BEFORE COMPLETING THIS STEP BARE EMPLOYEE COMPLETE STEP S BELOW. To be conqlteted by person collecting specimen: Collector's Name________________________________________ Bate of Collection______________ 163 Print (FI~5t, fl.1., Last) Collection Site___________________________________________ ( I Facility Bane and Location Telephone Remarks concerning collection: I certify that the specimen identified on this form is the specimen presented to no by the eoqaloyee providing the certification below, that I have certified that it bears the same identification molter as that set forth above, and that it has been collected, labeled amA sealed as required by the instructions provided. SignaOure of collector STEP 7 -. TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LABORATORY: Accession No. ___________ I certify that the specimen identified by this accession nsater is the sans specimen that hears the identification m*mAer set forth above, that the specimen has been examined open receipt, handled and analyzed in accordance with applicable Pedoral requirements, and that the results attached ore for that specimen. Printed Name Siguature Date Copy No. 1: Original PAGENO="0168" 164 47018 Federal Register I Vol. 53, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 1988 I Rules and Regulations etc a~snooo uso eons. reM STEP * .. TO RE COMPLETES ST Er#LSTEE/AP?LICMMI Enplcync .0. 5 (POE-PRINTED SPECIMEN 0.0. 0] E~ioyer Soon: Social Sccurity Nc. STEP S .. TO NG COMPLETES 50 EMPLOTER REPOEOEI1TATIVE/OR COELGCTOe Reason for Test (Check tnt) [] Pre-ceploy-ont [J Post Occident [J Randea [~j Periodic itodical [J Othor(Specify) , -- STEP 3 -. COLLECTOD HOST NOTE THAT TEMPERATURE OF SPECIMEN SOS NOES READ. REECHO IF MET WITHIN TOE NOtICE OF 30.0. 37.7C/ NOR - tOO Ft (J WITHIN NAOCH STEP 4 .. TO NE IN1TIATEE 50 THE PE0005 COLLECTING SPECIMEN Oil COMPLETES *3 NECESSARY THOREWFTERi Released Ny Receiced Oy Puronne of Chant. SlonatijrniPrint SaNe 510naeurolPrint Mono Oats Provide Dp.cioen for Teseino GONER STOP 0 -* (SEE IGLOO -. TO NE COMPLETES ST EMPLOYEE) STEP S - NOIRE COMPlETING THIS STEP WAVE EMPLOYEE CIHPN.ETEOTEP 5 RELOW. To be oeeplstad by person cellsctie apsoitoot Collectors Neon_____________________________________ Oats of Collection_____________ Collection Site Telephone HearSe c000erniNO coliettitn: caroify thee Ohs spedleon identified on this for. No tOe specieen presented to no by the eepteyee providin5 the oertifitation bun, that I Mace certified toot it Soars the seen identification eater as that sot forth above, and that it too been collecTed. labeled aid sealed as roqcired by the ifetrut5000s provided. - Signatare of ceiiectoc' STEP P .. TONE COMPLETES ST Tilt SA3CRAT000e Accessiee No. ___________ I certify that the specie.. identif led by this etcesoice eetOer is the sees specisen that beers the idontification nuetnr set forth e5oce, that the speninon has been ooe.i~ nose receipt. Macdied and eneiyeed in accordance tick appiicabio federal requirtesets, aid that the results att.stited are for Hot opeoieen. Printed Nat. Sionatcare Sale STEP 5 .. TORE CONPLETER ST EMPLOYEE ER *PPLIC*OiT P000ISINR SPECIO1ENe Heee ___________________________________ Isty Lecetite ______________________________ Lest/first/HI. Job Till.: _____________________________ Rate of Nirth If you eish to Mace prescription or ovei.the.teentei- esdicatioee that yeo~e.y have taken or been adeinisioe'ed oithin the pest 30 days 0005idnred as yotao test resaits are solaced, pea sep Riot tOes Mere or procide thee infor.stinn separately to your enplo~ors i tertity that the urine specicen identified so this fers is ep ent; that it is fresk and has net been adulteraoed in any rancer; aid that the idsotificatiot i000enasios preceded en this fore ceO en Ohs coliectioe bottle is correci. * consenoto tiM sdaeissiot of this spectee to the cortif led iabsratory desioneted by ep ei~toyor, to the analysis of the speci.en for c000rolied svbstaeces as pronided by Federai tequireeeees, and to tOo reisass of test results fre. that analysis to the Nedlcai Oeclee Ollicer deslinated by ep espioyer. Copy So. 2: Nsinai Senieo Offices' Sienature Sits PAGENO="0169" STEP S -- (SEE 5ELOW -- TO ME COMPLETED IT EMPLOYEE) STEP 6 .. BEFORE CWUTORG TIlES STEP lIME EMPLOYEE COMPLETE STEP N BElOW. lObe cespisted by person cellsctieq specionne Collecto's Ness_____________________________ tstsof Collection__________ Paint (First, LI., Lest) reuisctlet Site______________________________________ I S FacIlity 1 aed LocatIon Delepiceee Roasybs concerning collectIon; ___________________________________________________________________________________ certify that the speclese identifiadee this foe. 6. the spectess presented toes by the psclo~oe prooiding the certtficatlon belee, that I bios certified test it bests the s ideetificetios edeer as thee set forth ab~, end that it lies bees collected, libeled slid seeled as roqcilred by the testractlons presided. Sl~natcee of collectee' STEP? .. TOtE COMPLETES BY THE LAAOMATORTe Accession No. __________ S certify thet the speclese Identified by this accescioe is~sr is the s~ sfetieee that beets she identifIcation isidaer set forth these, that she specIwf lies base ess.ieed tips. receipt, beetled acid analysed it aceesdacce elth applicable Fede'a reqolc'~ets, acid that the reselts attached are fee that spsclest. Printed Noes Sl~catiart hate STEP I .. TI If COMPUTES BY EMPlOYEE OR APPLICAeT PtOAODSBO OPECOMEN. Neon ___________________________________ Saty Location ______________________________ Last/First/el. Jab TItle; ___________________________ hate of Mirth - If yea eIsh to haos prtstrlptlen or oosr.the.csaetsr esdltaniots thet )oe'esy bees teben or bees edelslstersd elehle the pest 30 days ccnsldered as ysor test rescue ate retiesed, yte nay itst thee here or precide that feferssttes seperately to year espleners' I sertify elicit the ales epeclonn ldentiflsd on this less Is ep ass; teat it is fresh and has not hess edcitsraned in any eseesr; aiM that the ldeetlfloatloe Infopesthee presided en this fore end on the oelleetlce bonnie is correct. I totsent do the sidelsslot of this specless Os thecertlfied labareton'y desi5satsd by sp, ~ieysr, to the eneiyses of the species.. icr tentrtlled substances 00 presIded by Federal reclotrsesets. and So lbs reteess of test resolts fl's. 5bet a,oipsis to the Medical lecine Officer designated by ep eeploynr. Slgteturs Rote CcOy No. 5: Enoloyse -- 165 Federal Register / Vol 53 No 224 / Monday November 21 1988 I Rules and Regulations 47019 URINE COSTOOY AND COITMOL FOOl STEP 1 .. TO OE COMPUTED tY EMPLDYEE/APPLICAAT (pp yen I ~ ( ft P101.0 SP(CSIEA 5.0 C] (pp yec' one Social Soccrlcyfc. STEP S TO BE COMPLETED 0? EMPLOYER EEP0050NTATOVE/OR COLLECTOR Re soc fcc' Too (Chech Ott) re.oppi con c C] Pa Ac dec [J Macides C] Psriedl Medical C] STEP) COLLECTOR MUST NOTE THAT TEMPERATURE OF SPECOION ISO lEft MEMO 100010 SF NOT WITHIN THE MANGE (V 32 S ST TC/ 00 t tO N F ems ERASE STE TO 50 S DES SM THE PERSON COLLECTING SPECIi1EM MID COMPLETED AS NECESSARY ThEREAFTER Released ty Recelced Np Pcrtfse of Chenoe SlonatcrelPrlnt Naee Ston&torelPi'lnt N~ Date Prcctee Specleec for Tie 001106 PAGENO="0170" 166 47020 Federal Register / Vol. 21, No. 224 / Monday, Novembcr 21, 1988 / Rules and Regulations BIlE CUSTER) MD CONTROL FORM STEP S -- TO BE COAPLETTO BY EIPLOTEE/APPLICANT £ep)Vyoo 5.0. N_______________ (POE-PRINTED SPECIMEN I.E. NJ Eo,ao~e OaRS __________________________ Soalal batty No. Eo~IoyRo N~ STEP 2 ONE COSPLETo.D B ECPLOVCR REPAEIEJITATSVE/OB COL).ECTOT Reason fo~ Too (Cheak Eon) E1 ,too,noo, Post AcoIdeot Naodoe Patodis itodica) Othee(Opoc)fy)_________________ STEP 3 - COLLECTEN NEST (CUTE THAT TESPEUTONE CF SPECIMEN HAD Eel REPS. NEC000 OF NIT WITHIN THE RANGE Of - - 32$ - 3T.7C/ NON . INN?, [J WITHIN RANGE STEP 4 - TO K INITIATED BY THE PERSON COLLECTORS SPECIMEN AlE C5)PLETED AS NECESSARY THEREAFTER: Ooteasad By RMDIONd Ry Panpote otChaooe SlonaturelP,InE NI.. SlonatorelPilnt Naas ENOR ProvIde SpoEAoeo for STOP N - (SEE BELOW - TO SE COINI.ETED BY RIWLOTCE) STEP A .- BEFORE COMPUTING THIS STEP RAVE EMPLOYEE COMPLETE STEP N BELCH. To bN tooplotid by person co0100tlog spNcleono Coltovto,o N teEN RI Ctilectloo___________ Pt-tnt (FIrst. RI., Last) * ColNsatloo SIAN____________________________________ C S FacIIItyNe*aodtocatloo TNiepVooe N~rbs ctntervlog ColloctIoo: - cot-tAR CM CVI ONCCM0 OHio 01.400 thN foe. I CV. p.cI.N PPIONRIN4 to by the eopioyeo prtvldlog the certlflcatttn bolos, that B Naoo certIfIed that It bears the s~ ldettlflcattos ttedsr as that Not forth abooe. and that AC taB bob colloEtad, Iahel.d aod Bolted U CMqOAPad by the Nostrattlons provIded. . Slloataro RB cRIlittar . STEP N -. TO NO COIPLOTED IT TIE LORIROTOBY, heceaston No. ___________ A certify that the speotnnn Nd.ntlf lid by HANs accessIoN PloWer Os the Ba.. opeclnen that bears the Identificatlot ,s&t*nr sot foilS ab~, that the Bpecle.t has beet ooonIe.d pee receipt, bartaled alsO aoalyaed No an.cot-dance alth applltabla Fodoral topptrensnts, and that the Pnssttt attached are for Bet spotloot. PtItted Reon SIgnata. tato STEP B .. TO N COMPLETED SR SPItTER ON PSPLICAJOT PROVIDING SPECIMENS Eaty LocatIon ___________________________ oatelttIao tO thIs spIttoon to toe tert)f)M lihtratary destloated by op ~Iapsr, to tHe analytic of the BpNtliran Ott EOntraIIed tt*stantes as prtolded by Federal rsqalri..nts, oNd to the releaea of toot PissIt~ Pro. that analysIs to the 104)011 Reolee OffIcer deolgoatod by op ~Ioyer. Stgoaew. Oat. Copy No. i: CotAeottr PAGENO="0171" 167 Federal Register! VoL 53, No. 224 I. Monday Noveiñber 21,1988/Rules and Regulations 4702± MUINI 051000 MID 115201 doe no S .. TO MU CIPPLET(5 01 £IIPLOY(EIAPPLICAIO EtoltyoH 1.5. (POE.POIMTES IPECUIEN 0.0. 03 Eoo,loyor ease, SocIal SecocIty No. L~ltyeSO0. STEP .. TOOt CJIPLETE2 01 LOPLOTEI 010010CNTOTIMEIOO LECTIO Oaasce to' Toot (Chock Ito) Pve.e~Ttytont Post Accldetot [J Pandos [J PerIodic Medical []ocaevupecv*y no 3 . CIU.ICTCO MUST MUTE THAT TEPPOSATTME IF SPECIMEN OHS 01(0 00*0. NECOMU IF H2T WITHIN THE 0*911 IF 32.5. 3TJC! 90.5 .29.0 Ft [J WITHIN ROUGE STEP 4 -TOOt INITIATES aT THE P5500 COLU.EC!INE SPECIMEN MID C010LETED AS NECES000Y THEREAFTER' Noloasod Sy NScStVOd 5y Pcrooso of Chance StovoturclPrlot 5i~ Slsetatete!Pclnt Neon Sate Proctds Ipoctose far T~tlns 00505 STEPS.-(SE(MULIW...TISEGEMPLETE059SMIOYEI) no N .. SEFIRE CIPOUTTOE THIS STEP HOSE OPLAYEC C001ITI no 0 lEECH. To be coepTotod by person colloctlvN opacleonc Collecte-s 0 ____________________________________ late of Collactltn____________ PoInt (Flost. 0.1., Lost) CaIlotEton Site__________________________________ I S FacIlity ease and Locatteo TelepHone Osserko concernIng collectIon: I cerotfy that the specIes Identified oo Ibis fooe Is the specTeR prsseovtod toe by the aao,To~ss providIng the csrtlflcatloo below, that I bass cecil lad that It bears lbs ses Idsattflcatleo vs~sr as that set ftrth above, and that it has bean cclloctad. labeled aod soalad as required by the Onstrsctlees provided. Ilgootwo of Cellacter STEP).. TON ECNPLCTEU Sf TNt LOOleAT0000 Accasa105 Os. ______ I csrt(fy that the specleso Idoetof lad by thIs accession moWer Ho the sae specImen that boats the 1deC11 lcatleo isvtor tot forth above, that the spesloso has bsse eoaelned o,oo receipt. handled and analyzed lnaccccdavce sth aopllcoble Federal reqctvasevts. and that the results 010advod are ft, that spectoon. PrI55d ses Slgnators Oats no a.. TOME STE_S if (~yt.5yff CR APPLICUOT 101010101 SPECIMEN, ease _________________________________ OaOy Lacatloe _____________________________ Lastff Trot/MI, Jab Iltiec _____________________________ lace of S(rth _____________________________ O~tfllndM,oratwIs~ easer: and that the ldavtlflcatlea lnfeoetloe provided as this far, and go the collectIon bottle Is correct. I consent to tto seClastes of thIs spocleen to the carolf led laboratory desleostad by op asplcyor. to the analysIs of the apetleen for coctrellad stIDstaveas as provided by Federal ragalresets. aol 00 the release of cast rssults itos Its, analysis to the Medical Oaelae Off ca, dosllnatal by op ernloysr. Sleiacsre Sate Copy So. 5: Esployar IFR Daac. 88-20611 died 11-15-dAY 3:46 pmj 51UJ556 Reel 4N1N42.C PAGENO="0172" 168 C.ua' Guard, DOT §95 010 SUBCHAPTER F-VESSEL OPERATING REGULATIONS PART 95-OPERATING A vEssi~ (COD 84-099, 52 FR 47532. Dec. 14, 1987: WHILE INTOXICATED COD 84-009.53 FR 13117. Apr. 21, 1988) 895.010 DefInition of terms as used in Sec. this 95.001 Purpose. 95.005 Applicability. "Alcohol" meaiis any form or deriva. 95.010 Definition of terms as used in this tive of ethyl alcohol (ethanol). part Alcohol concentration means ~ 020 Saof Intoxication either grams of alcohol per 100 nullili 95.025 Adoption of State standards. ters of blood, or grams of alcohol per 95.030 EvIdence of Intoxication. 210 liters of breath. 95.035 Reasonable cause for directing a "Chemical test" means a test which chemical test. analyzes an Individual's breath, blood, 95.040 Refusal to submit to testing. urine, saliva and/or other bodily fluids 950al Z~ oessels or tissues for evidence of drug or alco. under Chapter 33 of Title 46 United State. coie ~~0ntroUed substance has the same 95050 ResponsibilIty for compliance meaning assigned by 21 U S C 802 and 95.055 ~Pensities. includes all substances listed on Aurxo*rrv: 46 U.S.C. 2302. 3306, and 7701: Schedules I through V as they may be 49CPR 1.46. revIsed from time to time (21 CPR Soracs: COD 84-099. 52 FR 47532, Dec. Part 1308). 14 1981 unless otherwise noted, Drug' means any substance (other than alcohol) that has known mind or 096,001 Purpose. functlon.alter4i~g effects on a person, (a) The purpose of this part Is to, es- specifically Including any psychoactive tablish intoxication standards under substance and including but not Urn 48 U.S.C. 2302 and to prescribe restlic. ited to, controlled substances. tlons and responsibilities for personnel "Intoxicant" means any form of al- on vessels Inspected, or subject to in- cohol, drug or combination thereof. spection, under Chapter 33 of Title 48 "Law enforcement officer" means a United States Code. This part does not Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, pre-ernpt enforcement by a State of Its or petty offlcer~ or any other law en. applicable laws and regulations con. forcement officer authorized to obtain cernlng operating a recreational vessel a chemical test under Federal State while intoxicated, or local law (b) Nothing in this part shall be con Marine employer means the strued as limiting the authority of a owner managing operator charterer vessel s marine employer to limit or agent master or person In charge of a prohibit the use or possession of alco- vessel other than a recreational vessel hol on board a vessel. Recreational vessel means a vessel meeting the definition in 46 U.S.C. 099.006 ApplIcability. 2101(25) that I~ then being used only (a) This part Is applicable to a vessel for pleasure. (except those excluded by 48 U.S.C. "Underway" means that a vessel Is 2109) operated on waters subject to not at anchor, or made fast to the the jurisdiction of the United States, shore, or aground. and to a vessel owned In the United Vessel includes every description States on the high seas. This includes of watercraft or other artificial con- a foreign vessel operated on waters trivance used, or capable of being subject to the jurisdiction of the used, as a means of transportation on United States. water. (b) This part Is also applicable at all Vessel owned in the United States times to vessels inspected, or subject means any vessel documented or num- to Inspection, under Chapter 33 of bered under the l&ws of the United Title 48 UnIted States Code. States; and, any vessel owned by a citi- 205 PAGENO="0173" 169 §95.015 zen of the United States that is not documented or numbered by any nation. (COD 84-000. 52 PR 47532. Dec. 14. 1987: COD 84-000.53 PR 13117. Apr11 21. 1988) * 95.015 Operating a vessel. For purposes of this part, an individ. ual Li considered to be operating a vessel when: (a) The Individual has an essential role In the operation of a recreational vessel underway, including but not limited to navigation of the vessel or control of the vessel's propulsion system. (b) The individual Is a crewmember (including a licensed Individual), pilot, or watcbstander not a regular member of the crew, of a vessel other than a recreational vessel. 195.020 Standard of Intoxication. An individual Is intoxicated when: (a) The i~dlvidual Is operating a rec~ reational vessel and has an alcohol concentration of .10 percent by weight or more in their blood; (b) The individual Li operating a vessel other than a recreational vessel and has an alcohol concentration of .04 percent by weight or more in their blood; or, (C) The individual Is operating any vessel and the effect of the intoxicant(s) consumed by the individ- ual on the person's manner, disposi- tion, speech, muscular movement, gen- eral appearance or behavior Is appar* ent by observation. (COD 84-090, 52 PR 47532, Dec. 14, 1987; COD 84-000,53 PR 13117, April 21, 1988] O 95.025 Adoption of St*t. standards. (a) This section applies to recre- ational vessels on waters within the geographical boundaries of a State having a statute defining a percentage of alcohol in the blood for the pur- poses of establishing that a person op- erating a vessel Li intoxicated or tin. paired due to alcohol. (b) U the applicable State statute es- tablishing a standard for determining impairment due to alcohol uses the terms "under the influence," "operat. Ing while impaired," or equivalent ter. minology and does not separately * 33 CM Ch1 (7.1.88 EdIti.0) defina a percentage of alcohol in the blood for the purpose of establishing "intoxication," the standard contain. Ing the highest defined percentage of alcohol in the blood ~p1ies in lieu of the standard in * 95.020(a). If the ap- plicable State statute contains a stand. ard specifically applicable to establish. ing intoxication, in addition to stand- ards applicable to other degrees of Im. palrment, the~standard specifically ap- plicable to establishing intoxication applies In lieu of the standard In * 95.020(a). (c) For the purposes of this part, a. standard established by State statute and adopted under this section is ap. plicable to the operation of any recre- ational vessel on waters within the geographical boundaries of the State. * 95.030 EvIdence of intoxication. Acceptable evidence of intoxication includes, but Li not limited to: (a) Personal observation of an mdi. vidual's manner, disposition, speech, muscular movement, general appear- ance, or behavku~ or, (b) A chemical test. (COD 84-099. 53 FR 13117, April 21, 1988: COD 84-009, 53 FR 13117, Apr. 21. 1988] § 95.035 Reasonable cause for directing a chemical test. (a) Only a law enforcement officer or a marine employer may direct an individual operating a vessel to under. go a chemical test when reasonable cause exists. Reasonable cause exists when: (1) The individual was directly in. volved In the occurrence of a marine casualty as defined in Chapter 61 of Title 48, United States Code, or (2) The individual is suspected of being in violation of the standards in 1* 95.020 or 95.025. (b) When an individual Li directed to undergo a chemical test, the individual to be tested must be informed of that fact and directed to undergo a test as soon as Is practicable. (c) When practicable, a marine em~ ployer should base a determination of the existence of reasonable cause. under paragraph (aX2) of this section, on observation by two persons. 206 PAGENO="0174" 170 Coast Guard, DOT § 95.055 (COD 84-099. FR 47532, Dec. 14, 1917; COD (a Shall not perform or attempt to - 84-09953 FR 13117, Apr. 1. 19881 perform any scheduled duties within four hours of consuming any alcohol; o 95.046 Refusal to submit tO tsatlng~ (b) Shall not be intoxicated at any (a) If an individual refuses to submit time; to or cooperate In the administration (C) Shall not consume any intoxicant of a timely chemical test when direct- while on watch or duty, and " ` ~ t ff1 based (d) May consume a legal non.pre y a aw e 0 em ~ scription or prescription drug provided on reasonable cause, evidence of the th ~ d ~ the Individual refusal Is admissible In evidence in any to~ ~ C administrative proceeding and the In- dividual will be presumed to be intoxi- § 95050 ~pon.lbllit~' for compliance. cated. (a) The marine employer shall exer- (b) U an individual refuses to submit cise due diligence to assure compliance to or cooperate In the administration with the applicable provisions of this of a timely chemical test when direct. ad by the marine employer based on (b) If the marine employer has reasonable cause, evidence of the i's reason to believe that an individual is- fusal is admissible In evidence In any intoxicated, the marine employer shall administrative proceeding. not allow that individual to stand watch or perform other duties. * 95.045 General operating rules for ves- sels inspected, or subject to Inspection, §95.055 Penalties. under Chapter 33 of TItle 4$ United An individual who Is intoxicated States Cods. when operating a vessel In violation of While on board a vessel Inspected, or 46 U.S.C. 2302(c). shall be: (a) LIable to the United States Oov. suoject w uiapvvuofl, unuei- ~iia~~ r t of not 33 of TItle 46 United States Code, a ernmen crewmeinber (including a licensed Iiidl. mote ~~$1.0()0 ~ ~ ~. vidual), pilot, or watchstander not a prisoned for not more than one year, regular member of the crew: or both. 207 PAGENO="0175" 171 TESTIMONY OF THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL~CIO BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND NAVIGATION COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C. H.R. 4394, MARINER'S DOCUMENTATION MARCH 17, 1992 PAGENO="0176" 172 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Michael Sacco, president of the Seafarers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, (SIU). I appreciate the opportunity to testify in strong support of HR. 4394 introduced by Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee Chairman Walter Jones on March 5. The SIU represents thousands of seamen and boatmen who earn their livelihoods aboard vessels transporting cargo and passengers on the high seas, in the Great Lakes and on the inland waterways and harbors, and the coastal waters of the United States. As a result, we are deeply concerned about the safety of towboats and barges operating on the nation's waterways as the very lives of our members are at stake. Additionally, the communities in which we live and work depend on an environmentally sound and safe waterway system. Given the nature of the modern transportation network with its high traffic volume comprised of many hazardous substances, we concur with the Chairman's remarks on introduction of H.R. 4394 that "Allowing undocumented seamen to work on vessels unnecessarily increases the potential for injury or death of other waterway users." H.R. 4394 is an uncomplicated measure. It simply corrects an omission in current law to require mariners employed on cargo vessels over 5 gross tons to obtain Coast Guard documents. Presently, a mariner's document is required for service aboard commercial vessels 100 gross tons and over. However, there is a major exception. Personnel employed on tugs and tows operating on the rivers and lakes are exempted. THE ISSUE -* SAFETY In the last few years, the public rightfully has voiced its intolerance to transportation accidents caused by human error resulting in the loss of life and major damage to the nation's environment. A passenger train accident in rural Maryland, a subway accident in New York City, and truck accidents every day on the nation's interstates have prompted the Congress and the Administration to enact laws and regulations to better monitor the behavior patterns of those employed in the transportation industry. The courts have consistently upheld the right to test employees holding safety-sensitive positions for drug and alcohol usage. Today, as compared to a decade ago, drug and alcohol testing are a fact of life for those earning a living in the various transportation modes. In 1989, the 11-million gallon spill from the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska, and the three spills within a 24-hour period just months later in the coastal waters of Rhode Island, the Delaware River and the Houston Ship Channel, demonstrated that oil pollution from tanker spills is a real and continuing threat to the public health and welfare and the environment. Subsequently after 15 years of debate, the Congress was able to break a stalemate and forge a compromise to pass without dissent one of the toughest environmental statutes ever imposed on an industry and its workforce -- the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. In response to the fact that the Exxon Valdez accident was caused by alcohol abuse and to mitigate human error which has attributed to other recent spills, the Oil PAGENO="0177" 173 2 Pollution Act contains stricter provisions for issuance or renewal of merchant mariner documents, licenses, and certificates of registry. This provision is similar to legislation that had been proposed by the Administration in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez accident, and also to amendments added to both H.R. 2158, the Prince William Sound Oil Spill Response Act of 1989, and to H.R. 2459, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1989, when these measures were endorsed by either this subcommittee or by the full Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee during the 101st Congress. The Oil Pollution Act prohibits the Coast Guard from issuing or renewing a merchant mariner's document unless the applicant makes available all information contained in the National Driver Register regarding the motor vehicle driving record of that individual. This provision is intended to identify individuals who may have alcohol- related problems and to prevent their employment until an applicant provides satisfactory proof that this basis for denying, revoking, or suspending a document is no longer valid. In spite of the fact that this provision represents an added administrative cost to the federal government and is also an invasion into the privacy of some employees making their living on the nation's waters, the Congress and the members of this Committee overwhelmingly supported this provision believing that such information should be available to the Coast Guard and incorporated into procedures for issuing mariner documents, licenses, and certificates of registry. Although the law is designed to improve the safe operation of vessels and reduce accidents, this well-intentioned Act overlooks thousands of undocumented marine personnel employed on certain commercial waterborne equipment, including tugs, tows, and barges plying the inland rivers. These individuals will not be subject to the provisions of the Act since they are not required by law to hold Coast Guard certificates or documents as a basis for employment. As such, these mariners will elude the basic stricter personnel requirements of the Oil Pollution Act which many in Congress had thought had been soundly addressed. As Members of this Subcommittee may recall, after reflecting on this panel's actions, the SIU attempted to have language offered during conference committee negotiations to require that every marine employee working on tugs and tows over five gross tons be subject to Coast Guard documentation requirements and thus subject to Oil Pollution Act personnel requirements. While there was acknowledgement that the legislation was not as far reaching as it perhaps should be, unfortunately, there was some reluctance on the part of conferees to expand the provision at that stage of the legislative process to make it all inclusive. If we are truly interested in minimizing the potential for future environmental harm from chemical explosions, and oil and other hazardous material spills, be it from a 10,000 gallon spill or a 10-million gallon spill, as I believe Congress and this Committee intended in enacting the Oil Pollution Act, then marine personnel employed on tugs, tows, and barges on the inland rivers and coastal waters should be appropriately documented by the U.S. Coast Guard. Safety for the employees in this segment of the transportation industry, the general public, and the protection of the environment must be given the commitment of our best resources. Certainly, no laws -- federal, state or local -- can control the forces of nature on the rivers -- high water, swift current, fog, etc. -- and thus, the PAGENO="0178" 174 3 human element becomes even more important. Laws can control the calibre of personnel that are employed to crew the tugs and tows plying the inland rivers. The documentation process will help eliminate unsuitable candidates for employment as mariners who may be a hazard to themselves their shipmates and fellow boatmen the environment and the communities along the rivers at large This loophole in current law could very well undermine the recent efforts of the Congress to provide for a safer marine environment. After all, there are some 2,000 barges which carry oil versus 200 tankers in the U S flag fleet While all personnel associated with a tanker are licensed or documented that is not the case with barges As present statute is written it is likely that someone who is deemed unsuitable for a Coast Guard document or who has his documents suspended or revoked could easily seek employment in that portion of the industry which does not require mariner documentation. Without a mandated requirement that certain personal records of a prospective employee be checked, an individual could leave one segment of the industry and seek employment in a less regulated segment. Or even in the less regulated segment of the industry, an individual who is denied employment for failing a drug test could temporarily clean up his act and easily move to another company for without documentation any previous record would be hard to trace. Clearly, that was not the intent of the Congress in passing the Oil Pollution Act nor of the Administration in promulgating drug testing regulations. WHAT IS A MARINER S DOCUMENT? A merchant mariner's document is a form of identification issued by the Coast Guard The document is required as a condition of employment aboard commercial vessels 100 gross tons and over However under existing law personnel employed on tugs and tows operating on the rivers and lakes are exempted. The document serves as a certificate of identification and as a certificate of service, specifying each rating in which the holder is qualified to serve onboard vessels on which the document is required. As background, Section 3 of Public Law 808, enacted on June 25, 1936, required that a book known as a continuous discharge book be carried by every seaman on a U S flag merchant vessel of 100 gross tons or over except vessels employed exclusively in trade on the navigable rivers of the United States The principle object of Section 3 was to promote safety at sea by abolishing the old discharges granted seamen which formed the basis of employment on the sea These old discharges had no adequate identifying features and in many instances had been forged bartered altered and sold However, thousands of seamen and various organizations protested the use of these books, claiming that the information contained in them might be used in blacklisting seamen who may undertake, or have undertaken, through strikes or in other ways to improve their conditions or to correct grievances or who had sailed on ships suffering casualties for which they individually were in no way responsible. Fearful Of these books seamen refused them However if they were to return to work some alternative method of identification became necessary PAGENO="0179" 175 4 Subsequently, the Act of March 24, 1937 provided that alternative. The law provided the seaman with an option to either accept the continuous discharge book with protective provisions or a certificate of identification, currently referred to as a merchant mariner's document; the book or certificate to be retained by the seaman to whom it was furnished. The documents were to contain the signature of the seaman, a statement of his nationality, his age, personal description, photograph, thumb print and home address. These records were required to be kept by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation. The Act of 1937 also required a certificate of identification or a continuous discharge book as a basis of employment on vessels 100 gross tons, except vessels employed exclusively in trade on the navigable rivers of the United States. The merchant mariner's document issued today is virtually the same. It contains the signature, notations of nationality, age, and physical description, the photograph, the thumbprint, and the home address of these seaman. When applying for a document, the candidate must produce satisfactory proof that he has a commitment of employment as a member of a crew of a U.S.-flag vessel. Moreover, the applicant is subject to an FBI check and review of criminal records, testing for the use of dangerous drugs, and must make available any information contained in the National Driver Register related to an driving offense relating to alcohol. To obtain a merchant mariner's document for an advanced rating, an applicant must pass a Coast Guard examination indicating proficiency and knowledge for that specific rating. A merchant mariner's document is subject to suspension and revocation on the same grounds and in the same manner as licenses of officers. Documents may be suspended or revoked if, when acting under the authority of the document, the holder has committed an act of incompetence, misconduct, or negligence; is convicted of certain offenses; tests positive for an illegal drug, and within a three-year period preceding the initiation of the suspension or revocation proceeding is convicted of an offense described in the National Driver Register Act. A merchant mariner's document will not be issued to any person who, within 10 years prior to the date of the filing of the application, has been convicted in a court of a narcotics violation unless that person has submitted evidence to the Coast Guard to reasonably warrant the conclusion that he is no longer involved with or associated with narcotics and is suitable for employment. Moreover, a mariner's document will not be issued to any person who has been addicted to the use of or who has been a user of a narcotic drug unless he has furnished sufficient evidence to the Coast Guard that he has been cured of such addiction or use. The documentation procedure enables the development of an orderly pool of manpower that has been checked and found to have minimal expertise to perform the duties required. The expansion of this system to include currently undocumented personnel employed on tugs and barges plying the river system and in certain coastal waters will not only enable the Coast Guard to maintain oversight over these individuals but will also increase safety and reduce casualties. INLAND WATERWAY SYSTEM The demands placed on the commercial waterways of the United States for delivery of millions of tons of cargo are accommodated by hundreds of towing vessel PAGENO="0180" 176 companies which operate a massive fleet of coastal tugboats and inland riverboat and barges of all dimensions or on the inland waterway system This huge network pushes and pulls vast quantities of material including hazardous and volatile cargoes loaded in barges on over 125,000 voyages each year, to and from over 200 u.s. inland and coastal points -- directly touching the lives of people in almost 90 percent of the major cities of the nation. The 25,777 miles of commercially navigable inland waterways is the most dynamic and fastest growing means of moving cargo in our country According to the Maritime Administration the inland waterways of the United States can be divided into at least nine major waterway systems: (1) Atlantic Intracoastal, (2) Gulf Intracoastal, (3) Mississippi River and its tributaries (4) Ohio River and its tributaries (5) McClellan Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (6) the Illinois River (7) New York State Barge Canal (8) Black Warrior Warrior Tennessee and Tombigbee Rivers and Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway and (9) Columbia Snake Rivers (Attached is a map of the major waterways and ports of the United States.) Most freight moving on these rivers is carried in unmanned barges having loaded drafts of up to nine feet In this transportation section barges are lashed together in groups or strings sometimes up to 75 100 barges moved by towing vessels generally a towboat pushing them ahead but sometimes a tug pulling them on a hawser. A significant portion of U.S. domestic cargoes is moved by the barge and towing industry. The Corps of Engineers in 1989 estimated that 1,507.5 million tons of freight were carried on selected U.S. inland waterways. Cargoes carried varied from farm products, forest products, metallic ores, coal, crude petroleum, petroleum products nonmetallic minerals food tobacco products to chemicals and allied products including sodium hydroxide alcohol radiation materials benzene sulfuric acid paint insecticides fertilizer and other hazardous cargoes This expansive movement of a variety of cargoes include hazardous and combustible products and materials which if involved in a collision grounding or other mishap can present a significant threat to the environment and to the communities along the riverfronts. And, more and more cargo continues to be allocated to the waterways as shippers discover that water transportation is one of the most economical forms of cargo movement. Today, crews on approximately 5,228 tugs and towboats and 31,039 various barges in the U.S. fleet are kept busy. More particularly, crews on the 3,293 tugs, 23,124 dry cargo barges, and 3,239 tank barges operating on the inland waterways are challenged not only by the volatility of the river systems and their currents, but also by the technology and advances in the vessel they man and the dangers inherent in the many cargoes transported. And living along these waterways are some of the most populous communities in our nation Saint Paul Minneapolis Peoria Kansas City Saint Louis Pittsburgh Cincinnati, Nashville, Paducah, Memphis, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Jackson, Shreveport Baton Rouge and New Orleans Mixed in between are the hundreds of small towns relying on a safe waterway system for their very existence Given the types of cargoes transported in today's commerce and the volume of traffic, the likelihood of accidents is very great Needless to say, the shallow draft waterway sector of the country's transportation system has grown to a scale meriting considerably more attention then PAGENO="0181" 177 6 they have received previously in the area of vessel personnel standards. Thousands of these vessels traverse the nation's congested coastal, intercostal, and inland waterways and as such can be involved in accidents that have a significant impact on the marine environment. Nevertheless, the current documentation law does not acknowledge this fact. There is a marked absence of uniform licensing requirements for crews on tugs and tows operating on the inland river system. Generally, on a tug or tow plying the inland rivers exclusively, only the captain and the pilot\relief captain, as mandated by federal statute, are required to hold Coast Guard licenses. Further, although not statutorily required, tugs and tows on the inland rivers employ engineers, deckhands, and cooks. Boatmen filling these positions need not be licensed or documented. Depending on the trade, tankermen can also be employed on the inland rivers. Tankermen are individuals in charge of and assisting in the handling, transfer, and transportation of oil and hazardous liquid cargoes in bulk cargo handling and transfer operations. Tankermen hold merchant mariner documents endorsed with the rating of tankerman and the grades of liquid cargo the holder is qualified to handle, including service on barges. While there are some specific documentation requirements of personnel employed on tugs/tows and barges on the inland waterways, a significant number remain undocumented by the U. S. Coast Guard. Given the nature of the product carried and the large population centers on the rivers paths, it is ludicrous that within this large segment of waterborne transportation, there are personnel in the industry who are not required by law to meet minimal criteria similar to that required of deep sea personnel. The protection of the environment and the public interest in general warrant and expect more. They expect and should receive the transportation of commodities by vessels operated by documented and licensed crews meeting minimal governmental criteria. TOWBOAT CASUALTIES Those who point to the safety record of the tug/tow/barge industry under current regulations and as an argument for leaving the system alone are in error. The idea that a major disaster has not happened and is not likely to happen and therefore will not happen is flawed logic, as superbly demonstrated by the Exxon Valdez. Such an idea is an unaffordable luxury when the lives of the crew, the protection of the environment, and the safety of the communities living along the inland rivers are concerned. In fact, although the towing industry contends that is has an exemplary safety record and is the safest from of transportation, according to Coast Guard records of towboat casualties for the period 1981 through 1990, of the 12,702 selected cases contained within the Coast Guard's CASMAIN data base, casualties involving towboats under 300 gross tons numbered 8,242 of which 5,047 or 62 percent were attributed to personnel cause. As defined by the Coast Guard, personnel causes include but are not limited to such factors as inattention to duty, intoxication, calculated risk, carelessness, error in judgement, lack of knowledge, lack of training, lack of experience, operator error, fatigue, smoking, stress, improper safety precautions, PAGENO="0182" 178 7 failure to comply with rules, regulations and procedures, and improper loading, cargo stowage securing rigging mooring and towing Further of the 5047 accidents attributed to personnel cause 4 136 or 82 percent resulted in groundings and collisions. On August 6, 1990, The Journal of Commerce carried a story in the aftermath of an oil spill in the Houston Ship Channel. With a headline reading "Texas Spill Renews Questions About Safety of Tank Barges," the author highlighted Coast Guard statistics that in every 14 hours in 1989 a tank barge carrying crude oil or petroleum products was involved in an accident that caused an oil spill in U S waters The article noted that aQcording to industry experts "tank barge accidents are a hidden but formidable problem in the nation's oil transportation system" citing "an array of reasons for the problem: lack of federal regulation, inadequate crew training, the tendency of barges to operate in heavily congested, environmentally sensitive areas and a greater focus by the media on tankers Commenting on the barge industry s contention that barges are safer than tankers an American Petroleum Institute maritime transportation specialist took issue with that position commenting that there are some real issues here that deserve a hard look by pointing out the lack of Coast Guard barge inspections and the lower and in some cases non existent crew qualifications The Journal of Commerce story is not uncommon. Attached are copies of articles from a variety of newspapers reporting on a number of marine accidents in various regions of the nation which have resulted in deaths, evacuations, explosions, oil and chemical spills, and waterway closures. Also attached is a summary of a number of accidents investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board during the last ten years involving tugs/tows/barges. FOREIGN COMPARISON Most maritime countries regulate to some extent the vessels plying their waters with some requiring more specific personnel skills and vessel standards than others in their effort to ensure safety and protect the environment. In the course of the debate on H R 4394 we believe that standards imposed on mariners on the 820 mile Rhine River system are worth noting. The Rhine serves as a central commercial artery in Europe. The volume of freight moved is unparalleled anywhere else in Europe transported by combination of ships, tugboats, pusher barges, push tows, self- propelled equipment and passenger ships. The Central Commission of the Rhine, established in 1831 by the waterway's riparian nations, governs the river and much of its associated canal system. Protocol 11 on Composition of Crews and Conditions of Employment for Navigation of the Rhine River requires that all crewmembers meet certain qualifications Sailors sailor motor mechanics boatswains helmsmen captains and engine operators are required to pass an examination or have certain designated amounts of on board experience Ordinary seamen can complete an apprenticeship, attend recognized occupational schools or participate in a recognized correspondence course. Each crewmember is required to have in his possession at all times a "duty roster." The duty roster contains general data such as diplomas, medical certificates, PAGENO="0183" 179 8 endorsements from any of the proper authorities of the riparian states or Belgium, and other evidence of the qualifications of the holder. It also contains a section to write in specific data on the executed journeys with the captain of the vessel making all entries into a crewmember's duty roster. The Commission also sets minimum manning levels for all vessels, including tugboats, push tugs, and motor vessels of all kinds. The Commission outlines the aforementioned minimum qualifications for crewmembers. However, each Rhine riparian state and Belgium can apply its own nation's employment regulations to vessel operating under the state flag. TUG AND BARGE INDUSTRY SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The recent string of unfortunate river mishaps is a matter of record. No amount of after-the-fact reporting, liability, and recovery will suffice. The emphasis must be on prevention. It is our view that the legislation under consideration today lends itself to this criteria. Precedent certainly exists for the certification of individuals for employment in the tug and tow industry. In 1972, the tug and tow industry, overwhelmingly supported the licensing of tug and tow operators, clearly for safety concerns. It is our contention that their reasons for supporting the licensing of operators on tugs and tows then are as valid today in relation to the documentation of crews for these vessels. There clearly exists an unassailable case for the documentation of crew simply on the basis of safety. Today, the industry's concern with vessel safety is highlighted by the American Waterways Operators position on the relationship between safety and crew responsibilities in its filing in September 1990 on the Coast Guard's drug testing regulations. In its comments on the then-proposed rule, the association maintained that "all crewmembers aboard commercial towing vessels are in safety sensitive positions and have safety-related positions" and that the responsibilities and functions of deckhands "effect the safe navigation and operation of the vessel." The tug and barge industry's concern with the changing nature of the trade is further evidenced by its adoption in December 1990 of a guiding set of nine environmental principles. In making that announcement the Board of Directors commented that "AWO members are dedicated to continually improving operations in an effort to eliminate environmental incidents and to reduce environmental hazards to an absolute minimum." We commend the industry in its desire to establish an environmentally sensitive waterborne transportation network. We urge the industry not to make these principles just hollow promises but to join us in backing H.R. 4394 as a means to guarantee that all personnel employed on the rivers meet minimum Coast Guard standards. Endorsement of H.R. 4394 will undoubtedly lend itself to attaining these objectives. In light of the high level of incidents in this trade, it is imperative that the stringent personnel and safety-oriented provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also apply to currently undocumented personnel on tugs and tows five gross tons and over. Uniformity across the board would guarantee that certain safety and competency standards are enforced throughout the entire maritime industry. PAGENO="0184" 180 9 We recognize that opponents of H.R. 4394 will argue that further regulation of the inland industry is contrary to the Administration's announcement to reduce the burden of federal regulations. We fully support efforts to keep federal regulation to a minimum. However, in making its pronouncement, the Administration acknowledged that certain regulations are essential to safety. Given the Coast Guard's statistics on accidents there can be no question that a tightening of certain policies on the inland waterways is mandated We further contend that improving the safety of the inland waterway system will enhance another goal of the President and that is to be known as the Environmental President which in our view should be supported and promoted by all federal agencies, not just the Environmental Protection Agency or the Interior Department. RECOMMENDATION Just as the nation's system of interstates, highways andcountry roads have served to bring the country closer together, the waterways and channels serve in their own way as interstates and country lanes bringing commodities and people a bit closer to one another A typical day on the nation s waterways very likely will find commercial vessel traffic of all sizes, fisherman and recreational boaters and perhaps a barge or two transporting recreational vehicles and campers with their highly inflammable propane tanks. We owe it to these people to ensure that we are taking every known step possible to make their journeys safe. In conclusion, the Congress has made tough and unpopular decisions in the past to regulate the marine environment. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is a profound example Let us not waste those tough decisions by declining to correct an obvious oversight in the law It took a major environmental accident to give impetus to a much needed bill. It would be foolhardy to put off in any way the principles of H.R. 4394 until a disaster strikes The next time in addition to our precious environment it may mean a tremendous loss of human lives Let us enact H R 4394 in this Congress PAGENO="0185" 181 APPENDIX INDEX * Appendix A: Statistical Annex * Appendix B: Newspaper Articles * Appendix C: Summary of National Transportation Safety Board AccidentReports * Appendix D: Characteristics of the U~S. Flag fleet, including Inland Waterway Vessels * Appendix E: Characteristics of the Inland Waterways PAGENO="0186" 182 Aprendix (A) STATISTICAL ANNEX Table 1: "Tug & Tow Accidents" This table shows the number of all Tug/Tow vessels on the American inland waterway system involved in accidents over a ten year period from 1981 to 1990. The "Percentage < 300 GT" column shows the percentage of the uninspected boats involved in accidents to total acci- dents. This has been relatively constant over the period at about just over two-thirds of all casualties. See Table 2 for more on this aspect. The fact that the annual accident rate of the smaller vessels, relative to the industry overall, has shown no clear trend supports no theory that the safety of this sector has either improved or worsened over the period The "All Tugs/Tows" is the U S Army Corps of Engineers'1 number of these vessel types which allows standardization of the accident data The last two columns show the average accident rate for the uninspected sector and all Tugs/Tows in each year This data confirms the notion that the accident rates have shown no clear trend. The totals for the last three columns, "All Tugs/Tows" (i.e. the population of active vessels of this type) and the two columns of accident rates, refer to average fleet size and average accidents, respectively. 5,044 is a nine year average fleet size. The total for the last column suggests that. on average each Tug or Tow boat has been involved in 2 6 accidents over the ten-year period. This data does not include roughly 500 accidents which occurred during this period because the Coast Guard did not record the gross tonnage of these vessels and which could not be classified by tonnage. It should also be noted that the data for 1990 is preliminary as some case are still open and therefore not included in the database. The U S Army Corps of Engineers produces the most reLiabLe database on this industry The Coast Guard's MSIS database of U.S. f lag vessels contains coding inaccuracies for the Tug and Tow boats and is, therefore, Less reliable. The fleet population statistics are from the publication "Waterborne Cosmierce of the United States", various years, and from the Corps directly. PAGENO="0187" 183 TABLE 1: TUG AND TOW ACCIDENTS 1981 -1990 Year Accidents <300 GT All Tug/Tow Percentage <300 GT All Tug/Tows* Accident Rate <300 GT All Tow 1981 853 1 273 67.0% 4890 17.4% 26.0% 1982 866 1 331 65.1% 4890 17.7% 27.2% 1983 936 1,390 67.3% 4,993 18.7% 27.8% 1984 805 1,255 64.1% 4,993 16.1% 25.1 1985 742 1,115 66.7% 4,954 15.0% 22.4% 1986 768 1,140 67.5% 5,096 15.1% 22.3% 1987 766 1,178 65.1% 5,171 14.8% 22.7% 1988 992 1 637 60.7% 5,188 19.1% 31.5% 1989 821 1,330 61.8% 5,228 15.7% 25.4% 1990 707 1,066 66.4% NA NA NA TOTAL 12,716 8,256 64.9% 5,O45~ 1.6 2.5 * SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, data for81152 and 83184 combined bytheCorpe. NOTE: Thetotal for AiiTugeFTows~ isa nine-yearaverageforthe U.S. tugand towfieei. The accidentratee reflectthe average numbarofacci. dents a vessei wouid beinvoived in overthe 1O.yearperiod. PAGENO="0188" 2XN) 1500 ~1(k~N) I 0 z 500 0 1273 8531 Tug and Tow Boat Accidents, 1981-1990 Total and Those Under 300 Gross Tons (Data onlyin4udcs thoac accidents for which Gross Tonnage was recorded) Year S US Con t G d CASMAIN D t base Tag/Tow <300 GT All Tag/Tows PAGENO="0189" 185 II. Table 2: "Value and Severity of Accidents.. The Coast Guard ran a search of its' MSIS database (see Note 1 above) to obtain the ratio of Tugs/Tows under 300 GT and those over. The figure they arrived at yielded a total of some 5,771 of these vessels of which only about 11 percent were larger than 300 GT. The Coast Guard indicated reliabili- ty problems with the data exist, which is confirmed by the fact that the Coast Guard's numbers seem contradict the Army Corps of Engineers' data for this same class of vessels. The USCG database yielded a number of vessels 543 greater than the last figure provided by the Corps of Engineers (5,228 in 1989). Taking this ratio as the best available at this time, it appears that the accident rate for the class of inspected vessels (300 GT and over) is out of proportion with their share of the total population. The data indicates that the 11 percent of the fleet represented by the larger vessels account for about three times the number of expected accidents. If only 11 percent of these boats are operating in U.S. waters, all else equal, they should account for roughly 11 percent of all accidents. As the table shows, the actual percentage is about 35 percent. It is likely that the larger vessels, which fall into the catagory of inspected vessels, report more accidents, includ- ing less severe types of routine bumpings, scrappings, etc. than do the unispected vessels under 300 GT. This would cause them to show a higher rate of accidents, but would lower the "severity" of these accidents, on average, measured in various ways. This appears to be the case. The two boxes below the first show two measures of severity: in terms of Dollar Cost and in terms of Human Costs, measured in injuries and deaths. In both of these tables, the averages of these measures show that the smaller vessels indeed account for an excess of both these costs j11 relation to their proportion of the accidents they renresent. Ceteris paribus, we would expect the 65 percent of accidents involving Tugs and Tows would account for roughly the same proportion of dollar costs and human costs, i.e. about 65 percent. However, the Coast Guard data shows that these accidents account for an excess of costs beyond what we should expect. A few examples: the 65 percent of vessels under 300 GT account for fully 77 percent of the cost in terms of vessel damage and 89 percent of the damage to cargo. This leads to excess costs of 12 and 24 percent, respectively. The compari- son to human costs is even more striking. The 65 percent of casualties involving smaller vessels account for 84 percent of all crew injuries and 89 percent of all crew deaths. PAGENO="0190" 186 Percent of Percent of Accidents Fleet* 35.1% 10.5% 64.9% 89.5% 12716 100.0% 100.0% Baudon USCG MSISd tabase,reliabuusy of the data is questionable TABLE 2: VALUE AND SEVERITY OF ACCIDENTS AMERICAN INLAND TUG AND TOW INDUSTRY 1981 -1 990 SIZE CLASS 300 GT and Greater Under 300 GT Number of Accidents 4460 56 TOTAL NOTE: Doss notlnckids4eEtugltowcssusltlss forwhlch nogrosstonnsgswss recorded. COSTS (in $0005) Vessel Damage Cargo Damage Other Damage 300 GT and Greater $70,653 Under 300 GT $239,254 $1,731 $13,955 $223,377 $579,079 TOTAL $309,907 $15,686 $802,456 COSTS (Percentage of Total) 300 GT and Greater 22.8% Under 300 GT 77.2% 11.0% 89.0% 27.8% 72.2% HUMAN COSTS Crews Crews Passengers Passengers Others Others INJURIES TO - (Persons) (% of Total) (Persons) (% of Total) (Persons) (% of Total) 300 GT and Greater 31 15.7% 1 20.0% 15 8.3% Under 300 GT 167 84.3% 4 80.0% 166 91.7% TOTAL 198 100.0% 5 100.0% 181 100.0% DEAThS TO - 300 GT and Greater 10 111% 0 00% 18 194% Under 300 GT 80 88.9% 7 100.0% 75 100.0% TOTAL 90 100.0% 7 100.0% 93 100.0% PAGENO="0191" 187 TABLE 3 PRIMARY CAUSE OF CASUALTY HUMAN FACTOR TUG AND TOW BOATS, LESSTHAN 300 GT Human Factors, i.e., factors relating to human performance such as fatigue, inattention to duty, lack of training and knowledge of duties, etc., are the primary causes of accidents involving American inland Tug and Tow boats. According to the Coast Guard's data, 58 percent of all accidents involving these boats from 1981 to 1990 were chiefly caused by human error In fully two thirds of all accidents human error is at least one contributory factor When human error is involved accidents tend to be of the most serious types Of accidents in which human factors are deemed to be the primary cause 88 percent result in either groundings or collisions Additionally for those vessels under 300 GT when other serious casualties such as capsizings and sinkings fire and explosions and allisions are added to the groundings and collisions the comparable number of accidents is 93 percent This information is important because it is exactly these types of accidents which are most likely to lead to deaths, injuries and environmental damange. The numbers show the percentages of accidents which have resulted due to various human errors. The Coast Guard lists several causes (sometimes as many as five) leading to accidents of various natures. The first line shows total casualties and thetotal forthose Tugs/Tows lessthan 300 GT, along withthe raw numbers of accidents chiefly caused and partially caused by human factors. The second set of numbers break down the percentages of these figures The last part of this table shows these numbers as a percentage of all accidents chiefly caused by human error which result in groundings and collisions I Number of Accidents Of Which Human Error Of Which Human Error Is a Primary Cause Is a Contributory Factor TTotal Casualties: 12,702 7,392 7,765 Less than 300 GT: 8,242 4,740 5,047 II Percent of accidents primarily caused by human error Total Casualties 582% Less than 300 GT 575% Where human error was at least one factor Total Casualties 611% Less than 300 GT 61 2% Ill Percentage of accidents involving human error as a primary cause which resulted in a grounding or collision Total Casualties 88 1% Less Than 300 GT 84 1% PAGENO="0192" 188 TOWBOAT CASUALTIES ON U.S. INLAND WATERWAY SYSTEM 1981 through 1987 Year Reported Cases 300 Gross Tons or Under Human Error Primary Cause <300 GT 1981 1,273 853 606 1982 1 331 866 518 1983 1 390 936 521 1984 1,255 805 510 1985 1,115 742 418 1986 1140 768 470 1987 1178 766 463 1988 1 637 992 602 1989 1 330 821 502 1990 1 066 707 437 TOTALS 12,716 8256 5047 NOTE Data for the year 1990 are preliminary aa some cases remain open and have not yet been added to the database SOURCE: U.S. Coast Guard's CASMAIN Database. PAGENO="0193" 189 Appendix (B) 55-369 0 - 92 - 7 PAGENO="0194" 190 New Orleans, LA TIMES-PICAYUNE ____________________ Ba~ges are rounded up afteraccident in river About 65 to 70 barges were Coast Guas~I said. knocked loose on the swollen The barge reportedly put Mississippi River at Keener hol, in the forepeak tank. de Monday night by a ship that scribedan a foreward ballast tank slipped its anchor, the Coast that normally carries water, the Guard said. One of the barges hit Coast Guard said. The Gulf Tn snothez.ship, knocking a hole i~ dent was not in danger of sink- its ball~1Znk. in~ aupokosman said. One pain barge pestislly s.nl~ In the sssesstinse. tughoass re but thenewere no sepsetsoflnju. turned the Hslleepost Dignity to rise or polkstien in the 650p.m. the Ama Anchorage and began mlahsp,theCostGusedssid rounding up barges. Chief Joe Tb. skip HsllsspnsdlDlgslty Couch said. drifted a sheet distange desen- Most of the bsrgenwere carry. river tastrong currents from the isggnsin. hut one reportedly con- Ama Anchorage which is just tamed s cargo of ethanol, a form upriver from Kenner, the Coast of alcohol. Couch said. Gusxdaold. A 22-mile stretch of the river. The ship hit harass tied up at roughly from Gretna to the Ants the Kenner Bend Fleet, causing Anchorage, was dosed to marine bargus to.,bosak loose and float traffic while the barges were down the river, according to the being rmmded up. Quartermeuter CosstGusrt John Litzesbergersaiè A barge, aooal6istly one of All of the barges were believed those that broke free from the rounded up by fr.30 p.m.. but the Kanner Bend Fleet, hit the ship river remained dosed late.Mos. Gulf Trident, anchored about a day while a count was being dose mile downniver at the Lower, to make sure no barges were Kenner Bend Anchorage, the missing, theCoast Guard said. PAGENO="0195" 191 New Orleans, LA TIMES-PICAYUNE ___________________ Toxic spill is being cleaned up Barge collision caused evacuation of homes By Th. Assoelasad Pr... MORGAN CITY, La. - Crews worked Monday to clean up 11,000 gallons of toxic, volatile atyrene that spilled into the Intracoastal Waterway near Morgan City after a barge coffi- sion the night before Residences, camps and busi- nesses near the spill were evacuated, the Coast Guard said. One man was hospitalized, but his identity wasn't available. The collision involving two strings of barges occurred Sunday about 6 p.m. The Coast Guard's Gulf Strike Team was sent to help in the cleanup and state environmental officials were on the scene Monday to assess eco~ logical damage. By midday, the Coast Guard said, the damaged styrene barge was still leaking small amounts of the chemical, but officials hoped to start transferring the chemical to another vessel in the afternoon and have the transfer completed Monday night. Styrene is highly flammable and the fumes are harmful if breathed. It is a skin and eye irri- tant. Coast Guard Lt. Allen Harker in Morgan City said two crew members from one of the tows complained of nausea after the collision. The spill `appeared to be con- tained within a two-mile stretch of the waterway. Traffic on a 15-mile section of the waterway, from Mile Marker 105 south of Patterson, to Mile Marker 120 south of Franklin, was restricted while Thompson Environmental of New Orleans, hired by the barge operator, worked to clean up the spill. The leaking barge carried more than 114,000 gallons. Harker said the liquid is used in making plastics and synthetic rubber. PAGENO="0196" 192 New Orleans, LA TIMES-PICAYUNE ~ 1 Crewman dies after tug sinks on lake from the watsr and hoisted onto Tb. Coast Guard contacted Warner said a Coast Guard ssm.,e, Come Guard hebctpoer Quar Csussway ofEcealo and radar op. boat quickly reached the scene terlsrsrHeosldOCkaven orator Mario Baniten located the but not before the tug sank. One of two crewman died The man wasprosesunceddeed usfs position as 34 miles east of Warner, who watched the rescue Tuesday night aftarthsir tugboat at East Jefferson General Hue' the Caesswey and shout midway through binoculars, said it sank en rough weather on Lak petal, theCoesiGuardeast between Oh a rth d so th appeared the boat perked up ne Pont etron, the Coast G~~5~d Someone on the 5O.foot tug shores, said Lt. John Warner of man, and a Coast Guard holicop. 55it Mr. Ernest broadcast a distress theCasseway police. The Coast tar lowered a cable to the men The 50.ysar'old man, whose call at &17 pa,, the Coast Guard Gusad estiesated the position as who Isterdied. name was not availakis, suffered said. Th. radio call indicated the eighn miles neon of Lakefreeg heart attack after he was pulled tugwasankisgweth twoahoard. Aer~IM8t.1~asasyPa~i~h. esavus,seaepse. Tb C tG d dth bosts crew may has'j picked up both men. resltneqr ow ill one was, and decided to send him to the bospetalby helicopter. Randy Giffood, the crewmen taken onto the bost, told the Coast Guerd the weather wee - rough. and wster started coming th d,nfh gilt en could not start the bilge pumps. and in. boat sank. Gif foroltold the Coast Guard. The rescue was aided by good visibility because the rain had stopped shortly before the cell for help, Warnereset Warner said the wisd.wbipped lake basbeen rough fortwodoYs. ..~You ebould have seen those en Visone said The Mr. Ernest is owned by Jefferson Macice Towing Inc PAGENO="0197" 193 06026133/9 06026133 JUDGE WON'T LIMIT COMPANY * S LIABILITY FOR OIL SPILL OREGONIAN (P0) - SATURDAY January 26, 1991 By: JOHN PAINTER JR. - of the Oregonian Staff Edition: FOURTH Section: LOCAL STORIES Page: D02 Word Count: 966 TEXT: An Oregon tugboat company that already has agreed to pay $3.9 million in damages could be forced to pay even more for a 1988 oil spill off the Washington coast. A federal judge in Portland this week ruled against Sause Brothers Ocean Towing of Coos Bay in its bid to limit its liability for the spill off Grays Harbor, Wash. The spill allowed 231,000 gallons of heavy-grade oil to flow into the Pacific Ocean near Ocean Shores after the barge Nastucce was rammed by its own tug after a tow cable snapped. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge James A. Redden found the company negligent after a trial last month on the liability issue. A separate trial on damages will be held this spring. Sauce Brothers sought to limit its liability to $957,084, the value of the tugboat Ocean Service and the cargo. Sauce Bros. also has offices in Portland and serves clients in Hawaii and other Pacific Ocean ports. The company also owns a barge fabrication plant in Coos Bay. The Dec. 22, 1988, spill fouled more than 300 miles of co8stline extending north to Uancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada, and killing or injuring thousands of birds. More than 100 claims for damages have been filed against Sause Brothers and BP North American Petroleum, which owned the oil on the barge, by the Canadian and British Columbia governments end by the United States, both as a federal government and as trustee for various Indian tribes. Canada seeks $4.25 million for cleanup costs, and British Columbia seeks $400 ,000. In finding negligence, Redden wrote that the `tow cable was corroded, improperly cared for and not thoroughly inspected. He said a typical inspection occurred with the captain and the chief engineer looking at the cable from six feet away as it was winched aboard at speeds between 1 and 3 miles per hour. The judge also found faulty recordkeeping of cable inspections and incomplete log-book entries. Redden rejected the Sause Brothers' claim that the tow wire had snapped because it had caught on an object in the ocean, dramatically increasing the pull on the cable. PAGENO="0198" 194 He also found that a barge-recovery device, called the Orville Hook, was aboard the tug but was unassembled and that only the captain knew how to operate it. Other evidence of negligence, Redden found, was the lack of a backup device, called an insurance wire, which trails behind a barge and can quickly be picked up by the tug after a cable break. The Nestucca had been equipped with an insurance wire before its purchase by Sauce Brothers but did not have one at the time of the cable break. Redden last month dismissed a $2.5 million class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of the 1,100 volunteers who helped clean oil-stained Canadian beaches. The only option remaining for volunteers would be to hire their own lawyers and seek damages individuall5~ -- en expensive process, said volunteer coordinator Dave LeBlanc. Guy C. Stephenson, attorney for Sauce Bros., could not be reached for comment Friday. Dale Sauce, president of the company, has said Sauce Bros. spent more than $2 million for cleanup and did everything possible to react to the spill. After the U.S. Coast Guard investigated the incident, it issued a report that exonerated the master and crew of the towboat of negligence or violation of any laws, Sause said Friday. Copyright (c) 1991, The Oregonian Publishing Company DESCRIPTORS: BOAT ACCIDENT; OIL SPILL; DAMAGES; WASHINGTON PAGENO="0199" CD 0 I-' CD p U) t~4 tn z tTI C;' I PAGENO="0200" 196 ~ 02282761 0881 Tugboat Ruptures Gas Line, Explodes; Barges Burn in Industrial Canal DATELINE: HOUMA, La. PRIORITY: Rush WORD COUNT: 0138 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS DATE: January 18, 1991 21:14ESt A tugboat burned and sank Friday after rupturing a natural gas line and triggering an explosion in a shipping canal, officials said. Four empty barges and the gas line burned for more then two hours after the tug Karen Elizabeth went under on the Intercoastal Waterway. Four people on the tugboat, who jumped into the water before the explosion, suffered minor injuries, Terrebonne Perish Sheriff Jerry Larpenter said. Firefighters shut off the United Gas line end doused the fire that erupted close to South Terrebonne High School but did not threeten the campus, said Thomas Ledet of the Bourg Fire Department. `It looks like it wasn't nearly as bed as it could have been,' Ledet said. SECTION HEADING: Domestic; Copyright 1991 the Associated Press. -- All Rights Reserved NeW Orleans,. LA TIMES-PICAYUNE ~ PAGENO="0201" CD 0 8 CD U) t-4 tzl C) P1 Q) 0 D `II U PAGENO="0202" S H to * p-I C S d CD a H CD p DC PAGENO="0203" 199 05801237 CREWS CONTAIN KEROSENE SPILL OREGONIAN (P0) - SUNDAY O~tober 28, 1990 By: From wire reports Edit ion: FOURTH Section: WIRE STORIES Page: E18 Word Count: 167 TEXT: MARLBORO, N.Y. - Coast Guard crews took advantage of favorable weather Saturday to contain 164,000 gallons of kerosene that spilled into the Hudson River when a barge ran aground on a reef. The barge, carrying about 30,000 barrels of kerosene or 1.26 million gallons, ran aground end sprang a leak Friday night about one mile south of Marlboro and 60 miles north of New York City, said Bill Falk, a U.S. Coast Guard spokesman in New York. The cause of the accident was not immediately clear, but high winds and choppy seas may have contributed, Falk said. The barge hit a known underwater hazard called Diamond Reef, which lies about 5 feet below the surface, said Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer Alan Burd. Barges can dip 3 to 9 feet below the water when carrying a full load, he said. It was a known hazard, and it was marked with a buoy," Burd said. Petty Officer Howard Holmes said strong winds were keeping the kerosene along the river's eastern shore. Copyright (c) 1990, The Oregonian Publishing Company DESCRIPTORS: SHIP ACCIDENT; NATIONAL PAGENO="0204" 0 U) 0 0 U) p (U p PAGENO="0205" 201 The Houston Post Date____________ Official blames worker's en~or for oil spillage in ship channel FROM STAFF REPORTS barge. Russell said suthonties will con- A worker who wantilling a barge tinue to investigate whether the that buckled and spilled 21.000 spill was the result olntsuctural fail- gallons of heavy oil into the Hoist- see or improper loading of the ton ShipChannel has been-accused barge- 01 not lollowing procedures, the Serrefte could be placed on pro- US. Coast Guard reported Tues- balios, his document allowing hon i daY. . toloadbargescouldbesuspessded Ingram Barge 0.. w i was loraperiodof time or he couldlose I loading the od on Sunday, could his license outright. Russell said. ace a citation for pollution ant! Meanwhile Assistant Chef I hoe of up to $5000. suthorsties Port Opeeki005 Mike deBeties- I Miles Serrelte. a lankersnas with coWl said pollution investigators I the P Sole T ke g 1 ate prepanng reports for civil ac- crating Service, will have to appear lion against Ingrain Barge Co.. before U.S. Adminisirative Law di wried the vessel thai suck- Judge Thomas MeElligoit to re- led spend to the allegations. Once the pol lotion investigation Coast Gsard LI. Cmdr. Mike is completed in a couple of weeks. Russell said although the cause of the repoels will be forwarded lathe the spill has sail been determined. Coast Guard's New Orleans office in the course of investigating the and a penally up 10 $5,000 could incident aulborilies dete'linsned be assessed. deBeftencourl said. Serrette failed to follow procedures Cleanup of the spill was continu- for trasslernisg oil lo tasks on the ing Tuesday. PAGENO="0206" CD 0 U) 0 0 U) ri c 0 PAGENO="0207" 203 05714313'9 05714313 TOU~OAT SINKS AT D~i O~~NIN1 (P0) THURSDAY August 2, 1990 8y: From correspondent and wire reports Editions FOURTH Section: NORTHWEST Pege: BOO Word Counts 226 TEXT: pAS~O, Wesh. - A towboat pushing three barges through a lock at Ice Harbor Dam struck a gate and sank in 16 feet of water early Wednesday, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said. The towboat Clarkston, owned by Brix Maritime Co. of Portland, struck an upstream gate about 1:45 a.m., the corps said in a news release. Much of the superstructure on the 86-foot boat remained above water. The three barges, carrying logs, wheat and a variety of containers, were safely through the lock on the Snake River dam before the Clarkston~s stern hit a gate. Water flooded theboat's engine room through a gash 4 inches wide and 9 inches long in the bottom of the boat, the corps said. Wooden wedges were used to plug the hole, and crews used gas-powered pu~,s to remove the water late Wednesday afternoon, said Larry Walker, chief of operations at the dam. Walker said he expected the towboat would be moved out of the lock in time to allow commercial barge traffic through the dam by Thursday morning. The Coast Guard's pollution respons. team was called in when a small amount of oil leaked into the water from the boat's engine. Experts said there did not appear to be any environmental damage. Damage estimates for the navigation lock gate were not available, end the accident was under investigation. Copyright Cc) 1990, The Oregonian Publishing Company DEScRIPTORS: - TUGBOAT ACCIDENT; WASHINGTON PAGENO="0208" 204 05~13 040/9 05~13 040 TUG CREW FLEES FIRE OREGON I AN (PD) - WEDNESDAY August 1, 1990 By: From correspondent and wire reports Edition: SECOND Section: NORTHWEST Page: 908 Word Count: 104 TEXT: SEATTLE - All four crew members of the Foss tug Pecific Titan abandoned ship early Tuesday morning when a fire broke out aboard the 9~-foot ship off Cape Flattery, on the northwest tip of the Olympic Peninsula. Coast Guard Petty Officer Sandy Calhoun said the four were in a skiff until picked up by another tug. There were no injuries. The Pacific Titan was towing a barracks barge from San Francisco to Bremerton when the fire was reported at 1:30 a.m. The fire was extinguished at 7 a.m. Calhoun says the cause of the fire has not been determined and there was no fUel spill. Copyright (c) 1990, The Oregonian Publishing Company DESCRIPTORS:* TUGBOAT ACCIDENT; WASHINGTON PAGENO="0209" 205 WATERWAYS JOURNAL JULY 30, 1990 July 30, 1990 Maty Burke Crewman Found Now Identified St. Louis, Mo-The body of a ini~ne harborboat crewman discovered July 1~ when the mv Mary Burke was raised in St. Lcins harbor ~ Olde Moore DI & Salvage (WJ July 23) her been iden~ as thato(CasyD.HathndofQuinc~y Ill Authontlea thought at the time oidieotw. eay that they lmew they'd found Harland last could not ithare the name for publina. tine unid identifiretion was metain and official. ThevesseIankJwre3O'~ hi" water. Itwa, laterfound in 451 ettwat~ upaide down and filled with sand. Two ciewmen ware lost In the mishap. 0 ssusang is James Wrttenbusg of Peirin, Hasland, a towboat pilot for Ame,lt*n is a son seswces ware held J y 28 at Qulney. River friends ware told I~ Catherine Hadand, Has1and~ widow, that die bed ~th Ed~en PAGENO="0210" 206 WATERWAYS JOURNAL - JULY 30 1990 Irene Ftazier Sinks, In Houston Channel Galveston, Teias-The mv Irene Fm- flC~ sank mid-drannd in the Honston Ship Chasind fleer Buoy 63 July 25, dosing the ywmeyundltboveasdwasremcwed later the same day. Coast Cuard Invesligatoss said the 800 hp towboat took on water, while runnina bait boat, and sank between msdruabt an~ 1 a.m Crewmembers were iaclaecIup by the my Compass Mission, operating nearby T&T Marine Salvage, Inc~ o( ~a5vsaton raised the vessel, and the ship dsannel wee reopened at about 11:45 p.m. on July 25, The Irene Frazier was taken to Glendale Boat Works, Inc~ Channdview, Tmes~ for survey, investigators said. The boat was builtin 1980 at Bcssrg, La. The 1990 InLand Rissr IIsa,rd lists ihe veasd~ owner as Frazier Towing, Inc., Calliano, l.a. PAGENO="0211" 207 The Houston Post Date__________ ,1 I H It I --.- E PAGENO="0212" CD 0 DC ci 0 0 U) ci ci CD a~ ~ I. S I~1 - ~II a PAGENO="0213" ~iI1ttI'~ (I j ~h!h a. I. PAGENO="0214" 0 PAGENO="0215" CD 0 8 CD CS) `-3 `-4 tTj `-S C) tTl I 4 PAGENO="0216" I 0 `1 I-I cD ID Cl) ~ ~ I., I~5~D PAGENO="0217" 213 LLOYD'S LIST 1479° MABINBaIEMsT(Ammican) Houssoa, May30- Soil/chess tank Manse Chassslir lying at Dow Chemical Co A-4 dock, Freepoet, Teem, leaking toxiccargovapours, reportedly ammonia and hydro- chloric acid, into atmosphere. Part of Dow facility, adjacent school nndhospisalpressntlybeingevncu- stud. Gulf International Waterway In Freepoetnrea has been cloledto marine traffic. No injuries reported. Possibility of explosion exiseL - Lloyd aAgentL Frerport, Texan, May 30 - Severalhundredreaidentsfledf,oa, their homes today; when tozic.gas egtapedfromtheManarChmoia~ abowChemical Copetrochemical complex here after incompuubte chemicals were inadvertently mixed, officials said. "We naked for a voluntary evacuation of the uoush-eastpsrto(town. Mostofthe residsntnmet thatrequest. Wethen evacuated three schools as a precaution," police captaia Larry Rullard said. Otherresident~ Its she area were being advised bossy In- doorenndkeepwindowaclosednnd air-conditioners turned off, said a Dow spokeswoman. She said the gas leak occurred after crews last night Inadvertently loaded two different chemicals Into the same tank of the vessel, the resulting chemical renctloa producing a gas cloud this morning containing ammonsn, hydrogsa chloride and other by-prudsctL The Coast Guard dossd the Gulf latswcosstnl Waterway last night - Riuesr. MA*INECIJEM!ST (American) Newffesnd*ner- A report from Houston states: The United StatesConntGtiard is investigating the improper mixture of chemicals responsible for closing the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway here for 34 hours Inst week and has set a hear- ins to determine whether a chemi- cal plant worker should hold a tankerman's certificate. The Coast Guard will hold an administrative hearing Sept 20 in Houston to determine whether Jack Bryant 0111mm. 31, is entitled to hold a Coast Guard-issued tnnkermnns document. Giltiam, a Dow Chemi- cal Coemployce, has been chnrgsd withmiuconductasatankersllnn by the Coast Guard. He was transfer- ring two chemicals, 1-3 Dichloropropene and Aminoethylethnnolamiuc. from railroad tank cars into $ oillchem tank Mares, Clwsssisr at the Dow plantabout 2100, May 29, when he hoohedupahosetothewfOngtnnk car, said Coast Guard 1.t-Cmdr Frank Whipple. of Galveston. The mis-up resulted in 5.000 gallons of 1-3 Dichloropropene being mixed with 20,000 gallons of Aminoethylethanolamine, which created toxic fumes and prompted local officials to ask residents to evacuate south-eastern Freeport. The Coast Guard ordered three milesofthe lntracoastal Canal and theBrnzoe River Harbour Channel in Freeport closed between 2300, May 29, and 0900, May 31. The CosstGuardhnsfoundnOevidtnce in its investigation so indicate an explanation for the chemical mis- hap such as improperly-marked railroad tank cars, Whipple said. - "Daily Shipping Guide." (See issuesof June 1 and2l andJuly 16.) 7~ PAGENO="0218" 214 LLOYD'S LIST - APRIL 19, 1990 MOIT*(A.Ushos) Na's badiashav.bsas rorooorsd by abs CosasGaardaaarthalarasiasof.a shthssbadbaaoNa o~sca ofa search oacsTaooday (Mar 27~ Ts Afar-lb. owood by Coosal Maria. Saro,cs. of Nsa- tiepsas. NY. bad. c's's of three oh's oh. deponed abs Gassier Mario. is Gassier, Mi's. as Mar tP.Sb.wssschodotedaopick spa bsrps is Abbovids. La. bathes rsssroiep is Gassier for this asd oaossolo5aaI5sossa~co. NY aba Cases Gasrdaald. Theavonoosod issued-_ar'. sepos barda b.s'ssoa Noes ash Skip Moods. sasiowo. of Pasupoids.Tbowuobooaaebsaho doocoipsios of abs M.e-ThL whisk had boos .*poossd is Abbsviba Mar2t.TbsladtaasCasasy.Mlos. aseesorbo. yes so ldsaolfy a body nososrod Mar 23 steak of Noes blood. Tb. `stood body w locslodyos'sdsyaoraiopss$bip (died. obsCasesGoardosid. his believed akr-bodies a's (is. abs ciserof abs Mar-lbbocooslbs- alas `so. ~voeiebls yosudoy - __ Gssde. (lies Masse of M's 31.) PAGENO="0219" 215 LLOYD' S LIST - APRIL 19, 1990 MS U (barge) New Orleans, Mar 2$ - A - report fromSurfside. Texas states: TheUnitedStatesCoastGuard has charged the master ala tug(m tug CREOLE RIVERS) with neg- ligence after the barge (MB II) she was pushing struck an abandoned barge at l800on Sunday (Mar 23). causing about $00 barrels of oil to spill into the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at Mile 390. Clean-up operations to remove the oil began a couple of hours later as Dow Chemical Co assisted the Coast Guard. Arthur Sanders a master for Le Seoul Bros. was charged Monday and his licence may be revoked. A Coast Guard spokes- man said that Sanders was out of the shipping lane by 100 ft and should not have been that,far off course despite a swift current. Measures should have been taken to compensate for the current, he said. Le Seoul Bros vice-president Jerry Gossoulin said the accident occurred because a swift current reqwred more room to manoeuvre round a bend where the protruding hull of a barge rests. The company planned to have representatives at the Coast Guards July hearing where revocation of Ssnders licence would he considerd, Gonsoulinsaid. Thelirinsposition is that, although the wreck is marked on navigation charts the exact location is not specified and there is no indication how far underwater the barge protrudes into the channel, he said. The firm's attorneys were trying to locatetheownersof the abandoned barge to recoverlosses he said, but the cost of the spilled oil and the ~damage to the barge has sot yet been determined. The firm would have to pay for the spill clean-up but its insurance would cover the expense, he said. A US Army Corpoa(Engineersspokesmansaid the corps had not been able so find theownersoitheabandoned barge. vilsichbas been at the locasssa lor years. - "Daily Shipping Guide." (See i~saol Mar31 and Apr 6) PAGENO="0220" 216 02035376 Captain charged With Negligence in Barge Accident DATELINE: FREEPORT, Texas PRIORITY: bEFERRED WORD COUNT: 185 THE ASSOCIATED PRES~ DATE: March 27, 1990 20:S1EST A tugboat captain has been charged with negligence for allegedly veering too close to shore while pushing a barge that ruptured end spilled 30,000 gallons of oil. U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Frank Whipple said Arthur Senders, 32, of Houma, La., could have avoided Sunday's spill in the Intracoastal Waterway by staying in shipping lanes. Sanders' tug was pushing the 190-foot oil barge that struck a submerged vessel and ruptured spilling 830 barrels of light crude into the waterway officials said. The waterway opened to two-way traffic Tuesday. One-way traffic was restored Monday morning. The charge, issued late Monday, is the first step under maritime law to a license revocation. No bond is required. Coast Guard Warrant Officer Mike Shoul said a federal judge will conduct a hearing and decide by July either to revoke or suspend Sanders' license, or dismiss the charge. Sanders is free and can continue to pilot vessels pending the outcome of the hearing, Shoul said. SECTION HEADING: Domestic News; Copyright 1990 By The Associated Press All Riohtn Resm vmr4 PAGENO="0221" 2 CD 0 ~1 CD p Cfl. t-. tn r ~ri p.4 C) 2 tT1 I I I! 0 PAGENO="0222" 218 02 0262'2'5 02026772 Barge Explodes in Shipping Channel BY: MICHAEL MORAN DATELINE: LINDEN, N.J. PRIORITY: URGENT WORD COUNT: 420 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS DATE: March 7, 1990 11:47EST Coast Guard officials fought today to contain a slick of more than 100,000 gallons of heating oil spreading from the smoldering wreck of an oil barge that exploded and caught fire in a busy waterway. A sheen of oil spread along a four-mile area on the Arthur Kill waterway between New Jersey and New York's Staten Island, said Coast Guard Capt. Robert North. The oil was released by two explosions and fire Tuesday afternoon aboard the barge Cibro Savannah, which was leaving the Citgo Petroleum Corp. docks in Linden with a cargo of 4.2 million gallons of diesel fuel. One person was injured. It was the third time in a week crews had to place containment booms around a vessel to prevent further pollution in the shipping channel, which connects through the Kill Van Kull to New York Habor. Soya. Jim Florio of New Jersey and Mario Cuomo of New York directed their environmental officials to meet with oil executives and questioned industry standards for refining, transporting and storing oil in the New York harbor. ``Enough is enough. We need to be shown that everything is being done to end this string of environmental tragedies,'' Florio said. Donald Wright, the vessel's captain, said at his hospital bed that he had just loaded the barge with No. 2 fuel and was being towed by a tugboat from the Citgo docks when the first blast occurred. ``All I seen was steel flying and flames,'' said Wright, 41, of Saratoga Springs, N.Y. He said gasoline vapors from a previous cargo may have caused the first explosion, but he did not know how the vapors would have been ignited. Coast Guard Petty Officer Howard Holmes said the explosion nearly broke the barge in two. ``It was like a branch that's still green. You can break it, but it won't totally break in two,'' he said. Booms were put in place to keep the slick from spreading to part of Staten Island, two rivers and a sensitive refuge and -spawning ground for birds. The Arthur Kill, which separates New York City's Staten Island from New Jersey, was the site of a S67,000-gallon oil spill on Jan. 1-2 from a ruptured Exxon underwater pipeline. On Feb. 28, 30,000 gallons of heating oil spilled into the Kill Van Kull from a barge anchored in Bayonne. On Thursday, 3,500 gallons of heavy crude spilled from a barge into the Arthur Kill at Exxon's refinery in Linden. SECTION HEADING: Financial News; Copyright 1990 By The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. PAGENO="0223" I .1 CD 0 CD p U) PAGENO="0224" 0 `1 CD p ~\ CS) t-4 12 0 0 tTl Cl) ~4 tTJ 1~) I ~ PAGENO="0225" CD ~ tn C) z tn IC, PAGENO="0226" 222 0~529160/~' 0~29160 CRIPPLED TUG HELPED TO PORT OREGONIAN (PD) - MONDAY January 29, 1990 By: From staff and wire reports Edition: FOURTH Section: LOCAL STORIES Page: 803 Word Count: 139 TEXT: A tugboat towing a barge laden with caustic chemicals was safely escorted across the Columbia River bar Sunday afternoon. It had lost its hydraulic power Saturday night. The Marine Explorer from Grays Harbor, Wash. was towing a 270-foot barge when a wave swept through its pilot house, causing the hydraulic failure, said Petty Officer Charles Eberhart of the U.S. Coast Guard in `Portland. The tugboat was 17 miles outside of Grays Harbor, Wash., and was towing a barge that contained 750,000 pounds of liquid sulphuric acid, 2.4 million pounds of gaseous chlorine and 5,060 dry pounds of caustic soda. It crossed the bar from the Pacific Ocean into, the mouth of the Columbia ~t noon with the help of another tugboat and a Coast Guard motor lifeboat! After the passage, the Marine Explorer moored at Astoria for repairs. Copyright Cc) 1990, The Oregonian Publishing Company PAGENO="0227" CD 0 ~1 CD to `-4 tTj `-4 C) ci t~J ~Q. timi `I-II~ `I~I~c I~' k 5> 0'~ ~ 3 3-4 ! 3 PAGENO="0228" 224 New Orleans, LA TIMES~PICAYUNE 1~t~ I 2,000 evacuated in Houma ~ t w k after gas barge hits bridge w~t~'~? "Evidently the (water) current _____________________- H d had something to do with it," *pTh.Aas.sIaa.dvss. 4_ Fred Lemoine, Terrebonne I.,emo~ne said. HOUMA L.a - Abo 2000 wal~t rr hot uecuredth bas~?'to ~ people were evacuated late Mon explosion, tut about 24 aquare in an isolated area. day after a barge loaded with 4 blocks in Houma were evacuated The Coast Guard cloned the 000 barreln of Liquefied no aprecaution. waterway to navigation in the petroleum gas bit a bridge on the "A pipe about 2'/s inches in di- area. Evacuees were sent to lntracoastal Waterway in ameter on the barge was schoolnandothershelters. PAGENO="0229" 225 05257477 GASOLINE SPILLS INTO EAST RIVER OREGONIAN (PD) - THURSDAY September 14, 1989 By: From wire reports Edition: FOURTH Section: Wire Stories Page: A14 Word Count: 147 TEXT: NEW ~,ORK A tank ba ge carrvinq ~ 8 million gallons of gasoline ran ag ound an the East Ri er on Wednesday n ght causing hat the Loast Guard termed a `major gasoline spill." Authorities closed parts of the East River and the Triborough Bridge as a precaution. The barge, the Marania 440, was being towed by the tugboat East Coast when the barge ran aground just north of the Triborough Bridge about 9:45 p.m., said Petty Officer Jeff Crewley of the Coast Guard station at Governor's Island. An undetermined amount of gasoline was leaking into the river, Crawley said. "We're talking like a major gasoline spill, but I don't know any amount at this time," Crawley said. Crawley said Coast Guard pollution personnel were on the scene, working wa~h the fire and police departments, the city Office of Emergency rianagement and Department of Environmental Protection and the state Department of Environmental Con5ervat ion. Copyright (c). 1989, The Oregonian Publishing Company DESCRIPTORS: BARGE ACCIDENT PAGENO="0230" 0 0 (U U) t.4 LII C) t~I PAGENO="0231" 227 New Orleans LA TIMES-PICAYUNE 2injuredinfire,expIOSiOfl a rritically. Sunday night in an barge containing Squid gaa being enploaios and fire on a barge on pushed by the tugboat Dinse the Mississippi River near the Valor. Crews of several tugboats B.P. Oil Co. refinery at Alliance, saw the blast about 8:15 pin, and theCaaatGuardsaid. radioed the infoensation to the The Plaquemines Parish Fire Coast Guard. Department and B.P. personnel The river wan closed to traffic entiagaished the fire about 9:15 at the refinery, about 12 miles ,p.m.,theCoaatGuardsaid. south of Belle Chasse, for the The victims, who were not safetyofpassieavenselssnCsseOf identifedweretahes toWestJef' another explosion and to ease ferson MedicalCenserbybelicop- acrsn to vessels handling the tee and ambulance, both owned accident. The river was reopened by aprivatecompany. Petty Offi. at 10:30p.m. cer Glees Lsmont said. The The Coast Guard said a lot of entent 0g their injuries was not inflammable gas remained so the known. airafteetheenplonion. PAGENO="0232" `-4 tTl CD 0 `1 CD p U) U) Ii L PAGENO="0233" 229 05S12406 ~ LVE ~J0~S PL~IS TO RI8I~T B~ OH OHIO RIVER 160,000 GALLONS ~ OF INS D~UC~. IS TR~PED IN I4JLL C~JJJS DIOFATCH (CD) - WEDIESDAY April 5~ 1989 By: Michael B. Lafferty Dispatch Staff Reporter Edition: FINAL SectIon: LOCAL NID NATIONAL NSWS Page: 6C Word Count: 426 TEXT: LONG BOTTOM, Ohio - Salvage experts yesterday pondered how to right a barge that capsized with a load of liquid caustic soda tionday in the Ohio River. No leaks have been found in the tanks that hold 160,000 gallons of the cheeical in the steel, double-hulled barge, U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Kevin Maehler said. The Coast Guard and PPG Industries, which owns the barge, are test:ng river water for possible leaks, leshler said. Little or no caustic soda, also known as lye, was released when the bsrge capsized, he said. 3E~* IBON, a spokesmen for the Ohio River Sanitation Coemission, said drinking water is not endangered. Long Bottom is in Meigs County about 19 miles north of Pomeroy. Caustic soda is used in manufacturing soaps, as a common household drain cleaner, end as a cata'yst in industrial processes. It is considsred a hazardous cheeical that could endanger aquatic life. ~out 6 feet of the 195-footbarge was above the surface yesterday. Meehlsr said the barge is wall away from the shipping channel and has not slowed river traffic. A tug boat is standing by to help guide river traffic around the wreck, Mmehler said. High water rather than the barge has slowed traffic on the Ohio River, said Charles knighting, lockmaster at the Racine Locks and Dais. AT LEAST some of the caustic soda will have to be removbd from the barge before it is righted, Meshler said. No decisions on how to right the barge have been made. The process may involve pumping water into the double-hull of the barge to allow the weight of the water to right the vessel. The sslvage process could take weeks, he said. Mmehler said a similar process was used when the same barge, also loaded with caustic soda, capsized April 10, 1987, about 1 mile downstream from this accident site. 1t is a strange coincidence. The circumstances of the prior incident ware similar,5 PPG spokesman Craig Jordan said. This time, Jordan said, the barge, PPG 207, was one of 15 barges being transported down river around a U-shaped bend. 5AS 11 TOW was negotiating the turn, our barge was adjacent to the tow. It hit the bank, capsized, and drifted and aank, Jordan said. The barge is 50 to 100 yards from shore. Plaehler said the curve at Long Bottom can be dangerous but there are more treacherous spots on the river. He said high water can make it difficult to steer barge tows downstream. The barge was being transported from PPG's plant at Natrium, W.Ua., to Cairo, Ill. Copyright 1989 The Dispatch Printing Co. DESCRIPTORS: LONG; BOTTOM; CITIES; WATER; BOAT; ACCIDENT; HAZARDOUSMATERIAL PAGENO="0234" 230 4 q-t9 050121B3'9 85012183 CHEPIICAL-C~YING BARGE CAPSIZES COLUMBUS DISPATCH (CD) - TUESDAY April 4, 1909 By: Associated Press Edition: FINAL Section: LOCAL AND NATIONAL NEWS Page: 68 Word Count: 219 TEXT: A barge carrying a hazardous chemical capsized on the Ohio River between Parkersburg and Ravenswood, W.Ua., yesterday morning, end authorities were try~ng to salvage the craft ~.ithout a spill, a state official said. A company off.i.cial said the barge was transporting caustic soda, an alkaline corrosive that is used widely in the chemical industry. The unmanned vessel was being pushed by a tugboat, he said. The 195-foot barge owned by PPG Industries capsized while it was negotiating a wide turn,: said Craig Jordan, director of human resources for the company at its New Martinsville, W.Va., chemical plant. Ha said it was carrying 500 tone of the chemical. Ron S.ndy, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources supervisor for field staff, said no major chemical leak was detected as of early yesterday evening. He said a slow leak was possible. The barge left New Plartineville with 14 others like it, Jordan said. He said the tug wee pushing all 15 vessels. The other barges were not damaged. Jordan refused to disclose the destination of the barges. He else said he didn't know what had caused the barge to capsize. There were no injuries to crew members of the tug, he added. Jordan said the company notified the Coast Guard, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. Copyright 1989 The Dispatch Printing Co. DEScRIPTORS: PPG; INDUSTRIES; ACCIDENT; WATER; VEHICLE; HAZARDOUSPIATER I AL PAGENO="0235" 231 0087288$ Barge Carrying Lye Capsizes on Ohio River DATELINE: PARKERSBURG, W.Ve. PRIORITY: RUSH WORD COUNT: ~70 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS DATE: April 4, 1989 13:O6EDT A barge loaded with 160,000 gallons of lye ran aground and capsized in the Ohio River, but officials said there was no immediate threat to wildlife or water supplies. The barge was one of 15 being transported by a tugboat around a sharp bend when it broke away and ren aground near the rocky shore, said Lt. Commander Arthur Adkins of the U.S. Coast Guard at Huntington. The accident occurred about 20 miles southwest of Parkersburg at Long Bottom, Ohio, and Murraysville, W.Va., near where a barge also carrying lye ran aground two years ago. A salvage expert from PPG Industries Inc., the barges owner, was expected to arrive at the scene today, Adkins said. Cleanup and removal of the barge was expected to take weeks. No leaks were detected, Adkins said, but small amounts of the lye solution, known as sodium hydroxide or caustic soda, may be seeping through vents in the barge., Coast Guard Lt. Kevin Maehler said this morning that preliminary water tests showed little of the lye had escaped the barge. Lye is considered hazardous because it is highly alkaline. In high concentrations such as the amount the barge was carrying, lye will burn skin and eyes and can be dangerous if swallowed, Adkins said. `Drinking water could be infected, so water intake users downstream have been notified,' Adkins said. Because of the swift current, it would take a major leak to endanger aquatic life or drinking water, said Ron Sandy, the West Virginia Department of Natural Resource's field staff supervisor. ``If there was any significant leakage, we would have seen some dead aquatic life,'' Sandy said. ``There didn't seem to be any.'' The accident didn't tie up river traffic, officials said. Workers kept the upturned hull of the barge illuminated throughout Monday night, Maehler said. Strong currents were blamed for the April 9, 1987, grounding of a PPG barge with 200,000 gallons of lye. No leaks were reported from that incident. SECTION HEADING: Domestic News; Copyright 1989 By The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. PAGENO="0236" 0 9 CD p `-3 `-I tTl 1' `-4 C-) tTl CD -. U PAGENO="0237" z CD 0 `1 CD 0, LT1 `-4 C) z ) Ui PAGENO="0238" 234 Appendix (C) * MARN~ACCil)BITS Th following report summarizes a numbsr of ths barg., tug and tow related lncldsnts lnveetlgatsd by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Marine DlvlaIon, which were cauasd by human error. According to the NTSB, the criteria uaed to determine whether or not the Board Investigates an accident reported to them by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) includes the following elements: o aIx or more deaths; or o a veasel of 100+ grosa tons; or o $500,000 of damage or more; or o "any other catastrophe" (a gray area). The NTSB Investlgatee 00-80 incidents per year using USCG data and evldsnoe. Moreover~ the NTSB conducts In-depth InvestigatIons of eight to ten of those Incidents per year and ptthllahee detailed studies. The summaries that follow, however, are drawn from the briefs. DATE: 03/20/80 LOCATION: Bethel, Arkansas DAMAGE: $325,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 2 fatalIties Two shipyard workers boarded stank barge with welding leads. The vessels were believed to contain significant quantities of vapors left over from a shipment of heating fuel and gasoline. The cargo vapors Ignited and resulted in si~ damage. DATE: 08/89/80 LOCATION: Marsh Island, Louisiana DAMAGE: $1,000,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 InjurIes/fatalItIes A barge was flooded In 15 feet of water and then abandoned In the face of an approaching squall. The next morning pIlots reported the barge had capsized on Its port side. The NTSB ruled the vessel had been damaged due to scouring of the sea bottom under the barge. The NTSB also said the towboat crews failed to use adequately sized lines for towing the barge DATE: 03/13/81 LOCATION: Chesapeake Bay, Virginia DAMAGE: $523,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 lnjurlea/Istslltles The carfiost Captain Edward Richardson sank In 25 feet of water, about 30 feet from the railroad terminal in Cape Charles, Virginia. During the voyage, the crew noted flooded compartments. The NTSB found the sinking was caused by vented manhole covers; contributing to the accident was the failure of the tughost operatorto check the carfiost at regular Intervals during the journey. DATE: 03/82/81 LOCATION: Mississippi River, Mile 136.8 DAMAGE: $600,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 InjurIes/fatalItIes A bulk carrier loaded with grain collided with a towboat and thirty empty barges. Visibility was good and the river was straight The NTSB determined that the primary cause of the accident was the failure of the tow cperatorto keep a proper lookout or to monitor the bridge-to-bridge radio frequency while getting underway. The tow was also faulted for not participating in the New Orleans Vessel Traffic Service. DATE: 04/18/81 LOCATION: Leeville, Louisiana DAMAGE: $2,600,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: S lnjurlea/0 fatalities A barge drilling rig was attempting to complete a wall; a large volume of gas began exiting the welL After afire started, the barge and a supply vessel were abandoned. The NTSB ruled the fire an accIdent, but said the failure of a crewman to secure all machinery contributed to the severity of the damage. DATE: 01/03182 LOCATION: Galveston, Texas DAMAGE: $2,300,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 InjurIes/fatalIties A tow pushing two tank barges collided Into abridge; one of the tank barges erupted Into flames. The NTSB ruled that the accident was caused by the failure of the bridge operator to raise the bridge after agreeing to do so. PAGENO="0239" 235 2 DATE: 01/19/83 LOCATION: Gulf of Mexico DAMAGE $1 000 000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: I Injury A tug towing a dlaabled bulk tanker caught on fire. The operator ordered the crew to abandon ahlp. The NTSB could not determine the cauae of the fire but saId the preaence of fire protection meaaurea would have kept the blaze from spreadln~ DATE: 09/07/80 DAMAGE: $1,500,000 LOCATION Halleck Point, Arkanaaa INJURIES/FATALITIES 0 InjurIes/fatalities A towboat with a fully loaded log barge In tow experienced an engineroom fire The veasel burned out of control and waa conaldered a total loss. The NTSB aald the fire waa of undetermIned origin; once the fire began, however, the faIlure to close vents and accesses to the englneroom exacerbated the problem. DATE: 02/19/82 LOCATION: Alabama River, Mile 105.3 DAMAGE: $560,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 InjurIes/fatalItIes A towboat was pushIng four barges down the Alabama River. As the tow passed under a railroad bridge, a strong current pushed the vessel Into the bridge; the tow broke apart. The NTSB ssld the failure of the operator to judge and compensate for the current caused the accident. DATE: 02/07/84 LOCATION: MIssIssippi River, Mile 174 DAMAGE: $652,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES 0 InjurIes/fatalities A PanamanIan bulk and a towboat collided while lrssverslng a bend In the river. The NTSB ruled that probable cause of the collision was the agreement made by the operators of both vessels that dId not allow enough time and space to clear one another. DATE: 03/03/81 LOCATION: Ohio RIver, MIle 918.5 DAMAGE: $2,168,381 INJURIES/FATALITIES 0 InjurIes/fatalItIes A tow was downbound on the OhIo River wIth a aix-barge tow loaded with soybeans. As the flotilla reached Smlthlsnd Locks and Dam, the tow operator lost control of the vessel In heavy current The tow released the barges and five of the six barges sank and lost their cargo. The NTSB blamed the accIdent on the faIlure of the operator to make allowances for the strong current DATE: 06/10/81 LOCATION: Ohio River, MIle 535.6 DAMAGE $258 000 INJURIES/FATAUTIES 1 Injury/i fatality A small harbor towboat capsized and sank, killing the operator. The NTSB ruled that the operator had faIled to anticIpate the strong current that followed In the wake of a three-barge wide tow. DATE: 09/23/81 LOCATION: Gulf of Mexico DAMAGE: $1,000,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES 0 Injuries/fatalIties A tug on its maiden voyage In the Gulf of Mexico caught fire and sustaIned serious damage. The NTSB attributed the fire to the assistant engineer's failure to properly regulate vents and other apparatus In the engine room DATE: 10/30/81 LOCATION: Chesapeake Bay, Virginia DAMAGE: $1,158,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 5 InjurIes/I fatality A tug and barge were crossing the Chesapeake Bay when the barge began to lIst, dumpIng 24 out of 26 railroad csrs Into the bay One crewman drowned. The NTSB found that the barge owner failed to keep compartments aIrtIght and In fact cut slrholes Into the manhole covers that provided access to the compartments Water spilled Into the compartments causing the vessel to lIst DATE: 11/24/81 LOCATION: Illinois RIver, Mile 157.7 DAMAGE: $430,000 INJURIES/FATAUTIES: 0 InjurIes/fatalItIes PAGENO="0240" 236 3 A tow with eight bargea entered the lock chamber of Peoria Lock; due to a communication breakdown between the operator and a crewman, the tow and barge craahed into the lock gatea. The NTSB ruled that the tow operator may have failed to reduce apeed when he entered the lock chamber and failed to keep himaelf informed about the location of hia tow within the lock. DATE: 12/18/81 LOCATION: Gulf of Mexico DAMAGE: $1,250,000 iNJURIES/FATALITIES: 3 injurlea A tug in high aeaa took on water and began to aInk. The veaael was eventually bat but the crewmen were reacued. The NTSB aaid the flooding came from an undetermined aource but blamed the operator for failing to maintain the integrity of the after deck. DATE: 04/20/83 LOCATION: Lower Miaslasippi River, Mile 137 DAMAGE: $966,000 INJURiES/FATALITIES: 2 inJuries Two towboats collided In a straight atretch of the Mlsalaslppl River. One tow aank shortly after the colilalon. The NTSB ruled that the operator of one veaaei failed to keep a lookout while croaaing the river. DATE: 06/08/83 LOCATION: Lower Mlsalaalppi River, Mile 122 DAMAGE: $625,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: I fatality A towboat pushing a barge to a barge fleeting area got caught between the barge and the fleet. The tow began to hat and eventually capsized; the operator drowned. The NTSB ruled that the operator failed to anticIpate the eflecta of the atrong river current. DATE: 07/07/83 LOCATION: Portland Harbor, Maine DAMAGE: $1,200,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: I Injury/I fatality A tug entering Portland Harbor waa overtaken by its barge; the tug waa tripped and the relief operator waa unable to escape from the pilot house. The NTSB ruled that the accident waa a result of the relief operator's failure to Inaure that the barge was not overtaking the tug. DATE: 08/08/83 LOCATION: New York Harbor, Kill Van Kull, New Jersey DAMAGE: $900,000 INJURIES/FATALITiES: 0 injuries/fataiwea A tug and tankahlp were proceeding eastbound In the Kill Van Kuil when the tankship swung away from the tow and the towline crossed the tug'a atarboard side, causing the tug to capsize. The NTSB ruled that the operator'a actions and the failure of the pilot of the Exxon Huntington to monitor the situation caused the accident. DATE: 09/29/83 LOCATION: Atlantic Ocean, ESE of Cape May, New Jersey DAMAGE: $200,000 iNJURIES/FATALITIES: 2 injuries A tug and barge departed Philadelphia. They encountered rough seas during which time the nylon towIng hawser parted. The tug crew recovered the trail line and continued to tow the barge. The second towing hawser parted; the operator decided to maintain visual contact only. Slowly, the barge began to sInk. The NTSB ruled that the failure of the tug's operator and the USCG to control the excessive leakage when power was lost DATE: 07/30/84 LOCATION: Tampa Bay, Florida DAMAGE: $859,000 INJURIES/FATALITiES: 0 inJuries/fatalities A tug and barge departed Port Manatee, Florida for Louisiana. While Inaide Port Manatee Channel, the barge grounded against the left aide of the channel. Later, the crew noted that water was entering the barge's tanks. The NTSB ruled that the operator failed to keep the barge mid-channel. DATE: 01/10/81 LOCATION: East River, Brooklyn, New York DAMAGE: $205,000 INJURIES/FATAUT1ES: 0 InJuries/fatalftlea PAGENO="0241" 4 While docking, the port anchor of one barge became entangled with the anchor cables of another vessel. The NTSB ruled the pilot's failure to Judge the location of the dragged anchor was the primary cause of the accident DATE: 07/10/81 LOCATION: Illinois River, Mile 56 DAMAGE: $124,965 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 inJurIes/fatalItIes A towboat with a fifteen barge tow was southbound on the Illinois River; the river was experiencing unusually high water conditions. As the tow and barge approached the Florence Highway Bridge, the tow broke apart. The NTSB said the probable cause of the ramming was the pIlots failure to properly maneuver the towboat DATE: 11/06/82 LOCATION: Golconda, Illinois DAMAGE: $700,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: InJury A towboat and sIx empty barges ware downbound when the englneroom caught fire; the fire could not be extinguished and the towboat was a total loss. Contributing to the severity of the fire was the chief engineer's failure to close the englneroom's windows and doors before activating the fire extinguishing system. DATE: 01/09/83 LOCATION: Hudson RIver, New York DAMAGE: $1,000,000 INJURIES/FATALITiES: 0 InJuries/fatalities A tug and tank barge grounded on Diamond Reef In the Hudson River, The reef was properly charted and marked by a buoy. The NTSB blamed the accident on a navigation error by the operator. DATE: 03/17/83 LOCATION: Gulf of Mexico DAMAGE: $21,500,000 INJURIES/FATALITiES: 0 injurIes/fatalities A tug and tank barge were en route in the Gulf of Mexico when rough seas were encountered. The tug and barge began to slam together, causing the bowline of the tug to puncture. It was determined that none of the crew knew of its operating conditions In rough water. The NTSB ruled that the failure of the starboard operating strap caused the accident but that the failure of the operator to disconnect the tug from the barge's notch. DATE: 04/11/83 LOCATION: Cape Cod Canal DAMAGE: $2,000,000 INJURIES/FATALiTIES: 1 inJury A tug was escorting a loaded tankbarge through Cape Cod Canal The barge took a sudden sheer to port and overtook the tug. The tug and barge eventually parted, the barge grounded and the tug capsized. The NTSB ruled that the operator of the vessel failed to use speed and rudder control In a timely manner to control yawing of the barge. DATE: 05/14/83 LOCATION: Lower MississippI River, Mile 122 DAMAGE: $700,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 1 InJury/I fatality A tow was holding a 21 barge stationary In the lower Mississippi during a time of high current As the tow was maneuvering, ft became crosswise to the current and finally capsized. The NTSB ruled that the tow operator failed to maintain control of his tow. DATE: 06/09/83 LOCATION: Lower MississIppi River, Mile 435.8 DAMAGE: $500,000. INJURIES/FATALiTIES: 0 InJuries/fatalities A tow and four loaded tank barges was headed southbound on the MississippI during high water condItions As the operator approached the Vlckaburg Highway and Railroad Bridge the tow operator was unable to control the tow and one of the barges broke away from the tow and rammed the bridge The NTSB said the operator's failure to compensate for the current was the primary cause. DATE 12/18/84 LOCATION: Lower Mississippi, Mile 736.7 DAMAGE: $2,200,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 inJury/fatalities A towboat and 40 graIn barges was downbound In the Mississippi River when the flotilla approached the Hernando DeSoto Highway Bridge The operator decided to halt the tow Instead of passIng under the bridge, but he was too close to the bridge and the tow crashed Into the bridge pier. The NTSB said the failure of the operator to turn on the radar in dense 237 N PAGENO="0242" 238 5 fog after he decided to atop cauaed the accident DATE: 09/05/81 LOCATION: MIle 97.5 NMR In the Mlaslasippi at New Orleans DAMAGE: $991,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 Injurlea/fatalltles A tankahlp was upbound on the Mlaalaalppl and a tow was downbound puahlng three barges In tandem. Vlalbllfty was poor and radar was not working due to raIn. The two vessels crashed Into one another. The NTSB dete,mtned that the probable cause of the oolllalon was the excessIv, speed of the tankahip and the lack of a proper lookout Also contrIbutIng to the accident was excessIve radio traffic on a specIfic radio band. DATE: 10/16/81 LOCATION: Bertha 54 & 56, Port Elizabeth, New Jersey DAMAGE: $2,492,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 2 InjurIes Crewmen were working on a moored vessel and were adjustIng the throttle valves and mishandled the controls during the process. The vessel surged ahead and rammed another vessel that was also moored. The NTSB ruled that the probable cause of the collision was the mishandling of the main engine throttle by the watch engineer while warming up the main engine prior to a scheduled sailing. DATE: 07/16/82 LOCATION: MIssissIppi River, New Orleans, Louisiana DAMAGE: $1,215,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 InjurIes/fatalItIes A bulk carrier leaving for New Orleans approached a bend In the MIssissippI River and struck a derrick bsrge. The NTSB ruled that the probable cause of the collision was an error In Judgement by the pilot while turning the vessel In the MIssIssIppI River. The pilot also failed to use the two assistIng tugs to check the vessel's headway. DATE: 05/28/83 ~LOCATlON: MIssissIppi River. Mile 133.1 DAMAGE: $500,000+ INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 InjurIes/fatalItIes A tug and barge passed a towboat on the Mississippi when one vessel veered sharply; the two vessels collided. The NTSB ruled that probable cause of the collIsion was the failure of the tug master to maintaIn control of the barge against the strong river current while meeting a downbound tow In the bend of the river. DATE: 06/02/83 LOCATION: Lower Mississippi River, Mile 222 DAMAGE: $1,127,800 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 lnjurleslfatalltles A tow with 25 loaded barges was moving downriver on the Mississippi when the tow hit a pier that extended Into the river. The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the collision was the failure of the operator of the towboat to compensate adequately for the strong river current while pushing 25 loaded barges. DATE: 08/17/83 LOCATION: Gulf of Mexico DAMAGE: $1,000,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: I injury/i fatality A tug sank in the Gulf of Mexico. The NTSB determIned that the probable cause of the accident could not be determined. However, they felt that loss of life was caused by the failure of the engIneer to remain wIth the Ilferaft after the crew abandoned ship. DATE: 04/17/84 LOCATION: Mississippi River, New Orleans, Louisiana DAMAGE: $660,000 INJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 Injurles/fatalltiss A towboat pulling alongside a barge was turned sideways by the river current The towboat healed and began taking on water. The NTSB ruled that the probable cause of the loss of control of the vessel was the failure of the towboat operator to maintain sufficient engine power and rudder control to counter the river current while a deckhand attempted to secure facewlres. Also cited was the failure of the crew to keep the engineroom door controlled. DATE: 06/23/84 LOCATION: Lake Pontchartrain, New Orleans, Louisiana DAMAGE: $666,117 INJURIES/FATALITiES: 0 injuries/fatalitIes A tow and barge were underway In Lake Pontchartraln when they struck a bridge. The NTS8 ruled that the probable cause of the ramming of the Lake Pontchartraln Causeway bridge was fatigue which caused the operator to fail asleep PAGENO="0243" 239 6 while he was at the helm. DATE: 11/30/84 LOCATION: Lower Mississippi River, Mile 146.0 DAMAGE: $894,000 INJUR1ES/FATAUTIES: 3 InjurIes Two tows were passing each other when one struck a bridge. The NTSB rules that the probable cause of the ramming of the Gramercy-Wallace Bridge was a result of the failure of one operator to respond to communicatIons from another. DATE: 08/24/85 LOCATION: Upper Mississippi River, Mile 241.4 DAMAGE: $705,000 iNJURIES/FATALITIES: 0 InjurIes/fatalities A towboat wIth 15 barges rammed the lockgstea of lock *25 of the Upper Mississippi. The NTSB ruled that the probable cause was the failure of the operator to obtain permission from shift chief to enter the lock chamber and the failure of the mate to notify the operator that the lock gates were closet PAGENO="0244" A~çendix (D) ~ ~/~4 ~/~!~f~' <-5 1 06-10 1 11-15 I 16-20 I 21-25 I >25 Companies 2,622 9,141 Vessels Self Piupelled 39,200 2,271 10,684 6,505 4,287 6,073 Tugs/towboats 5,228 158 1,102 969 685 694 1,596 Drycsrgo 565 74 179 86 76 36 109 Tankers 220 9 39 46 43 18 65 Passenger 997 172 188 193 127 79 238 Crewboats 1,080 68 477 289 112 83 42 Total 8,090 481 1,985 1,583 - 1,043 / 910 / /~_ 2,050 ~ Barges Dry covered 10,606 147 4,507 2,930 1,744 933 338 Dry open 7,899 *900 1,817 1,722 1,604 956 893 Other dry 5,369 546 1,041 1,617 1,074 362 729 Deck 3,179 126 613 492 343 437 1,108 Liquid (comp.) 2,417 48 435 493 428 461 552 Liquid (non comp.) 1,514 23 286 304 269 228 403 Total 31,039 1,790 8,699 7,558 5,462 3,377 4,023 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers November 1991 PAGENO="0245" 241 U.S. FLAG FLEET 1/ NUMBER OF VESSELS AND CAPACITY IN THOUSANDS OF SHORT TONS 1987 2/ VESSELS/CAPACITY OCEAN SELF-PROPELLED DRY CARGO 901 4,048 AND/OR PASSENGER VESSEL SELF-PROPELLED TANK SHIP 223 13,074 TUGS AND OTHER WORK BOATS 1,732 -- DRY CARGO BARGE 4,218 5,017 TANK BARGE 724 3,843 TOTAL 1988 3! VESSELS/CAPACITY 878 4,076 230 14,817 1,765 -- 3,506 4,818 739 3,831 7,118 27,542 220 2,153 1989 41 VESSELS/CAPACITY 867 4.359~ 223 12,925 1,752 -- 3,658 5,102 707 3,717 7,207 26,103 7,798 25,982 205 2,256 5 38 182 -- 313 537 30 74 735 2,905 218 2,185 37 454 73 2,749 GREAT LAKES SELF-PROPELLED DRY CARGO AND/OR PASSENGER VESSEL SELF-PROPELLED TANK SHIP TUGS AND OTHER WORK BOATS DRY CARGO BARGE TANK BARGE TOTAL INLAND WATERWAYS SELF-PROPELLED DRY CARGO AND/OR PASSENGER VESSEL SELF-PROPELLED TANK SHIP TUGS AND OTHER WORK BOATS DRY CARGO BARGE TANK BARGE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL SELF-PROPELLED DRY CARGO AND/OR PASSENGER VESSEL SELF-PROPELLED TANK SHIP TUGS AND OTHER WORK BOATS DRY CARGO BARGE TANK BARGE TOTAL 4 197 291 32. 742 1,383 3,293 23,124 3,239 31,039 4 182 296 31 733 1,363 3,241 23 .244 3,273 31,121 2,461 234 5,188 27,046 4.043 38,972 1,152 3,257 23,210 3,493 31,112 2.258 228 5,171 27,741 4,247 39,645 37 486 65 2,741 374 32,428 6,971 39.773 6,603 14,854 37,732 10,867 70,056 328 32.195 7,438 39,961 6,632 13,112 37.749 11,355 68,848 2,468 227 5,242 27,073 3,978 38,988 1/ Includes vessels in both domestic and foreign trade. 2/ Operating or available f or operation on October 1, 1987. 3/ Operating or available for operation on November 1, 1988. 4/ Operating or available for operation on October 1, 1989. 392 32,568 6,921 39,881 6,936 12,962 38,124 10,711 68,733 PAGENO="0246" 242 DISTRIBUTION OF VESSELS IN U.S. FLAG FLEET 1987 4.1% L~~SP DRY CARGO VESSEL SP TANK SHIP ~TUGS & WORK BOATS 4'2.5% E~;.~;; DRY CARGO BARGE TANK BARGE 11. 2 %~7'T7.~:N..~ 3 7% 10 5%- 74.6% INLAND WATERWAYS 22.2 24~8% OCEAN GREAT LAKES 0.6% 10.7% 70.0% GRAND TOTAL PAGENO="0247" 243 DISTRIBUTION OF VESSELS IN U S FLAG FLEET 1988 49;3% 40 E DRY CARGO VESSEL 30 0%/' ~ TANK SHIP 10 / TUGS & WORK BOATS ~ O.5%-~. I \/Jflj~V DRY CARGO BARGE 3. 2 24t8% ~TANK BARGE OCEAN 2 GREAT LAKES 7417% INLAND WATERWAYS GRAND TOTAL PAGENO="0248" 244 DISTRIBUTION OF VESSELS IN U.S. FLAG FLEET 1989 LII SP DRY CARGO VESSEL []~` TANK SHIP 5 TUGS & WORK BOATS ,.29.4%~DRY CARGO BARGE TANK BARGE GREAT LAKES ~35% 9.4% GRAND TOTAL 12.0 ~ 3. 1 24.3% ~0. 8% 39. OCEAN 5.3% 10.2% 10 6 ~ sr INLAND WATERWAYS PAGENO="0249" 245 ~ppenthx (E) PART FOUR INLAND WATERWAYS TRADE COMMERCIALLY NAVIGABLE INTERNAL WATERWAYS OF THE UNITED STATES BY LENGTHS AND DEPTHS 1/ LENGTHS IN MILES OF WATERWAYS UNDER 6T0 9T0 12T0 14FT. GROUP 6 FT. 9 FT. 12 FT. 14 FT. & OVER TOTAL ATLANTIC COAST 1 426 1 241 584 938 1 581 5 770 WATERWAYS ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL - 65 65 1,104 - 1,234 WATERWAY NORFOLK, VA. TO KEY WEST, FL GULF COAST WATERWAYS 2,055 647 1,133 79 378 4,292 GULF INTRACOASTAL 1,137 1,137 WATERWAY ST. MARKS, FL. TO THE MEXICAN BORDER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 2,020 969 5.191 740 268 9,188 SYSTEM PACIFIC COAST 730 498 237 26 2,084 3,575 WATERWAYS GREATLAKES 45 89 8 348 490 ALL OTHER WATERWAYS 76 7 1 7 91 GRAND TOTAL 6 352 3 516 7 210 4 033 4 666 25 777 1/ THE MILEAGES IN THIS TABLE REPRESENT THE LENGTHS OF ALL NAVIGABLE CHANNELS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING THOSE IMPROVED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OTHER AGENCIES AND THOSE WHICH RAVE NOT BEEN IMPROVED BUT ARE USABLE FOR COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION. SOURCE: BIG LOAD AFLOAT 1965 AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS (REVISED TO IN CLUDE TENNESSEE TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY) PAGENO="0250" C, PAGENO="0251" ann 247 / V Parmanant international Association of Navigation Congresses 2OMnaadwssusAv.nut NW. -* $ ny Want f0Ui~ WON f -- ~ a PAGENO="0252" 248 us WATERBORNETRAFFIC BY COMMODITY IN 1989 PART I ~MILUONS OPTONS AND CISANGEFROM 19~) COMMODnIES : I DOMESIIC ______________________ INTERNAL TOTAL 606.0 3.0 Food & Farm 832 0.3 Farm 68.5 4.4 Corn 35.7 11.9 Wheat 15.2 14.6 Soybeans 12.8 -20.8 Food 14.7 -15.3 Animal Feeds 8.9 -9.5 Coal 166.8 3.1 Coke 6.2 15.1 Crude Petroleum 45.9 2.0 Petroleum Products 115.4 4.9 Gaaoline 32.0 3.8 let 4.7 -5.9 Distillate 21.5 9.5 Residual 38.8 9.5 Lubricating Oils 2.5 -9.6 Naphtha 5.1 -2.9 Asphalt 5.8 -5.4 Chemicals 46.4 -7.3 Fertilizers 11.7 -3.2 Industrial Chemicals 34.7 -8.7 Forest, Wood, Pulp, Paper & Waste 18.6 6.8 Nonmetallic Minerala (except Fuel) 65.5 -3.9 Limeatone 12.5 36.9 Sand, Gravel & Rock 44.2 -12.4 Pisoaphate Rock 0.0 -100.0 IronOre&Scrap 6.4 31.5 Nonferrous Metal Ore & Scrap 1.9 17.5 Aluminum Orea, Concentr. 0.4 0.1 Cement 6.4 6.4 Primary Metal Products 7.6 -11.0 Manufactured Equipment & Machinery 2.8 3.0 Source: U.S. Army Corp. of Engineera November 1991 PAGENO="0253" 249 WATERWAY LENGTH Onilea) TONS 1989 A1wmCCOA~rAL *. .:: *. . Atlsnticlnlracoastal Waterway 793 . 4.9 . : .:* :. :.. ~ ... :~ Alabama- Coosa Riven, AL and GA 305 20 BayouTecha,LA 107 1.1 Black Warrior and Tontbigbee Riven, AL 453 19.6 Chocolate Bayou, TX 13 3.3 Gulf Intracoaatal Waterway 1,109 111.6 MorganCity-PortAllenRoute 64 27.3 Petit Anae, Tigre, Carlin Bayous, LA 16 1.9 Tennessee - Tombigbsa Waterway, AL and MS 234 4.3 MISSISSIPPI RWERSYSIZM .~ .: ~. .. Allegheny River, PA H .: fl 3.2 Atchatalaya River, LA 135 11.1 Cumberland River 381 13.3 Green and Barren Rivera, KY 109 8.2 Illinois Waterway, IL 357 39.7 Kanawha River, WV 91 18.9 Kaaksakia River, IL 36 4.0 McClellan - Kerr Arkansaa River Navigation System 462 7.9 Misaissippi River, Mepla, MN, to Mouth of Passea 1,814 267.8 Minneapolis, MN, to Mouth of Missouri River 663 79.4 Mouth of Missouri River to Mouth of Ohio River 195 101.8 Mouth of Ohio River to but not including Baton Rouge, LA nO 181.8 Baton Rouge, LA to but not including New Orleans, LA 130 187.3 New Orleans, LA to Mouth of Paases 106 86.3 MissouriRivertoSiouxCity,1O 732 - 5.4 Monongahala River, PA and WV 129 38.4 Ohio River 981 202.7 Ouachita and Black Rivers, AR and LA 332 1.2 Red River to Alexandria, LA 105 - 4.9 Teuinsssee River 652 43.1 PAcIFIccoMr Columbia River to Snake River, OR and LA 324 17.2 SnakeRivertoLewistoss,ID 230 5.9 WsllametteRiver above Portland and Yamhill River, OR 118 2.0 Source: U.S. Army Corps stgsnaers November 1991 I I PAGENO="0254" 250 EXAMPLES OF POPULOUS COMMUNrHBS. ALONG INLAND WATERWAYS 1990 STATISTICS Birmingham, Alabama 265,968 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 77,759 Peoria, Illinois 113,504 Joliet, Illinois 76,836 Sioux City, Iowa 80,505 Paducah, Kansas 27,256 Shreveport, Louisianna 198 525 Baton Rouge, Louisianna 219,531 New Orleans, Louisianna 496,938 Saint Paul, Minnesota 272,235 Minneapolis, Minnesota 368,383 Jackson, Mississippi 196,637 Saint Louis, Missouri 396,685 Kansas City Missouri 435 146 Cmcmatti, Ohio 364 040 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 369,879 Nashville, Tennessee 488,374 Memphis, Tennessee 610,337 Port Arthur, Texas 58,724 Source: The World Almanac 1992 PAGENO="0255" 251 `~ ~ 44 Compliance with Department Of Transportation Coast Guard Drug Testing Rules An AWO Guide For Marine Employers The American Waterways Operators 1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite 1000 Añington~ VA 22209 203-841-9300 I r 1-I PAGENO="0256" 252 Statement of Philip M. Grill, Vice President, Government Relations Matson Navigation Company On H R 3942, To Amend Title 46, United States Code, To Revise Crewing and Watch Requirements For Towboats Used In Domestic Offshore Commerce. Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries U S House of Representatives Tuesday, March 17, 1992 PAGENO="0257" 253 IINTRODUCTIO)L Chairman Tauzin Mr Fields Members of the Subcommittee my name is Philip Grill I am Vice President Government Relations for Matson Navigation Company Thank you for offering Matson the opportunity to present its views on H R 3942 legislation revising crewing requirements for tow boats used in douestic offshore commerce. Please be advised that earlier, by letter dated March 10th, I personally conveyed the views of Matson on H. R. 3942, which I am about to provide the Subcommittee to the Bill's author the Honorable Neil Abercrombie (0-HI) II MATSON'S OPERATION Matson operates a fleet of eight container and container- trailer vessels transporting containerized freight motor vehicles and conventional cargo in both directions between ports on the United States Pacific Coast and Honolulu Cargo destined for or originating on Hawaii's Neighbor Islands is transhipped at Honolulu between Matson's line-haul vessels and its three dedicated interisland barges A fourth barge transports cargo between Hawaii and mid-Pacific islands As the owner and operator of U S -flag vessels and barges, Matson is vitally concerned with maritime safety. While the proported purpose of H R 3942 is to promote maritime safety Matson does not feel that passage of this bill would enhance safe operation of U S -flag vessels engaged in ocean towing It would however raise the cost of operating those vessels to the ultimate detriment of shippers utilizing U S -flag service while providing no offsetting benefit I hope the following discussion will illustrate Matson 5 concerns III REOUIRING ADDITIONAL CREW ON TOWING VESSELS WILL NOT ENHANCE MARITIME SAFETY Present law exempts vessels of less than 100 gross tons and tugs and barges engaged in voyages of less than 600 miles from the requirement of having separate deck and engine room watches The bill removes this exemption The exemption allows ~fl hands to be productively employed in tying up and letting go lines since deck hands are needed only for line handling functions Line handling time at most amounts to 1-2 hours when arriving in port and perhaps an hour on departure Requiring separate deck hands to perform these functions means that these hands cannot be productively employed during the remainder of the voyage In Matson's view, this in no way enhances safety. 55-369 0 - 92 - 9 PAGENO="0258" 254 Matson has similar concerns with respect to the bill's requirement as to minimum crewing for the bridge. Tugs are generally steered by automatic pilot at sea and by the Master when in confined waters, or when docking or undocking. Wheelhouse visibility is excellent, without having to leave the steering station, and there is no safety reason for having an extra person in the wheelhouse to steer or watch the automatic pilot steer. Because of the excellent visibility, the Master can do a better, safer job of steering himself or herself, rather than trying to direct someone else doing it. There is ~ evidence of safety problems in Hawaiian interisland towage caused by an insufficient number of individuals in a tug's wheelhouse IV. THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OF UNNECESSARY CREW WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE TO BE PAID BY SHIPPERS The cost burdens imposed by the bill will be substantial. For Hawaii interisland tugs at least one additional crew member would be required, at a minimum annual cost of $50,000.00. On the tug towing Matson's barge ISLANDER between Hawaii and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, four additional crew would be required, at a minimum annual cost of $200,000.00. In today's economic environment the tug operator will undoubtedly pass on the increased cost to Matson, the barge owner. Matson will inevitably be forced to pass on the increased costs to shippers using its barge service. Thus the economy will be burdened with additional costs, with no corresponding gain in safety or efficiency. Thank you for considering Matson's views on H.R. 3942. -2- PAGENO="0259" 255 STATEMENT OF DISTRICT 2 MARINE ENGINEERS ASSOCIATED MARITIME OFFICERS AFL-CIO ON H.R. 4394; A BILL TO REQUIRE MERCHANT MARINE DOCUMENTS FOR CERTAIN SEAMEN By John F. Brady Executive Director of Congressional & Legislative Affairs District 2 Manne Engineers Beneficial Association Association Maritime Officers AFL-CIO March 17 1992 PAGENO="0260" 256 Statement on H.R. 4394 District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Association-Associated Maritime Officers AFL- dO (MEBA 2) wishes to express its support for H.R. 4394, a bill to require merchant mariners documents for certain seamen. The bill would require that seamen employed on tugs, towboats and barges in excess of 5 gross tons plying the lakes and rivers of the United States apply for, obtain and possess a merchant mariners document issued by the United States Coast Guard. The possession of the document would become a condition of continued employment. We ask that the Members of the Coast Guard and Navigation Subcommittee of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries support H.R. 4394 for the following reasons: 1. Documentation of seamen on tugs, towboats and barges on the rivers and lakes of the United States will promote and enhance the safe operation of these vessels by subjecting these mariners to the same screening procedures for drug testing and criminal record checks required of most seamen in the United Sates. 2. This documentation requirement is currently in effect on the Great Lakes and along the coasts of the United States. 3. This documentation requirement will not unnecessarily burden commerce on the lakes and inland waters of the United States. 4. The documentation of these mariners will be of assistance in locating skilled maritime workers during periods of national emergency or war. 5. The documentation requirement will guarantee that only U.S. citizens and lawfully admitted aliens are working in this important industry. 6. The threat to the environment posed by the unsafe operation of vessels in question outweighs the burden of the cost of the minimal documentation requirements. It should be kept in mind that 3,000 tank barges and 23,000 dry cargo barges (in addition to tugs and towboats) are affected by this bilL PAGENO="0261" 257 The members of MEBA 2 have a direct stake in the passage of this bill. We work as licensed officers on vessels plying the lakes, rivers and coasts of this country. We have always stressed the importance of a safe working environment. Safety courses in all facets of the maritime industry are stressed in the educational programs offered at our two schools in Toledo, Ohio and Dania, Florida. We believe that those with whom we work should meet the minimum United States Coast Guard requirements asked of other mariners. We believe that those manning other vessels on the lakes and rivers we share should meet at least the minimal requirements of the United States Coast Guard for documentation and retention of those documents. For the safety of our members and to protect the people, towns, cities and industries along our inland waterway system of lakes and rivers, we ask that the Members of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation support and vote for H.R. 4394. PAGENO="0262" 258 \~ Q~ ~ ~ L) (~ ~ ) e ~ () ~c cD~ ci ~ ç ~ ~ ~o(k'c~k'c" i~. ~R~~1~4T»=. , L5 ~ L 1~ c'k~ ~ ~ ~)Jt C k ~~),(/ j'~~~'a4 ~7L1~ 65Ae ~ J~ /2~//~j r~/~>e 9~'-~ *~V\C(~Lt~~\ ~9/ 7~kL (`t~61Dc) ~ ~;y/1 ~ i~ ~z j~/1L t~L~ ~ ~` CI~c~) &~r~ ~/)1j ~acj~t/oit~ /p~p~ 4~.L ~ O?7f2,v~a \5 ,u. ~4~'v~( e PAGENO="0263" 259 We the undersigned petition Congress for the purpose of urging the passage of H R 3942 We feel that H R 3942 would mandate safe manning levels on vessels in commercial operation which are currently unsafely manned Considering the large profits available in petro-chemical transport as well as general cargo, the behavior of the companies involved in undermanning is irresponsible, and shows their disregard for the safety of their employees as well as the environment. sign naae address A print name city and state 4~L4~LeLZL«=i~V 7I3J4L('4Q 6/~J L&/&l~(J C~/ ç ~ ~ ço S3~ S3c `k~ - - -~ ~ t L~tm,~-~4~ ~`t ho ~ ~d4 4s6"t J ~ c~ ~7.~qier~ P~*~k 7f3~ ~ ~1i) ohf,L'J ~frcf~' C/~jg~i' -`~ e/~ii~df&t4 ~ Jb~Q~~JA1~2 9ø~" 4~ ~ ~ f~(A- Po~ c4 yoçi~ i /?rt~' ~&~ir1 o~ F Ci~F q4'9wJ~ 4~ ~ h" ~A ~/4~5 ~ ~ ~ EZTh'- ~`° ~ 322 ~3th'~"~ ~ i/c' - 2~Y4~~~q J~dL~14~'A~ thYfl 4~ .2 35O3 ii PAGENO="0264" 260 We the undersigned petition Congress for the purpose of urging the passag. of H.R. 3942. We feel that H.R. 3942 would mandat. safe manning levels on vessels in commercial operation, which are currently unsafely manned. Considering the larg. profits available in petro-chemical transport as well as general cargo, the behavior of the companies Involved in undermanning is irresponsible, and shows their disregard for the safety of their employees as well as the environment. sign name address print name city and state ~a~JI&f ~ ~. ~ - ~L. L~.;J~ - .4? ~ ?1 £~~i &ii6amr - ~ " CiJ~ct ~tb~~( (\ z~ jj 4iJ~a~y ~ PAGENO="0265" sign name address print name city and state III' ~~I~~?IIIIIIIII ~ Q:~L.c~'? ?w~ 4~v~t~W~) ~ ~ cA ~ 3 4. ~ ~ i~1~ ~` 1d,'~ ~ ~ ~j4~ i?~~ ~ L2~ ~j?t~~ ~y~ç j g je ~ ;:i.~(/1 / I ~) ~ _~_~L/t~L4 .1 ~.&&iI C) L'4 / (~t ~7-:;~ /~/~c4 iZc,c~ 4i~~J~&4~ ~ ~LLi.s4 ~ kL~-~1~ f~73\ ~ Ic 4~Zv~T~7 ALA~~ .~h~ij~~Et ~fl~: V RA~?oflIt (~fr L-~t-~ 261 We the undersigned petition Congress for the purpose of urging the passage of H.R. 3942. We feel that H.R. 3942 would mandate safe manning levels on vessels in commercial operation, which are currently unsafely manned. Considering the large profits available in petro-chemical transport as well as general cargo, the behavior of the companies involved in undermmnning is irresponsible, and shows their disregard for the safety of their employees as well as the environment. I PAGENO="0266" 262 We the undersigned petition Congress for the purpose of urging the passage of H.R. 3942. We feel that H.R. 3942 would mandate safe manning levels on vessels in commercial operation, which are currently unsafely manned. Considering the large profits available in petro-chemical transport as well as general cargo, the behavior of the companies involved in undermanning is irresponsible, and shows their disregard for the safety of their employees as well as the environment. sign name address print name city and state ~ P ~ 3~7 5&~g.L ii~i ~) ~ `Ø1~ ~~1a I U!L~ c~ - 1 / / O~;~?_~~.iL__ *~ç~t~_' __~_.&i_.Z~z"~) ~/. ~ c~1~&t~3d ~i~-«=c~-~ ~ c.~i/4i~6 C~ iLLE~L1WJf ~ ~ PAGENO="0267" 263 We the undersigned petition Congress for the purpose of urging the passage of H.R. 3942. We feel that H.R. 3942 would mandate safe manning levels on vessels in commercial operation, which are currently unsafely manned. Considering the large profits available in petro-chemical transport as well as general cargo, the behavior of the companies involved in undermanning is irresponsible, and shows their disregard for the safety of their employees as well as the environment. sign name address ,~pr1Int name city and eta (\1\A' I ~ ~wos/ ~ ~Le' J_~z~ J:~ ~2~c~4~tL ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ Li) ~) )~L ~ ~ (~~_ ~ - 3_2~~J_L_i__~-J_ ``~`* ~ 2Jj ~-` ~ L~4~LL..~E'fL~i2Ll/ ~ A') ()`70u-j' PAGENO="0268" 264 The lurday Stv4uUMlt &A4~ed$sw I1aaot*~M~ $1, IWI Al. 18po~stors IIIN thi Dlsmond'Haad 1on.1V..W!~, They huffed an~i~lW~if~ t tu~ still ~tuc~ ~ ~&tt*mpt~ to pull the stranded ~pangler said ~a1vageid rè- sml~age tugNahafreeofaresfoftDl moved the water front Inside ~ ~ ~, ~ amond Head yesterday Were the Nehos and. Inflated alrbegs UflaucceufUJ~ a Coast Guard In Its hull yesterday morning . ~ bigh. tide at abo~$4~ said two tugs couldn't budge flo two tugs ~j4~:4~ md~ OMes, said last week that U~ * *eetrandaese~L ~ tl~ Wahoo off the ,eefbisIa~.SUt might have, to ~ cut up * The tug ran. akrøund March 1ni~~ at:2 p.m. and ,dootlnulnt'hed ~smoved to pieces. It the 22. PrelIminary Inquiries mdl' tThrough'~noet 7 pa, he saiL sffdqt. ~o pull It Oft the rut * bate the, ac~ttè~t occuneq s~qr4~ Unes~S~saappod fsfled~~ ~~** :` ~ ~ 1a..aaeL - 1 ~-*r-------* PAGENO="0269" 1N1lSS1i~ ~ ~siu - -~ ____________________________ A sur~r cuts ~ck put the rossdei tug ~ ~4-~ ~tUl- I ~ -Uf~-L.. M I Stranded tug awaits Satiitday's ~Oi1 off4oaded from vessel stuck near Diamond Head Lighthouse By ~r!~opba N.H \.~`1. thy nii&e new WiLing for the Prid~ Thu* sold his office Is Then we off~loa4M about 700 ~ Staff Wrise ~ best westher a~Ltlons to pd] it condnutng to InwestIgate the gdlceta ci hsovy lUbe ci and hr off, V1.a~ saId tmWe ann get two ona ci the wetd~thi* that it dranbe ci and the rest ci the dle The tag Nahon ~ich ~_-~ ~ 300O~horaepDver tuge aitd we'll appesri the tag ~s en aitop~ot a.! so ther~s no more ad en lt~ aer~d about 300 yarcie ~bC~e pit iotad~ hap lnai~ the v~ and ran agrenod when a Crew ci the Diamond Heed L1g'xathe~ee ael so it wont sink when it member stationed on the bridge ~ Nabos oft the reef Frida ~ Viata said if th. effort to p1 ei~ alsea. flL~hZ f*IIOd WheO tWO 4~ * Capt. Richard Viaun, head of th~ tug off (ails. the `saxt ~tion An estimatel ~0 to ~O gafloca snapped and eou~d not be rest~ * the Chast Guard Marine Safety 1$ tO CUt It UP and take It o~ In of diesel ad aç&Iled Into the water ta.h0d in the dark. * Office here, said the tug ~s iw pleces. and drIfted along ~IO yasth of D1 ~ tWO biØi hdes a day Ic~r 1en~g oil and that Sator. `This thing reilly doesn'Z want amend ~lsod bosch the afternoon ~ at n*hL aid one doring day~s high tide will occur during to move,' he said. the tug ran apour4 Thm said. the daylight" he said. The tigb * the day. when salvage efforts are The Nabcn is oirnei by JUmny "Wo p~& out an aheorl*nt bone Cr tide Is at night when it~s n~re * lam naky. Smith of Uaukewai Diving Sat' and most. of It evaporated hi S* dangerou~ Satwday Is the f*at `Whore we ~e at right now is vage and FIshing Inc. urday - ~e was an more cli In day when we have a relatively * we get afl the all off loot Satur' It ran *ground -at about 1 a.m. the water by then," he said. high tide diarLog the dayligliL" PAGENO="0270" 1146 769 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT rendered, on account of an error of fact entry of the Fmal Decree in thin action where ouch error which would have given specific notice to -in extrinsic to, or does not appear in' Alpine that its reservoir capacities were is the record; jeopardy. A careful review by an employ. -affects the validity and regularity of ee or agent of Alpine of every objection the proceedingn; filed would have been required. The ntan- -wan not put in issue at the trial; dard in ordinary care of a normally careful -wan unknown at the time of the ~ and prudent person, and in the context of to the party seeking relief without fault the years of recognition and compliance on his pact;* with the amended f'mdings and decree, we -was unknown to the trial court find Alpine's conduct to be consistent with -was not paused upon by the court the exerciae of ordinary care under the -if known, would have prevented ren~ circumstances. dition of the judgement. The government argues that the Final We view this as a proper cane for use of Decree is rea judicata and cannot lightly he coram nobis. There is no other remedy to subjected to Rule 60(b) motions to modify. correct the Alpine Decree because of an We agree. it is a strange and unusual error of fact The error is extrinuic to and cane, indeed, which will justify the invoca~ does not appear in the record, it was not tion of Rule 60(bX6) to correct an error. put in issue at the trial, it was unknown to Osly where the correct duty of water and Alpine at the time of the trial without fault use of water were recognized by the tom' it wan not panned upon by the trial court, porary restraining order, and the soppert. and if known the judgment would have ing pronfs are documentary and conclusive, beer different. Also, exceptional circum- will corrective action be considered. This stances are here present which "compel is such a cane. It represents u very slight action to achieve justice." U.S. v. Morgan breach in the dike of ren jsdicata. pro) I co dratto fth premise Thceptionalcircuinstances are these ~ HEREBY IS ORDERED AD were presented to the Special Master but JUDGED AND DECREED that tho Alpine w re t mad part f th ~ F I Decree tored Octohe 28 1980 record th proof porn aded the Special h reby m m ded us f II w Master to file amended preposed findings Claim Number 800 Kinney Meadows of fact, conclusions of law and decree; the Reservoir, the reservoir capacity acre feet reservoirs were filled and waters there' is increased to 900 acre feet. ccordancewth Ii moed capac ties Clasm Number 802 Low K ocy Lab Us~sce ~re~d ~ai~sc~bestary entablnhedhy Reserv threnerv capacity acre feet California certificates), and the correction Claim Number 805 Wet Meadows Rro- of factual error is not dependent upon ~ ervoir, the reservoir capacity acre feet is credibility or quality of memory of any increased to 450 acre feet. witness. Claim Number 804 Lower Sunset Reser Probably the weakest link is the chain is voir, the reservoir capacity acre feet is term nab f lack f f It gI mcreused to 860 acre feet. gence on the part of Alpine. We find, however, that the recitation, sopra, of ex- ceptional circumstances establishes justifi. 5 cation for Alpine's failure to contest the government's objections to the reservoir capacities. There was nothing in the form of any of the objections made prior to the IN RE SAUSE BROS. OCEAN TOWING 1147 canannas P.see. one D.o~. mo 3. Seamen ens In re SAUSE BROTHERS OCEAN TOW. Shipping moon, 52U5 ING, a corporation, an Owner/Charter. Warranty of seaworthiness extends er of the T/V OCEAN SERVICE, Plain. only to crew of vessel and cargo, and does sot extend to public and private parties In a Cause for Exoneration from who seek redress for damage caused by or Limitation of Liability, vessel. and related can'o. 4. Shipping en207 Civ, No. 89-609-RE. Barehoat charterer was negligent in maintenance and inspection of tags tow Umted States District Court. wire snd, therefore, charterer was sot enti' D. Oregon. tIed to limitation of liability for damage Jul 9 1991 caused by oil spill that occurred when tog y , . collided with breakaway barge, piercisg compartment and causing spill: tow wire Tug's barehoatcharterer petitioned for showed signs of abrasion, and inspection exoneration from or limitation of liability in that occurred at dusk when tow wire wan connection with an oil spill. The District spooled in and wiped off permitted ample Court, Redden, Chief Judge, held that. (1) opportunity to overlook signs of abrasion the failure to conduct adequate inspections and corrosion. 46 U.S.C.A.App. §) 101 et of the tow wire and to have an adequate seq., 183. and experienced crew was negligent and contributed to the Ions that occurred when ~ Towage en152 the tsg collided with a runaway barge, Loon of tow or parting of tow wire piercing the barge's storage csmpartmest does not raise presumption that tug owner and causing the oil spill, and (2) the char' was at fault. terer failed to show lack of privity or knowledge of the negligesce and, there' 6. ShippIng mo207 fore, it wan not entitled to limitation of Tug's and its captain's failure to en' liability, form 12-hour limit on crew shifts was neg- Pttao f hmtat fliablty de' nserl. of liability for damage caused when tug collided with runaway barge, piercing corn' 1. Shipping ~209(3) partnsest and causing oil spill 46 Under Limitation of Liability Act, U.S.C.A.App. §8 181 et seq., 183, 8104, claimants have initial burden of proving 8104(g, h), 8904. negligence or unseaworthisess,of vessel; 7 Shipping mo207 once hatisentabhshed, burden s~fts ~ Tug'a barehoat charterer wan o,'gl' ha wledg 46 USCAApp §8 181 ~ get bynotmanngtgwtl re~r g eq., . runaway barges and, therefore, charterer 2, Shipping en207, 208 was not entitled to limitation of liability for In determining whether vessel owner's damage caused by oil spill thut occurred liability is to be limited to value of vessel when tug collided with barge, piercing cues- and its cargo, court mast analyxe what, if partment and causing oil spill; tug's cap' any, acts of negligence or conditions of tam was only crew member who had de- unneaworthinean caused accident and ployed retrieval device, captain decided he whether vessel owner had privity to or had insufficient time to retrieve barge with knowledge of those acts or conditions. 46 that device, and assistant engineer and US.C.A.App. §1181 et seq., 183. cook who had bees deployed to retrieve PAGENO="0271" barge had no experience with emergency. 46 U.S.C.A.App. §5 181 et seq., 183, 8702(b52). 8. Shipping ~2O8 Tug's hareboat charterer failed to show lack of privily to or lack of knowl- edge of negligence that caused runaway barge and collision in whisk tug pierced barge's storage compartment and caused oil spill and, therefors, charterer was not entitled to limitation of liability. 46 US.C.A.App. §8 181 at seq., 183. Guy C. Stephensos, Schwahe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland, Or., for plaintiff Sause Bros. Ocean Towing and third-party defen- dant BP North America Petroleum, Inc. Douglas M. Fryer, Jeffrey L Jernegan, Mikkelborg Bros Wells & Fryer, Seattle, Wash., Sydney L Chandler, Chandler, Le' nan, Stokes & Finneran, Coos Bay. Or., for claimant/third-party plaintiff Canada. Paul N. Wonacott, John M. Cowden, Kim - Jefferies, Wood Tatum Mosner Brooke & Landis, Portland, Or., for claimant/third' party plaintiff British Columbia. Kenneth 0. Eikenberry, Atty. Con., Ann C. Esako, William C. Frymire, Anal. Attys. (ion., Olympia, Wash., Michael E. Haglund, Michael K. Kelley, Haglund & Kirtley, Portland, Or., for claimant/third-party plaintiff State of Wash. Stuart M. Gerson, Aunt Atty. Con., Charles H. Turner, U.S. Atty., Jack G. Col- lins, First Asst. US. Atty., Chief, Civ. Div., Portland, Or., Philip A. Boron, Atty. in Charge, West Coast Office, Warren A. Schneider, Aost. Atty. in Charge, RobertJ. Cunningham, Trial Atty., Torts Branch, Civ. Div., US. Dept. of Juntice, San Fran- cinco, Cal., for claimant USA. and U.S.A. as Trustee for Hoh, et al David S. Tenke, David S. Teske & Associ- ates, Seattle, Wash., for claimants LeBlanc, etal. Dean 0. DeChaine, Miller, Nash, Wiener, Hager & Carlnen, Portland, Or., Hugh M.G. Braker, Port Alberni, B.C., Canada, for claimants Nuu-Chab-Nalth Tribal Council, etal. Robert P. Zuaniclt Jones & Zuanich, Se- stile, Wash., for Dale Marble, Dominick Pepetti. Gary F. Kollmuss, pro ne. Christopher Harvey, Russell & DuMos- lin, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, for Marilyn Dohrilla for Bill Dobrilla (deceased). Leigh R. Hilbert, pro se Ralph Tieleman, pro se Janice R. Dillon, Vancouver, B.C., Cana- da, for claimants Wickanisnish Is. Proper- ties Ltd. Ken Zakreski, pro so. Jan Thomas Baisch. Pozzi, Wilson, Atchi- son, O'Leary & Conboy, Portland, Or., for claimants John Does * 1-100. Garry P. McMurry, Portland, Or., for claimants Pacific Rim Resort Properties, Inc., et at. Kathleen M. Ker, La Liberte Ilundert, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, for claimants Clayton Fuller and Stanley Fuller, et at., and claimants Pacific Pride Seafoods Corp Ucleulet Band Council, pro xc. Mark D. Andrewn, Barrister and Sol., Vancouver, B.C., Canada, for claimants Su' san Etheringtos, at al., and Mark Klotz, et at. Kevin R. Lyon, Cullen & Cullen, Olym' pin, Wash., for claimants Quileute Tribal Council. Sharon Janeson, Richard, B.C., Casada, for claimants Richard Alan Holmes and Matthew Cardell, dies Al's Gooseneck Corp. Brett A. Purtzer, Tacoma, Wash., for claimants Kurt Marble and Jon Schmidt David F., Margaret R., and Stephen J. Rae-Arthur, pro so. Arthsr Clarke, pro so. Louis J. Zivot, Lang, Michener. Lower- ence & Shaw, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, for claimants T. Cameron Scott, Ron Dons' mere and Ian J.W. Garcia. Jeffrey J. Bode, Bellingham, Wash., for claimants Steve Lawson and Suzanne Hnre. (thin opinion reflects all amendments thereof to date) REDDEN, Chief Judge. Plaintiff Basso Brothers Ocean Towing (SBOT) in an Oregon corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Oregon. At the time of the casualty, SBOT was registered to do business in the Slate of Washington. SBOT filed this mar' time claim for exoneration from or limita- tion of liability in accordance with 46 US.C.App. 5183, and Rule F of the Sup. plemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SBOT filed thin limitation action follow' ing an oil spill into the navigable waters of the United Staten near Grays Harbor, Washington. A court trial was held from December 4, 1990, through December 10, 1990, in Portland, Oregon. The action was to be tried in two parts: the first, is for the determination of liability; the second, to be held at a later date, is to determine the damsges incurred by each claimant. For the reasons which follow, I find SBOT can- not be exonerated from or limit their liabili- ty, pursuant to 46 US.C.App. 5 183(a), for the damages incurred by the claimants in this action. The wire rope connecting the tug T/V OCEAN SERVICE, operated by SBOT, to the barge T/B NESTUCCA parted in open water on December 22, 1988. During rn- trieval operations, the tog collided with the barge piercing one of the barge's compart- ments causing the discharge of approxi- mately 230,000 gallons of Bunker "C" oil into the navigable waters of the United Staten. Oil drifted onto the Washington State and the Britinh Columbia, Canada nhorelines. The governments of Her Majesty the Queen is Right of Canada (HMQ Canada) and the Province of British Columbia, Can' ada, have filed claims againut SBOT for damages relating to thecost of cleanup and damages to the natural resources and wild- life due to the spill. The State of Washing- ton and the government of the United BACKGROUND SBOT operated the tug OCEAN SER- VICE under a harehoat charter from Man. trans Operating Partners, Ltd. The tog in a twin.ncrew steel tugboat of 193 gross tons with official number 507101, approxi. mately 121 feet long, 32.25 feet wide and 10.25 feet deep. The tug ix powered by two diesel engines with a co,sl:ined le)is. ered horsepower of approximately 160)) l,.p. The OCEAN SERVICE was equippe~l with an Orville Honk barge retrieval device. The barge NESTUCCA is a steel tank barge bearing official somber 1)569025 of 5,339 gross tons, 5,339 set toss. uod a length of 301.80 feet The barge contains eleven cargo tanks with on.lovard pumps and piping. SBOT owned the barge NES- TUCCA at the time of the casualty. The towing wire aboard the OCEAN SERVICE was a 2'/i inch diameter, 6 x 25 independent wire core, steel rope. The manufacturer of that wire rope mooed a mill-tent certificate on or about Juoe 26, 1987, and the American Bureau of Ship)ting issued a compliance certificate on or about June 23, 1987 that stated the wire met designated specifications. The sire met the strength opecifieation of 437,000 pounds. This wire was inntalled on the towing winch of OCEAN SERVICE `~n No- vember 4, 1987. On August 5. 1988, ufter 2,122 towing hours, the towing end of the wire was trimmed and a new `D" socket was poured. On December 11, 1998, the tow wire was "upended" and a sew towing "D" was attached. At the time the towing 1148 - 769 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT IN RE SAUSK BROS. OCEAN TOWING 1119 CsumlaO F5.~. 1547 (ø.n. i~I)- FINAL AMENDED OPINION Stolen alas filed claims against SB))?. as well as BP North America Petroleum, Inc. (BP), owner of the cargo. Daring the course of the court trial, the State of Wash. ington and the United Staten government staled in open court, and later submitted documents stating, that they had settled their claims with SBOT and BP. There. fore, thin opinion only addresses the liabili' ty arguments rained by the remaining claimants, specifically HMQ Canada and British Columbia, against SBOT. Accord- ingly, all claims against BP have been net- tled I I PAGENO="0272" 1150 769 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT wire was upended, the wire's total towing Captain May abandoned thin plan because bourn were approximately 3,620. the ueas were changing, and the barge was On December 21, 1988, the barge NES' drifting into shallower waters toward the TUCCA was loaded with Bunker "C" oil at breakern near the north jetty. The Orville Ferndale, Wanhington. The starboard Hook was stowed in an unassembled condi- number one tank contained approximately tios and the captain felt he did not have 6,012.56 barrels of product upon departure. time to deploy it to retrieve the drifting The tog and barge departed Ferndale barge. At that point, the captain decided am d 1340 h en Decembe 21 1988 to ret h ptio f loot resort puts g bound for Aberdeen, Washington, to off. two men aboard the barge. The tug sad some of the cargo, then on to Port- backed ito stern next to the side of the land, Oregon. During thin voyage, the barge no the mate and the usnistant engi- OCEAN SERVICE was massed by the neer could leaponto the barge. During the maater, mate, chief engineer, assistant en- first attempt, a wave caused the barge to gineer, and the cook. gs down and the tug to gs up, the tug's At the time of departure, the winch held port rudder then came down into the barge approximately 2300 feet of towing wire. holing the number one starboard compurt- The towing wire was connected to Use ment. The hole consisted of a six-foot barge bynseass of a "fink-plate" connected crock ss the utarboard bow area, approul' to chain-surge gear. mutely one to two feet below the deck. On December 22, 1988, at upproximately The two men were successfully transfer- 2315 hours, the tug and barge arrived off red from the tug to the deck of the barge Grays Harbor, Washington, sear buoy on the second attempt, Once aboard the number three. Shortly before, the tog barge, they were unable to pass a retriev- JANET R had towed the barge BARANOF ing line to the tug for deployment of an across the Grays Harbor bar and had com- emergency towing line. The collinios be- municated the condition of the bar to Cap' twees the tug and the barge damaged the tam May, the master of the OCEAN SEE- tug's port rudder greatly restricting the VICE. tug's maneuverability. The Orville Hook The OCEAN SERVICE stood by buoy was then deployed by the captain and the number three while awaiting an outbound chief engineer with help from the cook. ship to clear the bar. At this time, approxi- The barge was successfully retrieved with mutely 2330 bourn, the master shortened the Orville Hook. Upon retrieval, the the tow between the OCEAN SERVICE barge was towed out to sea, away from and the NESTUCCA to approximately 1500 Grayn Harbor. The two men aboard the feet, During the course of these opera- barge were forced to upend the rest of the tions, there was little wind and the swells night in a pumphoune on the barge due to were estimated by Captain May to be g~ the increasing wind and heavy ness. six to eight feet After shortening the The tug JANET R came out to assist the tow, the master lowered the towing pinu OCEAN SERVICE and the NESTUCCA. and set the air brake at three-quarters. Once the seas permitted, around 0720 The master then returned to the wbeel- hours on December 23, the JANET R went house, While turning the tug to utarboard, alonguide the barge NESTUCCA and the tow wire suddenly parted at the winch, picked up the OCEAN SERVICE'n mate The starboard tarn brought the towwire and anoistant engineer. Around 0905 across the starboard utern quarter at ap- bourn the name day, the Coast Guard delis' proximately a forty-five degree angle when ered a barge "patching kit" to the JANET the wire parted R, It waa not until December 24, at up' After the tow wire ported, the barge prsximately 0030 bourn, that the weather drifted closer toward shore near buoy num- had nubeided to the point the JANET R ber five. Captain May first decided to use was able to put two crewmen aboard the the Orville Hook to retrieve the barge. NESTUCCA to patch the hole. IN RE SAUSE BROS. OCEAN TOWING 1151 CIis..7ie ESspp. 147 (D.th~ tuntI The OCEAN SERVICE and the NES- (31 SBOT notes that nose of the claim- TUCCA arrived off the Columbia River on ante in this action is a cargo owner or Deeember 24, 1988, where the tow was seaman, The claimanta are partieu, public trannferred from the OCEAN SERVICE to and private, seeking redrexa for damage to the tog JANET It, At approximately 0939 shorelines, natural resources and personal hours the same day, the SOOT tug SAL- property. me warranty of seaworthiness ISHAN also attached a tow line to the does not extend to uueh parties. The war- NESTUCCA and the flotilla then proceeded ranty only applies to the crew of the vessel into Astoria, Oregen, arriving at approxi- and the cargo. The C.4LEDONIA. 157 mately 1130 hours. U.S. 124, 15 S.Ct. 537, 39 LEd. 644 (1895); The Pelition of the Uniled Stoles (1:V1'IN- CIBLE,), 216 F.Supp. 775, 781 (D.Or.1963). DISCUSSION To prevail, claimanto must prove negligent (1)Lmtatnon fLabsltyA L ~a~5ed ~aa lt~~ d51~1h t~ose (1.21 The Limitation of Liability Act, 46 of SBOT. U.S.C.App. 8181 ci seq., was f'wat enacted in the United States in 1851. The Act was (a) Negligent Acts. fashioned after laws of certain European The winter voyage attempte'l by the tag seafaring nations for the purpose of limit- OCEAN SERVICE and the barge NES- ing a uhipowner's liability to the value of TUCCA could expect heacy seas ansi four the vessel and to cargo. See Eats Later bar cronaingu at Grays Harbor and sbe Charter~ Inc e. Ignacso, 875 F.2d 234, 235 Columbia River. me oil carried by the (9th Cir.1989). Pursuant to 8162: barge presented a significant risk to the [t)be Imbility of an owner of any vessel, environment if a upill were to occur. whether American or foreign, ... for any loon, damage, or forfeiture, done, (s) The Tow Wire. occasioned, or incurred, without the privi- (41 Claimants contesd that the wire ty or knowledge of nuch owner or own- was corrsded, improperly cared for, and * ers, shall sot ... exceed the amount or not thoroughly inspected for defects that value of the interest of such owner is may have led to the wire's porting. such vessel, and her freight then pond- A tow wire should necessarily be able to ing. withstand the size of the load as well us the Claimants hove the initial burden of prov- dynamic forces placed upon it by the rough ing negligence or unseaworthiness; once ness. At the time thin particular tow wire established, the burden then shifts to the parted, the conditions were moderate and vessel's I ~ prove lack of privity or the tug was towing the barge from three to knowledge. Self e. Great Lakes Dredge B four knoto while maneuvering for the bar Dock Co., 832 F.2d 1540, 1557 (11th Cir. crossing. The load upon the tow mire was 1987). The determination of whbther liabil- substantially tower than the 487.000 pound ity is to be limited is left to a two-utep tensile strength it was rated to withstand. analysis by the court (1) what, if any, acts me portion of the tow wire that was saved of negligence or conditions of unseaworth. and examined showed that it was corroled incus caused the accident, and (2) whether and abraded prior to its failure December the vessel owner had knowledge or privity 22' 1988. of these name acts of negligence or condi- Claimants argue that SOOT was negli- tions of unneaworthinens, IiL gent is their pelicy sot to lubricate tow I'll han long been eeosgsised in ibolauef aslhnbarebsnichaneseeof,keOCFANSE5. admiralty that foe nuny, if sos mont. psepxneu VICE, mill be treated as the `oxcer' of the to booboos ohasteeer in ix be sealed as ito OCEAN SERVICE in bin arinsa. See eke mdl. owner, generally called owner prs her rtrc' sn Ridge Cacni~sg Cc e. The Cep,zin ,V.,4, 9$ Read c. Saacithip Yaku 373 US. 410. 412, ~ FSupp. 064 lD.C.t.s.1951). S.d. 1349, 1351. 10 LEd.2d 440 11963). lOOT, PAGENO="0273" 1152 wizen as recommended by the manufactur- er. Numerous expert witnesses testified during the court trial From their tentimo- fly, it appears that while lubrication of tow wires in not required, it helps slow its rate of corrosion. When a tow wire is corroded that corrosion is not uniform along the length of the wire; the sonconcentric shape of the wire, therefore, is further weakened by the force placed open it by the dynamic (moving) load. Lubrication of the tow wirr decreases the friction caused by the wire rubbing against itself when being wound onto the drum. According to one expert, when the wires slide against each other, absent lubricant, thin weakens the wire and contributes to lower luad capacities. The tow wire exhibited at trial showed signs of abrasion. The abrasion could have been canned by a number of factors. First, SBOT admits that the practice of dragging the wire on the ocean floor during towing and spooling operationx could abrade the wire. While such contact with the bottom cannot be avoided, such conditions would necessitate careful inspection of the wire as it ix rewound on the drum. The evi- dence also showed that the rollers on the OCEAN SERVICE were cery worn axd could have caused the abrasions shown on Ihe tow wire. Testimony alno suggested that the chafmg plates on the OCEAN SERVICE were worn. These chafing plates were replaced shortly after the casu- alty and discarded before they could be examined or even photographed. Based on the testimony and the worn condition of the rollers, I will infer that the chafing plates were is a similar worn condition and con- tributed to the wear open the tow wire as it contacted them while being spooled in, let out or while in tow. SBOT's normal inspection procedures en- tailed the master of the tug viewing the wire no it was drawn is or let out from tho boat deck and the chief engiseer viewing the wire from the fairlead winch controls. Both persons were from sin to ton feet from the wire at these statioxa. The tow wire was drawn in at a speed of approxi- mately ose to three mites per hour. At this distance and speed, this methed of inspec- tion is inadequate to detect breaks of mdi- viduat wires, abrasion or corrosion of the tow wire. SNOT contends it required its musters to document wire inspections is the log book. No such entry occurred in the OCEAN SERVICE log hook in 1988. Trip reports were also to he submitted by the master to SBOT management. The OCEAN SER~ VICE had sot submitted a trip report be- tween May 1988 and the date of the casual- ty. SBOT also reqnired the tug masters to utilise a Marlin Spike to neparate the tow wire and inspect its core. Captain May testified that he had never used the Marlin Spike as directed because he believed it damaged the wire. SBOT notes that the tuw wire was up- ended and a sew towing "D" poured I)e- comber 11, 1988. To spend the tow wire, the towing end was tied off and the rest of the wire was let nut The old towing end wan then attached to the drum and the taw wire was spooled in. The crew stood at the stern of the tug and washed the mud off of the tow wire with a fire hose as it came aboard. Captain May testified that the wire was inspected at that time. Neverthe- less, Captain May admitted that the spend- ing procedure was not completed until af- ter dusk and the OCEAN SERV1CE~n Sghtn were used to finish the procedure. Spraying the tow wire with a fire hose at dusk would leave ample opportunity to overtook signs of abrasion and corrosion that would indicate dangerous weakening of the tow wire. These are not reasonably acceptable methods of inspection. See Sb- bees v. Hopessouxt Shipping Co., 345 F.2d 451 (5th Cir.l965) (district court decision affirmed denying limitation of lability where no regular maintenance and inspec- tion of venuel's cables). There was evidence presented detailing inspection methodn used by other towing companies. Generally, they placed the tow wire on a pier and walked the length of the wire looking for corrosion, abraaion, bra- kes wires, or other defects. SBOT argues that while the wire was corroded and showed signs of abrasion, (ii) The Crew of the OCEAN SERVICE. The crew consisted nf Captain May and the chief.esgineer, hotl, of whom have had thousands of hours of ocean towing experi- ence. At the time of the casualty, Captain May possessed a U.S. Coast Guard opera- o tsr's license for usinapected towing vessels upon oceans and inland waters. Captain May became a towing vessel master for SBOT in 1911. The chief engineer, Jack Wilson, apentnix years in the United States Navy and has been employed is'the ocean towing isduxtry since 1973. Is 1983, Wit- ass obtained a United States Coast Guard license to United States Merchant Marine Officer as as Assistant Engineer of usia- spected motor vessels of sot more than 4,000 horsepower. The mate, Gary Rickey, obtained a Unit- ed States Coast Guard license to United States Merchant Marine Officer as Mate of Freight and Towisg Vessels of ast wore than 500 grass tons, upon oceans ast more than 200 miles offshore, in January, 1986. 769 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT `1 IN RE SAUSE BROS. OCEAN TOWING 1153 Cilu.a760 F.Ssp~. 147 iD.~. seis there was no evidence that the wire parted The assistant engineer. Curtm Bartley. for those reasons. SBOT contends that the joined SNOT on October 30. 1908. Prs,r to wire hung up on the bottom while the tug his employment with SNOT. Bartley was turning and parted due to the tremes- worked is the logging industry from 1903 dean increase in prennure created white to 1988. Bartley was a certified welder. turning around a urnall radius on the ocean Cecil Johnson was the cook aboard the floor. The evidence put forth by SBOT OCEAN SERVICE and had worhe'l for establishing this theory is circumstantial at SBOT an a cook since March of 1905. best. The preponderance of all the evi- dence before the court demonstrates that 161 Title 46 U.S.C. 5 0104 governs tech the tow wire was defective and SBOT was watches to be manned on ivsselo. Section negligent in their maintenance and inspec- 8104(g) staten: tins of that wire. [oJn a towing vessel (encvpt a crony) to which subsection Ic) 0f thin nectoin ap- [51 Ctaimantx contend that the doctrine plies), and offshore nuppl.c cessel. or a of rca spas boqusbarappken in thn instance barge to which this section applies, that where the tow wire parted in relatively is engaged nsa voyage of less than 100 calm nean under moderate conditions. The mites, the licenned individuals anil rrew owner of a tog in not an insurer. The tesn members (except the coal lanorro. fire- of a tow does sot cane the presumption ad men oilers and water test rut nian lie * fault Cartnen o. A. Pabadisz, Inc., 5 F.2d dvided wh t I `t I'- 387,388(9th Cir.1925). Further, the 1~°~ watches - isgofatowwiredoennotgiverisetothe - presumption of negligence. Stevens ii. The Section 8104(h) states: White City, 285 U.S. 195, 204, 52 S.Ct. 347~ [sin a vessel to which section 11104 if thin 350, 76 LEd. 699 119321 Therefore, the title [46 USC 0 8904] applies, an doctrine of rca ipso toqaifar ia inapplicable at ticesned to operate a towing ~cvsel in this action. may not work for more than 12 hears in a consecutive24-hour period except jean emergency. Section 8904 refers to towing vesselu at least 26 feet long, and applies to the OCEAN SERVICE which in 121 feet long. Daring his testimony. Captain May ad. mitted that his watch was scheduled to end at the time they reached the Grays Harbor bar before the casualty. Captain May otat- ed that it is SNOT policy that the master of the vessel take her over the bar. There' fore, Captain May would violate 0 8104(hl by remainisg on duty. Captain May also stated that it was common fur the master. as well as anme of the crew, to esceenl the 12-hoar limit, and SNOT was aware of thin practice. SBOT noted that they had told their masters to stay within the statutory confines bat they sever checked Captain May'n log to see if he and his crew had complied. The parties disagree whether the voyage is over or under the 600 mile limit imposed for a two-watch nyntem as reqaired by § 8104(g). Regardless, of the voyage din. PAGENO="0274" 1154 769 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT lance, it io sufficient to conclude that the violation of the 12-hour limit in negligent behavior on part of Captain May, and SBOT for ito failure to enforce compliance with the rule. The SBOT policy that the vessel's muster must take her over the bar in prudent Such bar crossings, however, should be made within the 12-hour limitnet forth by the statute. [71 Claimants next allege that SBOT wan negligent by not manning the OCEAN SERVICE with able bodied seamen as re- quired by 46 USC. S702(b92). Section 8702(b92) slates: (b) A vessel may depart from a port of the United States only if at least- (2) 65 percent of the deck crew (ex- cluding licensed individuals) have mer- chant mariners' documents endorsed for a rating of at least able seaman, except that thin percestage may be reduced to 50 percent on a vessel per- mitted under section 8104 of this title [46 USC § 8104) to maintain a 2-watch nystem. For purposes of thin limitation action, I find the voyage to be less than 600 miles and a two-watch system to be sufficient Nevertheless, SBOT admits that none of its crewmen was certified ax an able seaman as required under § 8702(b52). It is for Congress, nut the courts, to set forth man- ning requirements for merchant vessels. United Stales v. Buckeye Steamship Co., 287 F.2d 679, 680(6th Cir.1961). The man- ning statutes are primarily safety statutes- O'Hnro e. Luckenbaeh Steamship Co., 269 U.S. 364, 46 S.Ct 157, 70 LEd. 313 (1926). Such safety legislation should he liberally construed to effectuate congressional in- test United Slates c. Blue Woter Marine Industries~ Inc., 661 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir.1981). The hordes lies upon SBOT to demonstrate that the statutory violation could not have contributed to the casualty. The PENNSYLVANIA, 86 US. (19 Wall) 125, 136,22 LEd. 148 (1874); The DENA- LI, 105 F.2d 413,418(9th Cir.1939); Water- man 5.5. Corp. sx Gay Cottons, 414 F.2d 724, 736-37 (9th Cir.1969). Once the tow wire parted, Captain May had bin crew flake out the line for deploy- ment of the Orville Hunk. The Orville Hook was kept ina disassembled condition. Nose of the crew, except for Captain May, bad ever deployed the Orville Honk or prac- ticed assembling it Once the line was flaked out, Captain May decided he bad insufficient time to retrieve the runaway barge with the hook. Since the barge wan not equipped with as insurance wire, Cap- tain May wan left with only one option; putting two men aboard the barge and heaving an emergency tow line back to the tog. Putting men aboard a barge in the most dangerous method by which to re trieve a runaway barge. The barge NESTUCCA had previously been equipped with as insurance wire priOr to her purchane by SBOT. An insurance - wire consists of a spare towisg wire pre- rigged for rapid deployment is an emerges- cy where the main towing wire in discos- sected. The wire is fastened to the barges bow then hung with tight, easily broken fasteners around the bow, down the side and coiled on the store deck. The steel wire rope is connected to a floating line and a buoy that trails behind the barge. If the tow line between the tug and the barge - parts, the tug merely picks up the insur- ance wire and shackles the wire rope por- tion to the remaining tow wire on the winch. The light fastenings break away and the barge in again in tow. Insurance wires are not without their problems, i.e., if the buoy in washed aboard the barge in heavy seas, or if the line became tangled, they are unusable for the barge retrieval procedure. Since the crew was unfamiliar with the Orville Hook and had not been trained to use it, when an emergency strikes, it would have bees prudent to rig an issurance wire. The ultra haaardous nature of the cargo transported, coupled with the inexperience of the crew, contributed greatly to this cunsalty. SBOT has a non-delegable duty to man their vessels with an adequate crew. Tag Ocean Princei Inc. e. United States, 584 F.2d 1151 (24 Cir.1978). A vessel owner has a duty to supply as adequate and competent crew for the CONCLUSION I find Sause Brothers Ocean Towing is ineligible for limitatios of liability pursuant to 46 US.C.App. § 183. The claims of willful segligence and willful misconduct are dismissed. The damages to be award- ed, including questions of punitiee `lain- ages, will be decided in the second phase of thin litigation. Robert HOOVER, et al.. Defendants. No. C88-lS4sM, United Staten District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle. July 12, 1991. Inmate brought civil rights action alleging abuse of rights by prison staff. Defendants moved to dinmisu action as frio- CELLO-WHITNEY v. HOOVER 1155 CkamltO F.Snpp. *155 w.o.w..a. imt~ vessel's intended voyage. (citations to be able seaman certified, as -e'~airril by omitted) The crew must "sot merely be law. SBOT knew that the winter coyage. competent for the ordinary duties of an transporting hazardous cargo. coul,l en- uneventful voyage, but for any exigency counter exigencies that would require an that in likely to happen." (citation omit- experienced crew. SBOT also knew that ted). must of the crew had not bees trained how Is en Ocean Foods Boot Co., 692 FSupp. to deploy the Orville Hunk in case the lose 1253, 1259 (D.Or.t988). I find SBOT negli- wire parted. For these reasons I find gent is their actions conceroing this and- SBOT had privity and knowledge of the dent The isexperiesce of the ussistant negligent acts that caused the casually engineer and the cook, coupled with the sear Gruyn Harbor, Washington. ~ tack of able seaman certification, costribut- comber 22, 1988. In sum, I fin,l ordinary ed to the casualty. If experienced crew- negligence on the part of SBOT. and puma- men were available, the Orville Hook may ant to my Order March 29, 1991, all have been deployed successfully the first of willful negligence and willful miscox,lxct time without having to put two crewmen are dismissed. The question of damages, aboard the barge. Further, the Inch of including punitive damages, is reserved for resuonuble tow wire inspection procedures resolution in the second phase of this litiga. contributed to the accident is that had they tins. Regardless, SBOT's liability in oot been mere thorough, the tow wire's corrod- limited under 46 US.C.App. § 183. ed and abraded condition would have bees discovered before it parted under tow. (b) Privity or Kaowledge of the Owner. [81 SBOT in the owner of the vessel * seeking limitation of liability. The burden of showing lack of privity and knowledge of the negligence that caused the spill sow shifts to SBOT. Waternnas, 414 F.2d at * 738. "The measure in ouch cases in not what the owner known, but what he in charged with finding out" Staten Steam- ship Co. e. United Stotes 259 P.24 458, a 466 (9th Cir.1957) quoting Great Atlantic n ~Oesmai,i%On & Pacsjlc Tea Co. v. Brasiteiro, 159 F.2d 661, 665 (2nd Cir.1947). See also Ocean Foo4 692 FSupp. at 1259. SBOT knew the methods by which the crew of the OCEAN SERVICE inspected and maintained the tow wire. SBOT estab- lished a policy that a Marlin Spike would be * used to inspect the core of the tow wire and should have known that Captain May did not ase the device. SBOT knew that trip reports were sot being turned is from the OCEAN SERVICE since May 1908. SBOT should have inspected the log of the OCEAN SERVICE tones wbetber tow wire inspections were documented, as well as whether the crew was complying with the 12-hour watch statute. SBOT knew that tlsey were neqaired to man their vessels with competent crew, some of which were James CELLO-WHITNEY. Jr.. Plaintiff, PAGENO="0275" 271 7 March 90 The honorable Brock Adams 2988 Jackson Fed Bldg 915 Second Ave Seattle ~A 98174 Dear Senator I am a Captain, presently ei~ployed by Crowley Maritime of Seattle hashington. Often times I tow large Pc .~1'dtn~ barges in the coastal waters of the Continental US ancludinj(Hawaii)and Alaska These large barges may contain as much as five or s'~4_mj}(ion gallons of cargo. The potential for a catastrophe is great and I feel that ~ must do as much as is humanly possible to prevent another aisastrous spill from occurring and not waiting for it to happen then reacting with a lot of angrily conceived hasty regulations after the fact. I am lust one of many plying their dangerous trade in the local waters of the US and the major consensus of opinion amongst the fraternity seems to be that the aouble hulled tankers are a partial answer to the prevention of the unthinkable but another thing we nust look at, is that weare operating at dangerous levels of reduced manning. I feel that I am not operating at my best when fatigued and that I am not as alert as I should be when I have been up an excessive amount of time. t~e are required to be on watch twelve hours a day and for me to remain at my best for this long a time is impossible. I feel we must have alert and rested people in command at all times. ,- The companies rationale is that they would love to have fully manned vessels operating with the three watch system thus everyone ~orkang eight hourm a day but the demands of being competitive prevent j~hi a ( The answer to me seems fairly obvious that we must have enforced I regulations where all vessels have safe manning I won t be so grandio e \as to say what is safe but I feel that it would be reasonable to have panel of experts to take a good look at whats happenin9 ,- I feel that there is another area of potential danger that must (be looked at carefully ke must have experienced people on the bridge (in command at all times The now defunct job of second mate was a \training ground for positions of greater responsibility I don t know \where experienced hands are going to come from to replace older seasoned people leaving our industry through normal attrition. The demands of ~he industry for competent people seems to be increasing yet we are ~losing a valuable position where new people can get of hands on training PAGENO="0276" 272 I know for a fact that certain companies have reduced the manning to such a level that the vessel would be on auto pilot while the person in charge of the bridge would be out on deck doing maintenance. The company did not instruct their personnel to do this but the tongue in cheek attitude was that it was a big ocean out there and we would sure like to have the boat painted. ~e all know how small that big ocean can suddenly become. If we continue on our present course I feel we will have less experienced tired people in command at times when the situation is going to demand the very best from the very best. If there is any less I can only leave it to you to imagine what the outcome will be. fl I wonder how appropriate it is for the enforcing agency (the ICoast Guard) to be in the business of interpreting the law. I am not lawyer but it does seem incongruous to me. ~--~ I don't really favor to much government regulation in industry when we can regulate ourselves. It sadly appears to me that we are unable to make a common sense sane solution to the problem, hence a Lcau for help to our politicians. Sincerely, Captain halter E. Larson P0. Box 217 Ellensburg hP 98926 509 925 7910 PAGENO="0277" 273 May 14, 1990 THE HONORABLE BROCK ADAMS 2988 Jackson Fed. Bid. 915 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174 Dear Senator Adams: Environmentalists and politicians are promoting the new innovation of Double Hull Tankers as the means for making our waters safe. I can agree that it should be a serious step to be considered; however, as a professional seaman serving in the capacity of Chief Mate and relief Captain, I find it not to be the final or even the best answer. The answer that must be considered to make our waters safe is SAFE MANNING. I work on. towing vessels that tow very large cargo barges and carry many different kinds of dangerous cargo, including oil. A Captain and Mate work two six-hour watches, for a total of twelve hours per day, plus overtime. Add u all the ~ and wil n44~at we are overworked and rad._4Je~!QUiLS4_tQ_aka_~P~t ~ ons at can mean the difference b!.~fF...$... siiccessf~u3._aane ~~ora ma or isas e.r~ ~kThg for the same c~mpaRy~YdV~i 15 years, I ave watched the UNITED STATES COAST GUARD change interpretations of the current manning regulations [or have the laws really changed]. Are the changes made for safety's Bake or as the companies want, for their own bottom line? We need new laws, laws that demand that shipping be properly manned and Deck Officers work no more than eight hours a day on watch on ALL commercial vessels. A major spill, a major accident, a major loss of life, is just a time bomb waiting to happen - and all because of unsafe manning. Make our waters safe by requiring Safe Manning. Otherwise, I must keep on wondering when the next major Accident does happen, will I be the one responsible for it or involved in other ways! I respectfully petition your endorsement and aid to this end, so our waters may be safe and clean once again. Sincerely, ~ ~. Perry L. Williams 3722 159th Street East Tacoma, Washington 98446 PAGENO="0278" 274 OJ/O5~J9SD The Nonorable Brock Adass 2988 Jackson Fed. Bid;. 915 Second Avenue Seattle, VA. 9817d C~~F Dear Senator Adaas, Baying sailed as Chief Nate for sany years on ocean going Towing Vessels .T would like to ispress on you that in order to keep our oceans and inland waters free frosi safer oil spill accidents, you would need to focus your attention on sanning of vessels, double bull tankers does sake good sense, however, that is not enough, if you have ships and towing vessels sailing the waters with crews who are not up to par because of fatigue, no asount of strengthening of vessel construction can prevent accidents and no aaount of electronic technology can replace the decision waking deck officers are faced with, or the sharp eyes and ears coupled with good seasanship of a sailor on look-out. A few years ago cospanies, with the blessing of the Coast Cuard and their reinterpretation of the laws, cut down on sanning to a point where we now have vessels plying the wa tars as tine ~boab.~ vii tin oraaaoraccidönt to bap~i, ój~Th 2 stand watches of ~ hours on and S houf7ôFday after day and in addition *to that I have to work overtine and have other interruptions in sy rest, just a few years ago we where I deck officers standing watches of a hours on and 8 hours off, overtine and norsal interruptions was not a problen as we had the sanpowar to cover that, that no longer is the case. Cuts in nannin; is~, jjppLpca,notprogress b~t~bg_ttb~e-JY~s eawen and rlththe .1 feel that the sensing on ~&& cossercial vessels fron 50 gross ton and up should be set by law to insure that deck officers and 4.0. `s on look-out should stand watches of no sore than 8 hours a day j~ on and S off) as it used to be, also the 11.5. Coast Guard should not be pernitte4 to change those laws, just enforce then. I thank you for your tine and consideration in this satter, it is greatly appreciated. Sincerely Nr. OQO SORSNSNN .tddOJ - Bird Flace 5.1'. Snohosish, VA. 91290 PAGENO="0279" 275 March 01 - 1990 The Honorable Brook Adams 2988 Jackson Fed. Bldg. 915 Second Avenue Seattle, WA. 98174 Dear Senator Adams, As a professional seaman, having sailed as Master on many types of vessels for over 15 years end as:Mate for a few years before that, I can truly tell you that your demand for double hull tankers for * safety is close to the mark, but, in order to hit the mark dead center you must also insist on SAFE MANNING, it makes ~io difference in how strong the vessel is built if it is not manned right. We now have Towing vessels towing very large barges with Oil and General cargo and very UNSAFE manning, the Coast Guard thru their interpolation of the law have, given the companies green light in' cutting manning down to a level that in my opinion is very unsafe, Masters and Mates are standing watches 6x6, 12 hours watch a day plums all the other chores connected in operation of the vessel, you have ~4asters and Mates standing watches who are tired and dead on their ~eet and still it is expected of them to make decisions that must be ~orrect or an accident will happen, manning is such that it is not a ~uestion of if an accident will happen, it is guaranteed, it just wait ~or a time and place. Up to now they have been lucky, many accidents have happened the last few years but none of the caused death, just some injuries which no one likes to talk about. One safe manning can prevent a major accident, no Deck Officer should be allowed to stand watch for more than 4 hours at the time and~ with' a max" of 8 hours' :per: day, also there should be a lookout on each watch,' they too should not be allowed more than 8 hour max per day, and it should be done by LAW so all commercial vessels had to adhere to the law and thereby no company could use the manning level to underbid each other. I respectfully request your consideration in forming a voluntary group of Master Mariners from different types of vessels who, through their knowledge and expertise, could. develop proposals for manning and safety to be presented to those, like yourself, who ultimately establish our laws. I would never presume to develop guidelines for a field that was out of my jurisdiction. Conversely, I do not see the wisdom of having someone not associated with towboats, tankers, freighters,~. or ferrieL...trying to ,establish guidelines for manning and safety~J ~h in ted States Coast GuarTi15Iti1~od~to ~nsure `th8tthel~ws are upheld. They should not be in the business bf establishing manning laws or even the interpretation of them, That Your time and consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Respectfully, z £~- CAPT,LIN BIRGER R. RASMUSSEN 9015 - 229th P1,. SW. Edmonda, WA. 98020-4945 PAGENO="0280" 276 COpy May 29 1990 To the Ronerable Brock Adams 2988 Jackson fed. Bldg. 915 Second Avenue Seattle, WA. 98174 Dear Senator My name is John Rasmussen. I am a professional Seaman. I started out in 1958, and have seen the decline in the safety in the merchant marine. At present I am a Chief Mate in the tugboat industry and have been so for a long time. On my last job my deckhand, who was also an oiler for the most part spent the watch in the engineroom. and I was sometimes alone in the wheelhouse 4 5 hours A lot of things can happen in that time It is sad that the companies now is cospeting by cutting down on the manning and that will not be changed unless we get a manning law that deane states how many people and in which capacity there must be manning the vessels It is my belief that more accidents are going to happen as long this is going on. Also it the ships owner have to pay for double hull ships, they will most likely cut down on manning some more, since they have green light to do what ever they please from the Coast Guard. I urge you to do something about it, not only for the safety of lives, but also for the environment. I -sjncerely hope we can get back to the three watch system again and have safer vessels sailing around~the world and the US again. I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, I grealy appriciate it. Sipcerely(,~ ~ ~-T ~ `4ohn J. Msmuasen 5630 200th SW. I 5-309 Lynnwood, WA. 98036 PAGENO="0281" 277 Representative ~Jolene Unsoeld March 8 1990 207 Federal Building Olympia WA 98501 Dear Representative Unsoeld Due to the number of recent accidents in the marine industry I would like you to consider a few thoughts that I have on this subject While double hull vessels will give greater protection against pollution entering the oceans they will also bring other problems These concerns include higher construction costs expenses incurred to remove explosive gas fumes prior to commencing vessel repairs and the possibility of creating dangerous volatile atmospheres between the hulls We can build the most technologically advanced vessels and equip them with the most advanced navigational aids to the mariner but this is not enough New laws need to be implemented to~ limit the amount of time spent by crews on watch and ninimum staffing levels need to be re-assessed by the Coast Guard. In addition, the Coast Guard must resist industry pressure to reduce crew sizes. A simple comparison of how many people are required to safely operate a government or militar~ vessel compared to a commercial vessel would reveal that there is a wide discrepancy on how many people are considered necessary ~afe manning levels is the beginning toward safety on the oceans Currently a Captain and Mate aboard tugs each stand two six-hour watches per day for a minimum of twelve- hours of wor3' each day 0ff-watch work bowever frequently demands that hours of rest are cut short With work shifts I ranging from days to several months at a time it is obvious that there are many tired people working on the seas f Laws need to be passed and an.fo~rce.d which limit the amount of time that deck officers spend on watch to no more than eight-hours a day on all commercial vessels The MIND is the best weapon against accidents and a riate~ mind is the best mind to make split second decisions that might avert a disaster With more than eighteen years experience in the maritime industry, the last five as a Captain of towing vessels. I have seen continual declines in crew sizes As a result I believe it is essential that minimum staffing requirements levels be reviewed and maximum work hour limitations be established to insure a safer working environment at sea The best weapons against accidents at sea are fully manned and alert crews aboard our vessels I respectively request your assistance and support in addressing this serious problem to protect the environment end oceans of the world Very truly yours Captain William W Lowery 7001 N E 158th St Bothell, WA 98011 PAGENO="0282" 278 Copy March 13, 1990 SENATOR BROCK ADAMS 2988 Jackson Federal Building 915 Second Avenue Seattle, WA. 98174-0000 Dear Senator Adams: Having come from a family of mariners as well as having worked almost forty years as a tugboat captain, it is only natural that I have a great interest in anything pertaining to the maritime industry, including the request for double hull tankers. Although I basically agree with double hulls for safety reasons, my total endorsement must be qualified with an `~if". That qualification is IF other areas of safety are also addressed. Of particular concern to me is the manning of vessels. With the approval of the Coast Guard, manning has been reduced to dangerous levels. In my own area of maritime work, the Coast Guard has, as a concession to management, reinterpreted the Garmatz Bill so that the maximum number of hours a crewman may work is now the minimum number of hours worked. All of my peers feel as I do, that due to fatigue and undermanning an accident is now~ a great probability. For the first time in all my years in the industry, I now find myself wondering only when it will happen. It is with great concern that I urge you to consider all areas of safety. Double hulls alone will not provide any additional safety. Sincerely, CAPTAIN RAYMOND A. HALSTEAD 18478 Viking Way N. W. Poulsbo, WA. 98370-0000 PAGENO="0283" 279 COpy March 12, 1990 The Honorable Robert Packwood 101 SW Main, Suite 240 Portlarri, Oregon 972o4 Dear Sir: I have sailed the biggest part of my life. The last ten years as a licensed Deck Officer on ocean-going tugs. Make no mistake, these tugs are moving large amcunts of cargo. As such, infact, as large tankers used during World war two. IXtring the last years of deregulation sod giving the companies more self control, has reduced safety at sea. The ccnpanies have reduced manning arsi the Coast Guard has given them the green light. We are noa standing six-hour on and six-hoar off watches with only a Captain, Mate, aol two look-oats. The Coast Guard agrees with this as long as we don't work over twelve-hours a day. They don't take into acccunt, the bad weather ~en we are lucky to get three-hours sleep cut of the six we are off. There is no allowance for the normal duties of running the boats, such as, paper-work, maintenance, ~en both Captain and Mate have to be up at the same tine for bar crossing, heavy-traffic, etc, etc. Daibled-bottcned vessels are a good plan to be sure hit we have to be very conoerned abc*it naming the vessel as safe as possible. That is why a~ three-way system was established in the first place. So that the Master and Mates decisions were not impaired by fatigue. Noa, to go backwards is italicroos at best. We need a three-section watch system for all camercial vessels over 50-gross tons. Make it a blanket-law so it will be the same for all ccmpanies bidding jobs. The Coast Guard was never meant to make or delete laws, they were to enforce them, if, I tmderstard correctly. We will still have accidents to be sure, even with all the safety measures taken bit lets do all we can to make it better and safer than it is rmw. I deeply appreciate ycsir tine and consideraticn in this matter. Very truly yours, Ron E. Saylor 05612 Canary Road Florence, OR. 97~39-OOOO PAGENO="0284" 280 To the Commander, 13th Coast Guard District (mps Rulemaking Project) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 915 Second Avenue, Jackson Federal Building Seattle, WA. 98174-1067 Commander: My name is Birger R. Rasmussen, Asst. Branch Agent of the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, Pacific Maritime Region. The United States Coast Guard's concern with safety of tank vessels and chemical carriers on U. S. waters is well founded; however, we find that an important segment of the Merchant Marine Industry is being totally ignored, namely the towing industry and all other commercial vessels classified as uninspected. Our concern is manning, where a Master and a Mate are standing watches of six on and six off on y~g~e1Lover_six-hundze~I.n3iJesJFor example, a cargo vessel of over three [hundred feet in length, inspected, requires Deck Officers to stand watches of no more than four hours on and eight hours off, and also requires that vessel to have unlicensed sailors to cover all watches. This vessel is then sold to the fishing industry and suddenly becomes uninspected. It now sails the same ocean with only a Master with limited experience and a Mate also with limited experience, standing watches ol six on and six off. They may have only one AB and one Ordinary Seaman. This vessel, which before as inspected, was sailing the oceans very safely because of the manning is now sailing the same oceans very unsafely because of the manning. No amount of schooling, training, safety seminars, or automation can prepare a person * to act and make important decisions when that person is overworked and fatigued. When an ocean towing vessel is at sea with two barges behind, it is the largest and deepest draft vessel in the world with a length of 3/4 mile long from the bow of the tug to the stern of the tailbarge. (Some of the Oil barges carry more than 5 million ~~j~lons of oil.) .. .. . .~ No one on any commercial vessel, inspected or uninspected, should be permitted to stand watches of more than eight hours per day (four on and eight oft). It is ludicrous to think that Masters and Mates on uninspected vessels are `super human beings" who can stand watches of twelve hours a day and in addition work overtime and perform other duties necessary, averaging 16 hours day in and day out for months on end, without getting fatigued. It is for this reason that Masters and Mates on inspected vessels are required to stand watches of only four on and eight off. Also, the manning in the unlicensed department has been cut to the point where it now is impossible to have a proper lookout as required by the Rules of the Road. In Puget Sound it is very common to find a towing vessel towing a barge of oil, or some other general cargo, with only two people manning the vessel. This cannot be considered safe. The Coast Guard has increased the burden and risk onto the shoulders of crews on uninspected vessels to a very dangerous level. The Coast Guard has, by accommodating the shipowners' wishes of not have manning rules for uninspected vessels, increased the risk of accidents, injury and even death of seamen. Coast Guard statistics show that in Alaskan waters between 1987 and 1989, one hundred ter PAGENO="0285" 281 -_~~e?i~t~d one hundred fifty-one vessels sank or were wrecked so badly that ~Their salvage had value. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Thursday, June 7, 1990, 113.) For uninspected vessels, the Coast Guard reacts after an accident. This must change! They must stand up and react to prevent accidents from happening. Another grave concern with the present manning is entry levels. A good professional Chief Male evolved from an experienced Second Mate who, while being `broken in", was taught by the Chief Mate and the Master. Both Master and Chief Mate spent time in the wheelhouse with the Second Mate while he was on watch and the Second Mate spent time with the Master and the Chief Mate on their watches. Now that the Second Mate's position has been eliminated on uninspected vessels, where are the good Chief Mates going to come from? Now that Chief Mate's have no time to spend with the Master, where will the next generation of good Masters come from? How many people are on watch in the wheelhouse on a Coast Guard or Navy vessel of comparable size while underway? One? Absolutely not! FThe three watch system must be put back on ALL commercial vessels. Companies should not be permitted to cut manning in order to underbid each other. This has / turned into a dangerous game where the odds are in favor of lost lives and dama~ed environment. Also, the Master of a towing vessel may be towing two barges behind him with more that twenty thousand tons of cargo valued at millions of dollars, and he is held responsible for those barges and their cargoes. Yet the Coast Guard does Lnot recognize all that tonnage on his license. Why not? It is our strong belief that the reductions in manning have had and will have a direct negative effect on vessel operational safety. Ii is unfortunate that because of our status as a Union Organization, this opinion is sometimes disregarded or ignored. Let's listen to the wisdom of these deck officers. Their thoughts and experience can save lives, economic loss, and the environment. We are forwarding you copies of letters written by many Masters and Mates to our Lawmakers and the Coast Guard expressing their concerns on the manning issues~ I have been informed of many more letters that were written, which I do not have copies to forward to you. Telephone calls are received almost daily from concerned Masters and Mates. Many of these Masters and Mates are working on non-union. vessels and have been unwilling to reveal their names for fear of losing their lobs. They know that the work they do is a big gamble, but they hope the Union will speak for them to the Government Agency who has set forth the present manning rules for uninspected vessels. We are Professionals. Please hear what we are saying to you. 06-22-1990 PAGENO="0286" 282 71991 ~ ~ * t~w t k~wt k,e'p~ ~4t II b~dj o~s ~Cy c& frfl( W%ctvi4mie. Cu Th'4 IQt%kI~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u~ct4dvy 4r iS c1ectv1~ rq~o1 c.OYtCCrMCI 4t~oLL+ ~6( 4IPI b1/t~ 5iii~ IOu boqt !"~~ ~ JI Ill, ~O CdJeY~ jo `i, ~i;cr ((a, is, aid daj ~ r e~pec ~I!~ C1CC-HC) ~L',u~ J~~ui~ OI? +OW,.~j v~seI~, iIi~ o~ nO(~-) ~Ital 2 II; ,`io( /c~viOoJ ~-1 ~ *wisr co,,~'~i1 ~ i4e~ cca~c ,.~ a ,ti'iitq Ii *s'e~lcrre1 fa~i 7lie ~~Js 2: a~, i c Ci~n9 Eo crre. s/(, t(~, C~q'~ ~io~ (J), `j~) (i) c~~( ~ L(S (øí ~7O2. euss( ~FI~ L/~ 157OS~ 7~,es~ laL.s~s. t4eve .~Jr,/(CI& c~,dt. a~c, 4'lsej~ Itc~s `Jeit. C.OO hor~e~OJer a.n'l~ Lti,1e~ Lueye ?%) (~L T~ 4~e PIOL4J 3000 - ~O0O hp-3e~- f'Obt4 ~P~I Lw t~, c(Yt ~3D ~Do fe.e1 (ow, c~rv~ ,si~ o~(Csi ~ ~ 7tit~e !4(,4.1~ WCVC. ~1i}1u~i4 re7LLVeoLek ~ ri j~4Y5 f?ri~( au? ci~ P1Ot~~) Liece~rusij ooI~Ci `tue. YteyeC(~e. ov~ bcwc1e~ ~ -4s i-L1i. i-&1~t eveu't ~IteSe niiitisi'iid )aw~ ar~ ~ ~is(cin~(ec( ~ br-tci.L o~- ~tte~e. coey'&t~ont yes~o~,1,i)ib 4~s ~~C.cet1 ci.,ic~ ~Le. s~vv~eict~ 4C~ ~ ~ ~i)oM.4: ...1!.'jt~Y5. uiou~) ~IYItC.. 1O&4~ P,ea1 CoI~11~C*i1I~J AeC(e~ft.(~ ç~IIecl ~ ~ve(sj~~.+~ . v1~ctrct i(te~&..lswJ~ etYp'iw1 W~Wrv.tw% ~rL~b~C~ rUAVeW1euC~ ~ek ~ ~ (jy~0~y$%, 5,v~e.e it~41 +~v%t~. (Dkjw~stt `f,.4i~ "wct ~Y~t tu~t~ ~ / o~ je. ~ . or- ~ ?O,~(. veqx ~ C..~'o~uJ~e.\ ~o~L a~ ctoui~k `~- ..k~e- `~~- ~ ~ ~ ~oq w'~s w01~L o~ ~tatII~, ~i~ttt lass j~ui oi~ I~aY~t, cLt -,`t1~'~ )1ci'~'o'i, (A si,v~~e,y a.ui o~ç \ ~ &L~t I~hc~- ~it~ ~p1et 2: ~ ~AA (y0~i1 ~yp~ ovt iL~e ij~,ek * oL iLis ,..~1i4-(: - - unovi tit4' of Cfo~e ~:c ~ tOe~t ~,ti.' ~fOCi4 14(e ktCci i ~ 4 `- 1~' ~ vey~ ~100Q e~'a~e. cij I (cel ) 4&~~ ~ 1~. MOV~t ILt~~ COIVie.I0t(~&Fe ~41 f(~c~e. c~-Uc-t-~ I~yi. oc~jAYC1. ( ~%W.t. `r~i.&iu . i~-~fMlr% i~.S * otf cte(~d. 1o r1ci~'t yeos~(s ,~ ~ ~ z ~ ,kq~ ?~ -!I~i~ ~ a~iwL c4~ss/rott qs 7oc~ cai.~ \ ~p~ise. ~r i,~s~iA ~1ie one. 4/nt- ~ie all /cCvpflC'( ~ 4/ic ~ \ v~iIIee ci~ieJ i-~a~ It~l f~eVCs1~toi ~ i~he ~ on/ulc1-oscg p/os-i ~ ia.,c -~1!uf a (A~C 4 c1s/ Lv Ji~rt','e vs li- Jo e~ ~4 `1~rs'I~ipt' J&i~s ~ ~ ~ (~1~ .c -)ttc (oa:~ A~&as~ - It-. 1-1(44411 o~ lie So~~Iij *O~1-~sce..i~~. .5ezJ~k. hci~ c~(u~ ~ ~C\St `4J hotS 12CC5% vtVI( rd u%ju4Ct4 ~%jC11 ~1L ~ 2 ins cCrLtflYl iIt1t- iI~ 4l~e Coo~~- S141k 4o `1aL~e cte `(Lou. cirjcu,~d 1~r~' J4lt~11~,se (I s-vt1 c-f I/c 4øto~~1 ,stcLio-Iv~ w I~e. s-i ~as~ i~n~ ~i) vrw' (~ s-i coivfIqs~c.c i-u 1 L fcvicvn I - ~i~ttoAtovi~ tlie ~(oI(o.s~srt cfa~.j . I rasi nof ~Iin~ ~t- ~ lilt-tv n.tj b C) ~c~c'~i.Lec Ike. -c~A1AY 4~ - (~ Oh i~ -fit ~;( v&~ - 1I~i li ~ 01 V'i PAGENO="0287" 283 ~tek `(ir ~y~ti ~\Dt(~Y~ ~ * ~ :~f~11,;~~Lt. Coekc (ap4zni 4 (ti~- P~1(~r,ie DSIoM. O4(iL~y i*vi £ftowq~ * G~k1~1 o14ice - Zb'~< ~ilI - . -.. PAGENO="0288" 284 2405'IRth.VAY NW * C©p~ r lIABlE 12,1992 TEE JOWOR000I N*3.JOLUE 11110111 150$ LCHIGWORII icosi cmcr BUILDING WASXIIIGTOI,D.C. 20515 RE; WILL ER 0542 DEAR CCBGRESSWONAJ USSOELD, I AR WRITING 71 SUPPORT OF 1.R.3DG2JRTR0000ED BY NR.AJERCRCNBXE. LB. 3912 WILL 214710 FEDERAL LOW WY ESTABLISHING B IRIDIZOTs 101 10111110 MID WATCHES OR TOWING VESSU$. I JOVE WORKED II THE WEST COAST TOWING INDUSTRY 701 OVER 25 YEARS, AND £11 OJRREITILY £ CAPPAIB OF A URGE OCRAN-ODIEG TUGHIAT CRYRATIIIG OUT OF SEATTLE, WASEINGYGII. 30417 YEARS AGO,TOWIIG 111)031)1 KRIIAGSIRNT DECIDED TROT REDUCER 1101131140 WAS TEE BEST RAY TO I10'ROV! 10100110 120111$. THERE WAS LITTLE REGARD FOR TEE WELFARE 3111 SAFETY OF THE TUG CREWS NOB WEBB TERRE CORCUPIS ABOUT PEAT EFFECT INCREASED TUG-BARGE £011010173 NIGHT JAYS CR THE EBIVIESIIXDO. TEE INDUSTRY HAS BAD ACCIDENTS IJIVOLVIJIG OIL BANGS CPIEATIOZS II 11701 101150111 *01111100? TEE TUG WAS A FACTOR. £5 A PERAIIIAL 1013,2 RAVE ADS? PERISHED A VOYAGE THAT RED? liE ABOARD TEE TUG 49 STRUCK? DAYS, IIGREIJIC A 110110W 07 Z113 A DAT. TEAT'S 51$ WATCHS?AJWIMG SOURS RITE 10 DL! 0173 I BELIEVE TEAT PASSAGE 01 1,1.3012 WOULD HELP IX ACCGIIPLISIIJG SEVERAL POSITIVE 0000Si 1JJIPROVR TEE WORKING MID SAFETY STANDARDS OF TIE BOAT CR715. LARGER CREWS TO SHARE TEE WORELDAD SHOULD RESULT IN FEWER INJURY ACCIDERTI. 2.REDUCMB PATIGUZ,P3RTIORLULY FOR THE OFFICERS, SHOULD GREATLY REDUCE TIE CHANCE 0? ACCIDENTS INVOLVING TEE 500 LED 10)01. SEDUCING ACCIDENTS REDUCES ADVERSE UVIROHOIEICIAL IJIPACO. 3.1131100 TEIS BILl. WOULD JSOVIDZ FOR A `LEVEL P0011110 FIELD' 10$ EU TOWING 010STRY. 13 FlINGS STAND NOW, 10 01111311! 15 90110 50 01051 90 LED THE 1IE'MIISE 07 EXTRA 01114 50US$ ALl. ARE REQUIRED TO 10 50. PASSAGE 011113 LAW WOULD RETURN TEE 110101110 LRVEI.S II TEE VEST COAST TOWING INDUSTRY TO TEE mDITICSAL LEVZI.j TRAY SEMI ED VISOR KERN THEN *5 TEARS 200. SWABS YOU PCI TOUR CCIISIDEWIOE CS 5113 WILL. BINCERELY, ~ PAGENO="0289" 285 Inlandhoatrneu's Onion of the PacifIc ~ MAPINC OLVIIION..- INTUNATIOP4AL WNG3HORD4PN1 $WAP.ZHOU$EMTNP UNION NATIOHALOflIcI * r,mPSPJIAVII4ULIOOMIII $fA17LLw~3HINQTON MIII * 1014411731 * 1044444731 Ifov~,.. 40 ~. ~ Vo-~.c.,..-.. * We the undersigned mrs in fever to have 5i1~ Pt.N. 3942 planninc and Witch mequir.ments on Towing vessels' passed. We feel there has to be a priority to protect th. safety of the vessel end the crew, as well as the safety of the environment. * The bill weu~d require a minimum of three crew members on witch (two * en the bridge, one in the engin, room) at all times while the vessel is underwaY'. * ______ ~AD3- - -. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9~rn * - ~ ~ ~219~) J~Q-~- ~&~4- ~c»=~i~±~ ~rL1~2S ~shi ?Lf~1A~ ~133~j1si ~ 2~ ~ VFL!~~~ ~ ~ k* ~)~!=? * ~_,p~I `~ ~ * 5P2r ~ ~i~4 ~ - ~ y, ~ * ~ ~ - ~ * a 4~Q~ -l~c~ 1~ga~ - -*** -~-~ V *V ~ --~ **~** REGIONAL OFFICES *KD 002.0231*1*541015 0*12 PSASCIlCO $1.WAII 1014140*44 CAUPOVIIA 01010*44 JU$&AU iu~AVLM13Il 2447 N.W.PR04$? I$1MMYII*)1.200 2111HO$A44*2.VD.$1.214 721I.*0002IAVP ~~IFI0*?*1* $14110 gl4$OSPSIOSDAXAVI 4111.4.10*11411 P0*flAlI4.00013101*N P*AIIC*C4.OA 04224 H000LVI.4. $11140 1012.0114073011.0*01144 1IAT11.&WA $231 )u41*U.A5 $1402 224.4414121 101.0211* 411.4010114 lI0.141.4211 710.1414314 101.4211144 011.02012)) .* 241444140$ 2A01111.fl1.u10 PAZ 4114144140 PAP u44441~1 2*112011214)3 2*103*4*0131 2101.1111211 0*73734214*4 ~i.u1111I 1*10117.2344114 PAGENO="0290" 286 ~ Inlandboatmen's Onion of the Pacific ~ ~" MARINE DIVISION- INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN S & WAREHOUSEMENS UNION N#~IONALOPF~CE * 27OO~IMTAVENUR, ROOM2II * SE*1XLLWASHINGTON 9$i2~ * ~O6448$734 * MX 2G444~7)6 * We the undersigned are in favor to have Bill H.R. 3942 M~~ing and Watch Requirements on Towing Vessels' passed. We feel there has to be a priority to protect the safety of the vessel and the crew, as well as the safety of the environment, * `The bill would require a minimum of three crew members on watch (two on the bridge, one in the engine room) at all times while the vessel is underway'. -~_AQD~ - _____________ 4Q~*Tck'~tt~1/. 4~_9~s~j _____ fl.A. fl ` `~ (9~'~j * ~ ~ ~`c'o~ ~ £1~ L~~-ç-~~i * - ~2J~2~4 ~ P~a6~4'2«= h'TNA~ ~99~/ ~ £4~i4~-. A~ZS* ~~J:i~/ (9~,7J ~ 1~ 1. ji~ A~s~ 4~jj~i -.,~/4k ?~`PO~/ ~ F~o ~4 2~KitcAjk&~) 4k~Jca~ ~7~( * c4i~~g~ ~r?25 `IA r~_ ~z~t1f ~ cs~tc~L ~9~j (ij~4~i 2,$jc<~v~gggo/ 2-i,s~9~7 * * Po 54X' 7171 - ~7 ~~A' - rTro/. *,~~!q * ~ ~I_) ~ ~ * , ~ ** eoB ~ ~~fc flf~ - ~9 /7~,*~ ~ - * *4'~D4ia/44 ~ ~ `~Lr~ tJ33~ ,1~'I~o~ *~i~ Y~c~ ~«=`~- ?-~ ~ /~`O1 I3o>~ go ?~? *~1~y ~ &`44 ~ -.~`,dL ,~. REGIONAL OFFICES FUORT10000 COLUMOOA aivoc SAN FRANCISCO 90+30437 *00f5U4 CAOIPORSIA 02010937 JUNOAU * IOPIRSTAVI.0M.203 243$ N.W.PROOT SOIA*74Y*t,014206 OOIPILLINOHAMSLVD,74o206 fl$LA40014AV& 76009I0?0vL066036 *221000Th1000AUA' sEATrLS.wANslol PORTLAND,00972095AN FOANCINCO.CA 94114 HONOLULU, NI 46617 WILMINOTON.CA 40744 SSATTLR,WA 96420 3040AU AX 99601 206.441.5071 502.0294000 415.620.0114 606.0674011 501.5496730 204+064166 9074194315 7.030206.446.9734 7A40707.73.1374 FAX 4114160126 FAX 066.047.6052 7.0* 213-141.3602 FAX 206.446.9720 p947.7104566 £2?CNIXAN 4674054346 FAX 405-225-0416 PAGENO="0291" 287 (~~J) Inlaudhoatinen's Onion of the Pacific ~ MARINt DIVI$ION-INTUNIITJO}4A1 LoNC$HOftD4ZN1 & WA*~11OU6EM&W5 UNION N IOMALOP?ICI flOOVlUT VIIIULIOOM2II &A?ftLWA3HIMTON 511* N*44$47U VAX 54.44*41 $ We the undersioned ore in fever to hive Sill H R 39~2 Hinnina end Wotch ~.~uiP~em.nt5 on Towiote Veseel. passed We feel there has to be a priority to protect the sef.ty of the vessel end the orew as well as the safety of the environment. The bill would reouire a minimum of three crew members on witch (two on the bride. one in the erteine room) it all times whil, the vessel is underws~ NMl~ ~ ~L~? ~ r~I~ 4~~frI~ ~#i~PA~ ~ ~ J~/~ ~27~ ~2' 1.$E4rnç ~ ALE~tED kW1L~5~~A' L~2~5~i ~`~4i/I S ~S~d77Z~W~4 ~?±~4'? 4~»=~4~ ~dz'W' ~L~° A) ~ f'~ !~jr ~J~~/'? ~ ~ ~ $~LI )P~ ~ I REGIONAL OFFICES rUdI?$OUNb COLIJM$IA *51151 1A1( P1AI$Cl1cO KAWAII io$s1141&$I cdJPOINIA 110505331 3*SN*AU pm1TAVL11~501 1434 N~?RONT J$IMMY*t.314501 I$S1DIWI4$HAI401.VD.l1.$$4 IMLA00044AVI 154$ IUV$.*M53 mUllO1rn13O111A$1AV~ IATSLLWAI$ISI PO1flAN0LN3531ANP1M4O0C~CA 34114 1$ONOLULI& 1154011 WILMIMTOWC& 5110 UAtItS.WA 5*2% IUWIAU,AX10001 *54.0414115 141.4314500 414.0*04034 001.4434001 113.540400 144.4444404 103.101.4333 VAX 1*4441.1434 M5s3.*534144 ~X 410044*4 ?A1 011.511011 PiN 111.340.1411 PiN 100.441.1453 3401.101*104 117011141$ $14314040 PAN 10104154 PAGENO="0292" 288 ~ Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific ~ MAR1N~ DIVIS1ON- LNTUNATIONAL L~NG$NOtU4LN1 & WAWIOO&EMZWC UNION $A~IO~&4.LOP1tC1 * ),O~tiAVO4IJL&O0Mfl* * *A 3W.4.IHt4OTON ~eOI * * MX )M~4~ø2$ - * We the undorsioned ar. in favor to hew. 5(11 H~A. 39i2 MsnrtLn~ end Wotch Requirements or~ Towino Vessels passed We feel there has to be * priority to prot.ot the safety of the vessel end the crew, as well as the safety of the environment * `Th. bill wou1~d require s minimum of three orew members on wetch (two on the b dg., on. in the enaine room) at all times while the vessel is undorw 1 -~ .~DDRESS 2~-~f?9~' hQ~~ ~ r14L(~/ ~ ~9J~7 7~4~M~IQft~ ~ ~aL~4~p~ ~ ~4g1-ç~z v, * * J/~A~4~ I/~ t~. 1z~1 VY~21ff ~&~r3 `~ ~ ~?2~ «=~i~9~ ~. ~ ~ * I~2~4~j j~4 ~q ~y~&rz ~Z~Vi~', t~d~ YfrJs22~V~yi~2 ~ * * ~4~A k)L~ qg~z- 7.~3L~ S.t~iO~~Jc~ .~-~-------~-*------ ----~ ------ ---~---~ *--~--- REOIONAL OFFICES * PUGC?SOUXD COLUNIIA civic LAW PLAWCIWCO KAWAII IOUIH*&W CAUWOLIIIA 110165 fl JOWl/U pvu1341a 34115W MONT I$IMMYIL.PJ4001 o.imwNUKAN$LV~M104 LMI.A0005AVL 2II4PIUTAV&NJd~4 113JN0&TI$J0NUA~~~ oonLwA4$1fl S0MLAi0D~OkPi40IAW PNAUICISCO.CA 54114 HONOLULU IL Mlii W1LMINUTO~CA 40444 IIA1IILWA 11031 JUNO/SAX 44441 ~ ~4~$441J ?A*303.Ml1014 PAX 411134431$ 5440 $441414111 14W 1014041413 SAX 401441543$ PNI1114111 $l1.Ml4341 ~AX 4Ui1334114 PAGENO="0293" 289 ~ Inlandhoatmen's Union of the Pacific ~ MASINS DIV!SION..-INTUNATIONAL LONG8EOUMtNI & WARZHCUSEMRW$ UNiON NA~lOWALOPPIC~ I 1$iTAVVlUL&OO~&Th * *IAfl~LWAiH1NOTON NIN I ~44$47N I MX m4441478 We the undersionad are in favor to have Sill Pt.~. 39~2 Mlvinina and Watch *e41uiremerote on Towirio Vessels passed. We feel there has to be a priority to protect th. safety of the vassal end the crew7 as well as th. safety of the environment. ~rhe bill wou~d recuir. a minimum of three crew members or~ watch (two oro the brido., one in the en~tn. room) at alt times while the vessel is underway. -- ~ `~`~ ~ ~, .-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~F4 ~. ~L~; . ----.--~ * ---~-.-.*-- ~-----~---- 4-~-.-'---- ..~_---------~-------~ --.-- REOIONAL OFFICES :pUaITlOUNO COLUWIIAIIV** $4.21 PIA401ICO KAWAII 401121451$ CAUPOtMIA &*l1O$1i 217144*11 *Av&.&0i1'P 14U14W.P010N? 1$AP.MY$?*~41l IINDIU.I1IHAIILVDN1.III ~0PAV5 $I413t&vrAv&01470 $~1101112A11~ * 1.I~0t*1l$ 70&fl4.$tOI9l*$AWPkAP0CIPc0,0A $4121 HOO4OLULV NI 42117 WU.44104at041.C4N,41 1M11L&W4. M~$ 3U117M1, 4.14*410 * 414.441.3101 313211411$ 4154111311 414447.4*1* 111.141.370 144.4444341 411.143.211* 0*14211.4444721 F&*7s1.*21704 11*14 411414.OUI 114.14410.14141*1 MX 111104411 PAZ 444444014 11447.70.1144 &IT040IAA0 141.1444314 114.14 4$7704144 PAGENO="0294" 290 lulaudhoatinen's Union of the Pacific ~ MARiNE DIVIIIOH-INTUNATIO)JAL LONCSNOREJUWS & wAstHOtiR$MEW$ UNION WMloMxOmC$ * J'mn*nAvlwuLlooldm * $1 VIAIIIING?014 Nix * ~44S~1U * MX 3e4-44$4I$$ We the undersigned are in favor to have Sill. H R 39~2 Msr,ning arid Wetoh Requirements on towina Vessels passed We feel there has to be a priority to proteot the safety of the vessel end the orew, as well as the safety of the environment. ~h. bill. would require a minimum of three crew members on Uotoh (two cr2 the bridge, one in the engine room) at all times while the vessel is underway'. ~ - AbbR~5*~ PHONE * -- ~t2z ~ i~4f~ ~ ?~"r 1A~Q SE ~L4O J~,1,? ~`ô4) ~ REOIOIJAL OFFICES *UOIXIOUKO COLUNEA 5~VIX IAN PRsKCIICO IIAWAE *0IrNHNRNCALIPCLNLS &IØ$OW 21 IUHIAU VL*ltii$ 2 U~W PNOIft *214 I? &M$I ~a musOHAiIMVDH m 1i$LA000NAVL $jIimLV$~M~ *WIIORTNJOIDAK *AT?ULWANSUI PO*TLANDiOXP2NNAN 1*AHCNCOCA NIN HONOLULU. NI $511 WU.i$INIIOXCA $144 IIAfTL&wA44121 wi'&w.** $441 $54414111 r2I21..$5N W4244$I4 Iu.m?.511 1I1.1414731 1**NmN$5 $LE$53~ lAX 3424420134 M$$4440.UU lAX 40434441$ p~ eu4%Nu P** 2132121441 PAN 2044444134 P$MNUI0 447.014144 IAN 4434144214 PAGENO="0295" 291 * (~~j) Inlaodhoatmen's Unioll of the Pacific ~) MASINE DIVEUON.-!NTEIPMTIONAL LONCSXOP.D4tWS & WA*ZHOU$VdN$ UNION WAT1OHALOPPICI * VOO?IPJ7AYII4UILOOMIII * $ W~1HINdITO$( NItI a I$$.44$47~~ * PAX N4.441413$ * We the undorsiOhed are in favor to have bill H.p. 3942 flsnnins ar~ Watch ~e~uireMents cm Towing Vessels passed We feel there has to be a priority to protect the safety of the vessel and the crew, as well as the safety of the environment. * `The bill wou~d reauire a minimum of three crew members on watch (two on the bridge, one ira the enema room) st .11 times while the vessel is underway'. * ~. . -- ~~Sow~ a. - ~4~4~~nd4 ~ID flihI~li3~ ~ ~ Pirsy (.cn,ToED.4Jr?,/~-z sri~i~.~ ~ -- A. c ~ tf1N~Ja ~ ~ic~çi * ~ ~ ~ ~z~a li~s~4~6. 4I~' 4~,4.. ~ ~i43 -~`s~i * ~. ~ ~ ~ * . ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~f~ ~ 2~/~ * i~V iI~-~C .. ..~ ~ 1ZA~t4Jil4~~1i$L~ ~ ,~ * t,»=~~f'1~1 ~ - c ~ - ~ ~ REOIONAL OFPICE3 * PUOST$OU$D COL$fld$XA SIVIC IAN flA$$CI100 $IAWAt$ IO$J?I$flN CAUPOLNL~ UGI0$ 3$ JUNIAU *PS3TAVI.$343N 2433MW. P~OIft 3$4A&MVI?.~N 2%IDILUNOHA33IL~P~334 PML*aQO$AVI asm~aurrntsuu IWNCSTh3UDAKA' itinLWAN2kI 7O~fl.4N~O*fl2N$ANPNAMCNC0.CA 24224 NONOLULU 31 ema 31L241431024CA 24744 INAmtLWA 310$ 3011M1,AX 31124 244.14141$I $I331$~~$ 4214334434 $444114441 243.4414131 133.144134 01-1314321 PAM 3144*4134 ~3224343-14l1U PAM aI$121433$ PAZ 411411142 PAM 201*34*2 PAM 311.441414 p2414114324 241.144341 241-144444 PAGENO="0296" 292 HAWAII STATE AFL-CIO 320 Ward Avenue, SuIte 205 Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 Gaiy W. Rodilgues Telephone: (SOS) 5364945 Pres&denz Fox: (SOS) 5243921 Januaiy 15, 1992 The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka Prince Xuhio Federal Bldg;, Rm. 3104 Honolulu, HI 96850 Dear Senator Akaka Recent]) Representati~e Neil Abercrombie introduced H R 3942 relating to tow boat safety The bill would require a minimum of three crew members (two on the brid~e one in the engine room) at all times the craft iS in operation It would also require a minimum of two shifts on trips of less than 200 miles and three shifts on trips of more than 200 miles The intent behind the legislation is clear to ensure the safe operation of tow boats in our waters. Over the past several yóars, the staffing of tow boats has gone down to the point of creating a safety problem that jeopardizes the crew, not to mention the environment. By increasing the number of personnel on board, stress and fatigue would be lessened, a factor that has led to many of the accidents that have occurred. As you can imagine, if an oil spill were to occur in Hawaiian waters, it would cause irreparable damage to the environment and to the health and welfare of the general public By putting a priority on the safety and ~e1l being of the tow boat employees we will also protecting the quality of life in our islands Your support of similar legislation in the Senate would increase the aaareness of this serious abuse of marine safety. Your consideration is deeply appreciated. Sincerely yours, G~Rodrigue~ President RECEIVED JAN 1 6 1992 PAGENO="0297" 293 iai/~i `un/cu ~ of The iiici7ic TELEPHONE (415) 7773400 HEA000ARTERS. 450 HARRISON STREET CABLEADORESS SAILORS S GIlL HI BRANCHES... PHONE 200 4280290 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 WILMINGTON 90724 . 505 NO MARINE AVE * 213) 8054611 OUNNAR LUNDEBERO * PRESIDENTISECRETAAY-TREASURER January 24, 1992 RE: H.R. 3942: TOW BOAT SAFETY & MANNING BILL The Sailors' Union of the Pacific urges you to support H.R.3942 on tow boat safety and manning introduced by Congressman Neil AbercrOmbie. This legislation will address and rectify a serious abuse of marine safety that has a direct impact on the crews that man these vessels as well as the public at large. Inadequate manning and watch standing requirements on towing vessels in United States inland and coastal waters jeopardizes the workers and the environment. I thank you in advance for your consideration and support of H.R. 3942. Very truly yours, ~~7o~1 GUNNAR LUNDEBERG CL: tea President/Secretary-Treasurer ope-3-afl-cio (146) cc: Congressman Neil Abercrombie Congresswoman Patsy P. Mink Senator Daniel Inouye Burrill Hatch, President, Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific TO: CongreSswo/men Pelosi, Boxer, Anderson, Dellums, Stark, Miller, Lantos and all members of the House. Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee PAGENO="0298" 294 L~ ~ INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WIARKHOUSEMFN'S UNION LOCAL OFFICE 451 ATKINSON DRIVE HONOLULU HAWAII 96814 PHONE 949-4161 LOCAL 142 HAWAUDIVISION: 100W.,LkI,SI.PIW.SU*A,96720' ~ MAW COUNTY DIVISION: L~H MUUSD.U. WUd~k~. M.~96793 KAUAI DIVISION: P o O~. 1910, Lh~., K...96756 February 24, 1992 Representative Neil Abercrosbie 1440 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-1102 Re: H.R. 3942 (Manning and Watch Issues~ Dear Congresssan Abercrosbie: This letter is in support of H.R. 3942 (Manning and Watch Issues) which was introduced into legislation by CongressBan Neil Abercrombie. If this statute is aaended, it will revise the Merchant Marine Act of 1915 which is now a serious and (~` hazardous situation throughout the towing industry. I have sent letters to Senator Daniel Akaka Senator Daniel Inouye and Representative Patsy Mink to ask for their support on this issue. Sincerely, ILWU Local 142 Maui Division S~rJ»=Jr~ Business Agent ~7F:jkn AN INJURY TO ONE IS AN INJURY TO ALL PAGENO="0299" 295 BRANCHES Seattle Washegloc Sac PeAto CaI,(otoa Marine Firemen s Union APPILIATED wits THE SEAtARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION 00 N A AOL dO 240 Seco d St eet San FrAnCISCO, CalifornIa 94(05 (415) 3624592 Dispatcher (4 5) 3627593 s~a3 PORT SERVICED New Orleans La The Honorable Nancy Pelosi U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congresswoman Pelosi: Re: ff.R. 3942 - Tow Boat Safety and Manning Bill I am writing to encourage your support for H.R. 3942 on tow boat safety and manning introduced by Congressman Neil Abercrombie. Congressman Abercrombie stated it all when introducing this legislation, and I quote: Hawaii depends on interisland barges. Their crews and the public are entitled to safety first on the high seas. Crew members have to be able to see trouble before it happens, not just react after the fact. Anything less poses an avoidable threat to human life, property and the marine environment." I thank you in advance for your consideration of H R 3942 Very truly yours Henry Disley President January 17, 1992 "This is a safety bill pure, plain and simple. It ensures that our interisland tow boats will be staffed at a level commensurate with safety needs It a like having more than one person in the cockpit of a plane Who wants to fly without a co-pilot' HD:sds cc: Congressman Neil Abercrombi Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink Senator Daniel Inouye Burrill Hatch, IBU President Ope-3-afl-jo (76) 0 55-369 0 - 92 (300) PAGENO="0300" ISBN 0-16-038542-3 90000 ~II ~ 9 780160 385421