2008 Yearbook
deploy and reassign personnel. Second, it could place artificial constraints on the ability of the service to grant leave and assign people to temporary duty such as training at a site different than their regular location. Third, it sets an unfortunate precedent of the Congress mucking around in the details of an executive branch agency. Congress does not, by law, limit the services to assigning to flight duty only qualified aviators. It leaves this to each service. There is no good reason that assignment of personnel to marine safety duties need be considered differently. ALJ hearings The bill would transfer the function of hearing appeals regarding mariner licenses, certificates of registry, and documents from the Coast Guard to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The rationale for this change is that there is a perception that the USCG administrative law judges (ALJs) are too closely affiliated with the agency to provide mariners with a fair and impartial hearing. While there has been some highly-publicized grumbling, little actual evidence of such partiality has been presented. It should be noted that the ALJs who hear appeals of decisions of the Social Security Administration (SSA) regarding entitlement to social security benefits are employees of the SSA, just as ALJs who hear Coast Guard licensing matters are employees of the Coast Guard. The same holds true of ALJs who hear matters relating to the Department of Labor, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and other federal agencies. The NTSB does not seek the transfer of function and is neither staffed nor funded for such transfer. At a minimum, the costs and benefits of such transfer should be carefully analyzed prior to such a significant step. Veto threat - Security for LNG shipments Finally, we come to those provisions in the bill that led senior administration officials to threaten to recommend that the President veto the bill if it was enacted as proposed. The April 23, 2008 Statement of Administration Policy asserted that the portion of the bill, as then proposed, that would require the Coast Guard to provide security around liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and vessels should be eliminated because it provides an unwarranted and unnecessary subsidy to the owners of private infrastructure that is contrary to the existing assistance framework and would divert finite Coast Guard assets from other high-priority missions, as determined by the Commandant. While the most offensive portion of the bill relating to security for LNG import terminals and facilities was softened prior to adoption by the House, it is unclear if the modification will be sufficient to assuage the Administration. In this regard, it should be noted that the bill contains a long-overdue provision requiring a study of the relative risks presented by a terrorist attack on gasoline and chemical cargo shipments in US waters. For too long, this government has focused inordinate attention on threats posed by LNG, largely ignoring other potential threats. Such a study may place things in a more balanced perspective. In conclusion, the House version of the Coast Guard Authorization Act is not perfect, but many of its provisions
About the Author
Dennis L. Bryant, Senior Maritime Counsel at the law firm of Holland & Knight, Washington, D.C., is a contributing editor of MR/EN. For additioal information contact Dennis at dbryant@hklaw.com
deserve serious considerations. Action now moves to the Senate for consideration of its version and careful reading of the House version. The nation needs a thoughtful and progressive measure to provide for the Coast Guard in general and for marine safety, security, and environmental protection in particular. The House bill is a move in that direction.
28
Maritime Reporter & Engineering News