advancement will be retained in this SNPRM.
    Five commenters note that the proposed Sec.  11.407(a)(1) requires
an applicant to hold an STCW endorsement as RFPNW as a component of the
qualification standards for a deck officer endorsement. The commenters
recommend deleting that provision as the qualification provisions for
OICNW in STCW do not mention RFPNW.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the requirement that OICNW
applicants must hold an endorsement as RFPNW. Mariners who hold an
OICNW endorsement wishing to obtain the RFPNW endorsement will have to
meet the requirements for RFPNW.
    One commenter asks if there is an endorsement for OICNW for service
on vessels of less than 200 GRT/500 GT engaged in ocean service.
    All seagoing vessels operating beyond the boundary line are subject
to the STCW Convention. Vessels of less than 200 GRT/500 GT are not
subject to any further obligation under the STCW because of their
special operating condition as small vessels engaged in domestic trade.
Therefore, persons serving on seagoing vessels of less than 200 GRT/500
GT operating beyond the boundary line will be issued an STCW
endorsement corresponding to the service and limitation of the domestic
officer endorsement without any further obligation.
    One commenter notes that proposed Sec.  11.413 does not have a
service requirement for chief mate of ocean and near coastal vessels of
less than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT, implying that a person could qualify for
this endorsement by meeting the OICNW requirement and completing
management-level training.
    The Coast Guard has corrected this oversight by adding a
requirement for 12 months of service as mate before advancing to chief
mate.
    Two commenters recommend removing certain training topics at the
management level from the proposed Sec.  11.413(b) list of training
topics because the associated competencies were acquired by mariners at
the operational level.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that certain management competencies may
have been acquired by the mariner at the operational level; therefore
the Coast

Guard is changing the approach to implementing the STCW competency
requirements to ensure assessment of competence is in accordance with
the level of proficiency required for each level. All the lists of
training topics for all STCW requirements were removed from this SNPRM.
Applicants for an STCW endorsement will be required to meet the
standards of competence in the STCW Code for the appropriate
endorsement. The Coast Guard will accept the various methods included
in the STCW Convention for meeting the standards of competence,
including training, on-the-job training, in-service experience, etc.
All approved training courses and programs meeting the various
standards of competence must include topics in accordance with the
level of proficiency required for each level.
    Two commenters state the requirement in proposed Sec.  11.412 for
service as chief mate to acquire a master 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT oceans/
near-coastal license should be deleted because towing vessels and many
small seagoing vessels do not have a position as chief mate.
    The requirements in Sec.  11.412 were removed from this SNPRM,
since the Coast Guard revised the approach to implement the STCW
Convention requirements by separating the domestic requirements from
the STCW requirements. This revised approach provides entry paths from
domestic endorsements to STCW endorsements in order to ensure career
progression. For example, a mariner with a Master Towing vessel ocean
or near coastal endorsement may qualify for an STCW endorsement as
chief mate on vessels of 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT or more by completing 12
months of sea service; meeting the standard of competence in Section A-
II/2; and completing training in search and rescue, ARPA (if required),
GMDSS (if required), and management of medical care.
    Eight commenters state that Sec. Sec.  11.423 and 11.424 provide a
way for an individual to receive an endorsement for international
voyages on vessels under 200 GRT/500 GT, but the proposed process is so
lengthy, difficult, and costly to qualify for these endorsements, the
provision is of limited value.
    The requirements in Sec.  11.423 and 11.424 were removed from this
SNPRM since the Coast Guard revised the approach to implement the STCW
Convention requirements. The revised approach includes: (1) Accepting
seagoing, Great Lakes and inland service to qualify for the
endorsement; (2) accepting other methods, besides training, for meeting
the standard of competence; and (3) requiring some training that is
necessary for the credential.
    One commenter remarks there should be an endorsement for OICNW on
vessels of less than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT.
    The STCW Convention does not provide for an OICNW endorsement for
service on vessels of 200 GRT/500 GT or more and less than 1,600 GRT/
3,000 GT. The STCW OICNW endorsement is divided between vessels of less
than 200 GRT/500 GT and those above. However, the Coast Guard is
providing a path for the domestic endorsements as mate, ocean or near
coastal, less than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT and for mate, ocean or near
coastal, not more than 500 GRT.
    One commenter notes that Sec.  11.414 appears to offer no provision
for an ocean endorsement at the operational level for limited tonnage
vessels of less than 200 GRT/500 GT.
    Section 11.319 in this SNPRM proposes a provision for an
endorsement at the operational level for mariners serving on seagoing
vessels of less than 200 GRT/500 GT.
    Three commenters write that any new credentialing structure must
include oceans endorsements for officer endorsements of all tonnages.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the comment. This proposed rulemaking
has taken this into account and provides for the credentialing for
vessels of all tonnages.
    One commenter states that STCW regulations require a candidate for
OICNW to obtain one year of approved seagoing service as part of an
approved training program. Otherwise, mariners pursuing OICNW
qualification are required to obtain three years of approved seagoing
service in addition to numerous required training courses for
certification. The commenter recommends that the Coast Guard re-balance
these requirements for OICNW for limited-tonnages. The commenter also
recommends that the Coast Guard permit OICNW certification for
qualified mariners who obtain 2 years of approved seagoing service in
concert with the completion of a combination of in-service training,
practical assessment, and approved seagoing service. The commenters
believe that this type of hybrid program could achieve the necessary
standards of competency and provide the KUP for the OICNW
qualification.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. STCW allows for two methods of
qualifying for OICNW, either completion of an approved program with one
year of service, or three years outside of an approved program. A
hybrid program as suggested is not authorized in the STCW in relation
to approved seagoing service. However, the hybrid program may be used
to meet the required standard of competency.
    One commenter asks if those with operational deck officer
endorsements wishing to renew will be required to take management-level
courses.
    No. The requirement to complete management-level courses is only
applicable for original endorsements at the management-level.
    One commenter suggests that mariners with a master 1,600 GRT/3,000
GT near-coastal or ocean endorsement have the opportunity to progress
directly to the unlimited tonnage master endorsement after completion
of courses, assessments, and testing with 3 years of service, with at
least half of the time on vessels of 1,500 GRT or 2,500 GT ITC.
    This rulemaking has provided a path from master limited to master
unlimited through evidence of completing 6 months of sea service under
the authority of the limited endorsement, and any assessments,
training, and/or examinations not previously completed.

Engineering Officer Endorsements

    Three commenters note that, in Table A-III, Sections 1-4 of the
STCW Code, there is language allowing for near-coastal limitations, but
not mandating it.
    The formerly proposed 10,000 HP near-coastal domestic endorsement
has been removed in this SNPRM, and the Coast Guard will retain the
current system of domestic engineering endorsements. The Coast Guard
has added the option of restrictions if an applicant is not able to
complete performance measures for steam evaporators and auxiliary/waste
heat boilers since an STCW party may vary the requirements for the
near-coastal KUPs for all STCW engineering endorsements.
    Five commenters recommend removing geographic limitations from
engineering licenses. The commenters believe that Sec. Sec.  11.510
through 11.514 impose near-coastal limitations on various engineering
licenses at the 10,000 HP and 4,000 HP levels.
    The Coast Guard is considering this and is seeking further public
comment on this issue.
    Three commenters point out that STCW language requires that a
candidate for OICEW must obtain 30 months of training, which includes
onboard training documented in an approved training record book, but
perceives that proposed Sec.  11.950(b) does not allow for this onboard
training.

    As a result of the 2010 amendments to the STCW, the 30-month
requirement has been eliminated to bring the deck and engine
requirements in line with each other. Program approval will be based on
content and must include not less than 6 months approved seagoing
service in the engine department as specified in Regulation III/1 of
the STCW Convention.
    Three commenters note that proposed Sec.  11.501(j)(1) provides
that holders of engineer (limited) and DDE endorsements can ``continue
to serve under the authority of those credentials until first renewal *
* *.'' The commenters recommend that, in order to ensure that future
readers understand what authority is being continued, the Coast Guard
change those words to read as follows: ``Continue to serve on those
credentials with the authority that was in force under the rules in
effect prior to the effective date until the * * *. ''
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended the text in Sec. Sec.
11.301 and 11.323, accordingly, in this SNPRM.
    One commenter states that the training requirements to obtain a
motor engineer license/endorsement should include all equipment that
may be found on a vessel.
    The Coast Guard disagrees and believes that this would be
unnecessary and excessively burdensome. In many cases, mariners sail
only on vessels without steam evaporators or waste heat/auxiliary
boilers and do not have the opportunity to access this equipment. In
this case, a corresponding restriction will be placed on the mariner's
credential. Should a mariner wish to remove the restriction(s), he or
she would be required to perform the demonstration on a vessel that
carries that equipment.
    One commenter seeks clarification on the three DDE horsepower
levels and the waters on which they authorize service.
    DDEs limited to 1,000 HP and 4,000 HP may sail only on inland and
near-coastal waters. STCW endorsements are needed at either horsepower
level if the endorsement holder wishes to sail near-coastal. DDE
unlimited horsepower endorsement holders may sail upon any waters and
require STCW endorsements for near-coastal and ocean voyages.
    Twelve commenters offer various opinions on the NPRM's proposed
10,000 HP domestic engineer officer endorsement, along with suggestions
for revised training and areas of competency demonstration.
    The NPRM's proposed provisions for 10,000 HP credentials have been
removed from this SNPRM. The main propulsion power level is included in
the unlimited horsepower category. Training and sea service
requirements are, therefore, the same for the unlimited path, as well
as for all five of the STCW engineer officer endorsements. This SNPRM
splits the engineer requirements into the Sec.  11.300 series for STCW
endorsements and into the Sec.  11.500 series for domestic
endorsements.
    One commenter states that engineers holding DDE or limited tonnage
endorsements would be restricted to domestic voyages.
    This SNPRM provides, in parts 11 and 12, information on entry
points for domestic mariners to be eligible for an STCW endorsement.
Additionally, this SNPRM incorporates the changes proposed in the
comprehensive review of the STCW, adopting the 2010 amendments that
make the requirements for engineering qualification similar to those
for deck officers. This will result in a process which does not require
the 30 months of training that had been proposed in the NPRM. As a
result, this will impose less burden on these engineers.
    One commenter points out that an engineer on a small passenger
vessel will be the sole engineer crew member on the vessel and that
requiring the mariner to first sail as an RFPEW is an unreasonable
burden.
    It is impractical to issue an officer endorsement for any HP or
tonnage level without the candidate having had some sailing experience
at a lesser, non-officer capacity. Unless the small passenger vessel
fleet, and other one-engineer-per-boat fleets open entry-level
positions to train their future engineer officers, the only source for
these officers will be either the maritime academies or those
transferring from other fleets.
    Four commenters remark that proposed Sec.  15.820 would create
unnecessary manning requirements for a chief engineer where none exist
today and suggest adding, at the end of paragraph (a), the words ``on
international voyages.''
    The Coast Guard has decided to retain the existing text for Sec.
15.820 with some additional non-substantative changes. The manning
requirements remain unchanged.
    Two commenters do not support the Coast Guard's proposal to stop
issuing STCW endorsements for DDE.
    The STCW defines DDE differently than in current regulations. In
the U.S., DDE means an engineer on a vessel not more than 500 GRT and
is issued in three propulsion power levels: 1,000, 4,000 and any
horsepower. STCW defines DDE as the person designated to perform duties
in a periodically unmanned engine room. The Coast Guard does not intend
to remove the three current DDE endorsements from our domestic
structure. However, if a mariner holding a domestic DDE wishes to be
qualified to sail on a vessel of unlimited horsepower of not more than
1,600 GRT/3,000 GT, he or she must obtain endorsements as assistant
engineer-limited and chief engineer-limited.
    One commenter states that the proposed language found in Sec. Sec.
15.820 and 15.825, establishing that only seagoing vessels more than
200 GRT/500 GT are required to carry licensed engineers, must be
retained. The commenter believes that such a requirement should not be
imposed upon seagoing towing vessels of less than 200 GRT/500 GT.
    The Coast Guard agrees. The proposed Sec. Sec.  15.820 and 15.825
are essentially unchanged. The manning requirements likewise remain
unchanged.
    One commenter writes if unlicensed personnel are voluntarily
assigned to stand engine room watches on seagoing towing vessels
operating beyond the boundary line, Sec.  12.530 will require them to
hold RFPEW. The commenter recommends that the same tonnage limit of 200
GRT/500 GT stated in proposed Sec. Sec.  15.820 and 15.825 be included.
    Proposed Sec.  12.609 contains the requirements for the RFPEW
endorsement. The manning requirement for which vessels must carry such
a credentialed person are found in the current regulations at Sec.
15.1103(c).
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard consider the DDE
endorsement as equivalent to the chief engineer endorsement on towing
vessels of less than 200 GRT/500 GT engaged in international voyages.
    DDEs are authorized to sail as chief engineers on international
voyages, but only unlimited DDEs are authorized to sail as chief
engineers on international voyages (other than near-coastal), provided
they hold an STCW endorsement as chief engineer.
    Two commenters recommend that the Coast Guard allow credit for QMED
service toward a chief engineer officer endorsement. One commenter
recommends that Sec.  11.506 be revised to allow sea service time as a
QMED to be credited toward an endorsement as chief engineer for
seagoing service with an STCW endorsement as chief engineer officer.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Service using a rating endorsement will
not be accepted to upgrade to an officer endorsement as chief engineer
or second engineer officer.

    One commenter recommends existing DDEs be allowed to advance to
chief engineer with appropriate service.
    As indicated in Figure 11.505, this SNPRM proposes to retain the
current regulations with regard to advancement to Chief Engineer. The
current path allows a progression with appropriate service and testing.
The DDE can act as Chief Engineer within the limitations on the
license/officer endorsement. However, the other `chief engineer'
endorsements are for Limited, MODU or unlimited categories. The Coast
Guard welcomes comments on this new proposal; please be specific as to
where cross-over points should be and what length of service is being
recommended.
    Two commenters recommend revising crossover points to qualify for
officer endorsements for different tonnages, horsepower, and/or
propulsion modes. The commenter believes that in order to provide
crossover points more appropriate to the level of training and
expertise engineers possess and the scope of their work, several paths
should include 10,000 HP.
    The proposed 10,000 HP credentials have been removed. This SNPRM
retains the current engineer officer endorsement structure, as
illustrated in Figure 11.505.
    One commenter asks how a mariner can get an assessment for
maintaining a boiler watch without being employed on a steamship.
    It is possible to demonstrate steam competencies as part of an
approved course or on a simulator. Not all persons are required to hold
steam endorsements because a mariner may sail in any capacity by being
limited to motor or gas turbine vessels only.
    One commenter remarks that certain existing ratings are able to
upgrade with assessment and training, but that the NPRM does not
elaborate on what that training and assessment includes.
    Required training and assessments are specified for each STCW
endorsement in part 11, subpart C and part 12, subpart F of this SNPRM.
This SNPRM also includes tables that indicate which domestic
endorsements are eligible for certain STCW endorsements.
    Four commenters recommend the Coast Guard raise the propulsion
power threshold for first assistant engineers without an STCW
endorsement because Sec.  11.521 provides that first assistant
engineers without an STCW endorsement may serve on seagoing vessels of
less than 1,000 HP. One commenter recommends the Coast Guard raise this
limit to at least 4,000 HP.
    Once a vessel passes the boundary line, STCW regulations apply.
These regulations require engineers on vessels of 750 kW/1,000 HP or
more to hold STCW endorsements. Therefore, the Coast Guard cannot
unilaterally raise this limit to 3,000 kW/4,000 HP. Regulation III/3
does allow for reduced requirements for chief engineers and second
engineer officers on ships powered by main propulsion machinery of
between 750 kW/1,000 HP and 3,000 kW/4,000 HP.
    One commenter points out that Figure 11.505(a) has multiple
inconsistencies with the text describing the route and service from
chief engineer limited oceans and near-coastal to chief engineer, chief
engineer 10,000 HP, and first assistant engineer 10,000 HP.
    In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard retains the current regulations for
domestic officer endorsements and has revised the figure accordingly.
    One commenter asks the Coast Guard to remove management skills from
the list of training topics required at the management level in Sec.
11.511.
    The Coast Guard cannot. Although the list has been removed from
this SNPRM, the Coast Guard has retained the requirement to comply with
the STCW standards of competence and is also proposing to retain the
domestic scheme. In addition, the 2010 amendments to the STCW
Convention include a new competence for ``leadership and managerial
skills'' in Section A-III/2 of the STCW Code.

Deck Rating Endorsements

    Three commenters point out that Sec.  12.420 requires an RFPNW
applicant to show 6 months of service, which can be reduced if the
person has completed an approved course. The commenters note that
courses are difficult to find and expensive to attend.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that courses for RFPNW are difficult to
find and are also costly; therefore we have revised the approach to
implement the STCW Convention requirements. In the case of an RFPNW,
the new approach would allow two paths: (1) a candidate may obtain six
months of service (seagoing, Great Lakes and/or inland service) and
meet the standard of competence through other methods, besides training
(including in-service experience documented by the completion of
assessments); or (2) a candidate may complete approved training that
includes not less than 2 months of approved service.
    Three commenters assert the NPRM is requiring all vessels to carry
able seamen in proposed Sec.  15.403(c).
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The STCW Convention requires that anyone
who is part of a navigational watch must hold an RFPNW endorsement.
Section 15.403(c) explains that if a mariner has duties that include
standing a navigational watch on a seagoing vessel, he or she must hold
the proper endorsement (RFPNW).
    One commenter finds that Sec.  15.840 appears to require able
seaman ratings on vessels that have never had this requirement imposed
before. The commenter feels this requirement conflicts with U.S.
manning and licensing standards.
    The Coast Guard is not changing manning requirements. Any vessel
not required to have able seamen will not be required to have them
under this proposal.
    One commenter requests that the Coast Guard allow for one RFPNW
position to be filled by a specially trained ordinary seaman (OS)
restricted to lookout duties. This will allow the OS to acquire sea
service toward an RFPNW endorsement. The commenter recommends an OS
have a minimum of 180 days of service to become a lookout and minimum
of 365 days to become an AB/RFPNW.
    All members of the navigational watch (including Specially Trained
Ordinary Seamen), must be qualified as RFPNW. In addition, when a
vessel's manning document allows for a Specially Trained Ordinary
Seamen, it is in lieu of and not in addition to the normal complement
of Able Seamen.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the commenter's proposal that the OS
may qualify for an RFPNW with 180 days of service. This is consistent
with the STCW Convention requirements, and an applicant may obtain an
able seaman-special endorsement provided within this SNPRM. One
commenter recommends that the Coast Guard retain the progression path
from entry level to specially trained OS/RFPNW (lookout duties only) to
AB/RFPNW without restriction.
    This SNPRM includes training requirements for RFPNW and for able
seafarer-deck consistent with the STCW Convention provision. Seafarers
serving on board vessels that proceed beyond the boundary line that
serve as lookouts are required to meet the certification requirements
for RFPNW. This SNPRM does not limit the attainment of the endorsement
as RFPNW with no restriction to able seafarer-deck, but rather allows
any mariner who demonstrates proficiency to obtain that endorsement.
Seafarers serving as an able seaman on board vessels that proceed
beyond the boundary line are required to meet the certification
requirements for able seafarer-deck. It is the Coast Guard's view that
these

requirements allow for the progression path from entry level to
specially trained OS, and then to AB, provided the mariner meets the
applicable requirements for the endorsement.
    Eleven commenters note that, although able seaman-Sail is an
existing rating, it is not mentioned in the CFR alongside other AB
ratings, and they recommend that able seaman-sail be included in the
regulations.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has inserted able seaman-sail as well as
able seaman-fishing industry in proposed Sec.  12.401.

Engine Rating Endorsements

    One commenter suggests that endorsements of GMDSS operator and
Electronic Technician should be unlicensed endorsements.
    The endorsement of GMDSS operator and GMDSS maintainer may be
obtained by any officer or rating. The Electronic Technician
endorsement proposed in the NPRM has been removed in favor of two new
STCW endorsements: electro-technical officer and electro-technical
rating.
    One commenter points out that there is no mention of an
``engineman'' as a QMED endorsement.
    This SNPRM proposes to eliminate ``Engineman,'' as a rating
endorsement. The rating endorsement of ``junior engineer'' may be used
to cover the qualifications if that position is continued on some
vessels.

Ratings Forming Part of an Engineering Watch (RFPEW)

    One commenter notes that many vessels less than 200 GRT/500 GT meet
the requirements for the service and assessments for RFPEW, but lack a
qualified assessor to sign off on the control sheets. The commenter
suggests that a mariner who can meet the QMED Fireman/Oiler/Watertender
(FOWT) sea service requirements should be deemed to have met the RFPEW
requirements.
    Sea service requirements for RFPEW (6 months) are the same for
FOWT. The STCW requires an assessment of whether the mariner has
achieved the specified standard of competence. If there is not a
qualified engineer onboard, the only alternative is to attend training
or go to another facility at which they can be assessed. The Coast
Guard cannot mandate that a company put assessors on board a vessel.
    One commenter states the requirement of a licensed engineer aboard
vessels of 750 kW/1,000 HP propulsion power or more would put a burden
on high performance small vessels. The commenter believes adding a
third crew member or training the existing crew members would add an
unnecessary burden.
    This rulemaking does not change the manning requirements for this
type of vessel. Unless an engineer is required by the manning
certificate, there is no requirement for an individual holding an
engineering endorsement.

Basic Safety Training (BST)

    Two commenters want the Coast Guard to require that all engineers
on inspected vessels on both domestic and international voyages receive
basic safety training as well as adequate vocational training.
    The BST requirements of the STCW Convention already apply to a
portion of our domestic fleet by virtue that they trade in near-coastal
voyages. Personnel working non-STCW vessels (including inland vessels)
are required to be familiar with the vessel characteristics, including
fire-fighting and lifesaving equipment as indicated in Sec.  15.405.
Officers and able seamen on inland vessels also must take firefighting
and be qualified as lifeboatmen. We believe the existing requirements
applicable to non-STCW vessels provide an equivalent level of safety to
the requirements of the STCW Convention.
    One commenter asks if crew members on all vessels, including
uninspected passenger vessels, operating beyond the boundary line are
required to complete BST training.
    All applicants seeking an STCW officer endorsement must provide
evidence, with their application, of meeting the standard of competence
for basic safety training as described. However, operators of
uninspected passenger vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(42)(B), are
not subject to this requirement because of their special operating
conditions as small vessels engaged in domestic, near-coastal voyages.
    One commenter notes that small passenger vessels subject to
Subchapter T or K of Title 46 of the CFR, vessels of less than 200 GRT/
500 GT (other than passenger vessels subject to Subchapter H), and
uninspected passenger vessels on domestic near-coastal voyages are
exempt from the BST requirements in Sec.  15.1101(a)(2). He also states
that Sec.  15.1105(c) requires all crewmembers on seagoing vessels to
complete BST training. The commenter recommends that Sec.  15.1105(c)
be amended to exempt those vessels already exempted in Sec.
15.1101(a)(2).
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  15.1105(c) by adding
``except as noted in Sec.  15.1101(a)(2) of this subpart,'' after the
word ``vessel''.

Lifeboatman Requirements

    One commenter writes that mariners would experience difficulty in
complying with the requirement in proposed Sec.  12.630(c)(2) to
participate in 12 rescue boat, liferaft, or other drills involving
lifesaving apparatus, 4 of which include a rescue boat being placed in
the water.
    The Coast Guard has deleted the requirement to participate in
drills from the SNPRM. The lifeboatman requirements are contained in
Sec.  12.409 in this SNPRM.
    Fifteen commenters object to the use of the term ``survivalman''
for those mariners serving on vessels without installed lifeboats.
    The Coast Guard has withdrawn its proposed use of the term
survivalman and substitutes in its place, lifeboatman-limited for the
domestic endorsement. Regarding the STCW endorsement, the Coast Guard
is proposing to use the term proficiency in survival craft and rescue
boats other than lifeboats and fast rescue boats--limited (PSC--
limited), to ensure consistency with the Convention.
    Two commenters request that the Coast Guard lower the minimum
threshold for qualifying tonnage for lifeboatman to 15 GRT.
    The Coast Guard notes that there is presently no minimum qualifying
tonnage for this endorsement.
    One commenter says Sec. Sec.  12.610 and 12.630 permit completion
of an approved program instead of the drills, and that there are no
approved programs for these ratings. The commenter recommends changing
``program'' to ``course'' in both instances and allowing completion of
a course in proficiency in Survival Craft to also be accepted.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the text in Sec.  12.407 to
use the term ``course'' instead of ``program''. One commenter says that
the Coast Guard did not intend to make the survivalman requirement in
Sec.  15.404 apply to every person employed on a vessel and recommends
that the Coast Guard remove the words ``Every person employed'' and
add, in its place, the words ``Every person assigned duties''.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the text in Sec.  15.404.

Flashing Light

    Twenty-two commenters state mariners should not be required to pass
a flashing light examination required in proposed Sec.  11.401(i),
since that method of communication is not used anymore.
    The Coast Guard notes that exhibiting flashing light competence is
still required for STCW deck officer endorsements on vessels in ocean

service of 200 GRT/500 GT or more. However, the Coast Guard proposes,
in this SNPRM, to remove the flashing light examination requirement for
all domestic licenses and for all raises in grade of unlimited tonnage
licenses.
    Seven commenters remark that the requirement in proposed Sec.
11.401(i) that certain officers ``must pass a practical signaling
examination,'' imposes a higher performance standard than required by
the STCW Code, which says only that an officer must demonstrate
competence by ``assessment of evidence from practical instruction.''
The commenters recommend that the evidence be in the form of questions
on the navigation general module of the required examinations.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the proposed recommendation. The
intent of the STCW Code is clear that candidates must demonstrate
competency by practical instruction and/or simulation. In this SNPRM,
we have changed the requirement to completion of an approved course. It
should also be noted that the 2010 amendments to the STCW have lowered
the required knowledge, understanding, and proficiency (KUP), and the
Coast Guard will allow approved course offerers to modify their courses
consistent with the amendments.

Radar Renewals

    One commenter states that the requirement to take a radar observer
recertification course every 5 years is no longer necessary for deck
officers with recent shipboard experience on vessels over 1,600 GRT/
3,000 GT as written in Table 11.480. If it is determined that the U.S.
will continue to require a 5-year radar recertification, the commenter
recommends that training include ARPA to be more in line with today's
actual operating conditions.
    The Coast Guard disagrees that recertification training for radar
observer is no longer valid or necessary. The Coast Guard agrees with
the suggestion that the training be revised to include collision
avoidance functions but does not believe that it is appropriate to
include this recommendation into regulation because not all vessels are
equipped with ARPA. The suggestion will be considered when approving
courses meeting the radar requirements.

Pilots

    One commenter writes that pilot vessels, which sometimes operate
beyond the boundary line in the pursuit of their vessel pilotage
duties, should be exempted from the requirement in Sec. Sec.  15.103(e)
and 15.1101(a)(1) to carry the appropriate STCW endorsement.
    These requests will be handled on a case-by-case basis by the Coast
Guard, in accordance with 46 CFR 6.01.

Vessel Manning

    One commenter says it is unreasonable to expect every crewmember to
be familiar with all of the vessel familiarization items listed in
Sec.  15.405 and suggests adding language to clarify that every
crewmember must become familiar with only the relevant characteristics
of the vessel as they pertain to the crewmember's position.
    The Coast Guard agrees and is proposing to retain the existing text
that provides for the familiarization to be appropriate to the
crewmember's position.
    One commenter asks if the intention of Sec.  15.404 is to increase
manning requirements on the small passenger vessel industry.
    The provisions in Sec.  15.404 are not intended to increase
manning, but to ensure personnel working on board vessels have the
appropriate credential to work on board. Furthermore, they provide the
relationship between domestic and STCW endorsements.
    Two commenters state the proposed revision in Sec.  15.515(b) could
affect the number of crewmembers required to be carried aboard. The
commenter believes that the Coast Guard needs to recognize that there
are numerous reasons why a crew member may be off of the vessel when
passengers are on board, and that the Coast Guard needs to clarify how
the crew can complete their required tasks, as well as being able to
step off the vessel for personal time without violating the COI.
    The Coast Guard has amended Sec.  15.515(b) to indicate that the
master of the vessel may allow reduced crew for limited or special
operating conditions, subject to the approval of the Officer in Charge,
Marine Inspection in whose zone the vessel is operating or on the
vessel's COI.
    One commenter urges the Coast Guard to clarify that implementation
of the STCW requirements is not meant to establish new manning
requirements and to clarify that there is no requirement for vessels
under 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT to carry a chief mate.
    The Coast Guard agrees that implementation of the STCW requirements
is not meant to establish new manning requirements. Therefore, we are
maintaining the definition of ``chief mate'' as it appears in the
existing regulations, rather than the definition proposed in the NPRM.
    One commenter asserts that certain manning requirements in this
revision will supersede the interpretation of NVIC 4-97, which states
that foreign Port State Control officers may look for compliance with
the STCW standards. The commenter notes that prior to this, it was left
up to the Port State Control to enforce standards.
    It is the United States' responsibility to ensure that its
seafarers have met the international standards to which we are
signatory. Whether a Port State Control officer checks a vessel for
compliance is up to the individual Port State.

General Provisions

    Three commenters ask the Coast Guard to retain the existing
regulations in Sec. Sec.  11.407 and 11.516 that specifically mention
that graduation from a marine service academy, a maritime academy, or a
3-year apprentice training program be accepted as qualification for a
domestic third mate or third assistant engineer endorsement.
    The Coast Guard agrees. As this SNPRM separates the requirements
for STCW and domestic officer endorsements, we have retained the
current verbiage.
    One commenter notes that in the event a mariner's TWIC becomes
invalid, his or her credential also becomes invalid.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. There are multiple reasons why a TWIC
may become invalid and/or revoked, including but not limited to,
illegal drug use, medical incapacitation, and felony convictions. A
mariner's due process rights, however, preclude automatic invalidation
of his or her MMC. By law, a formal hearing is required to proceed
against a mariner's credential. In instances where the Coast Guard
learns that a mariner's TWIC has been invalidated, proceedings will
then commence against the mariner's MMC in due course. These
proceedings will take place before an Administrative Law Judge pursuant
to 33 CFR part 20. Because a valid TWIC is typically a condition of
employment and must be produced to gain unescorted access to secure
areas, invalidation of the TWIC will be enough to preclude a mariner
from working onboard vessels. Appeals procedures can be found at 33 CFR
20.1001 through 20.1003 and 49 CFR part 825.

Applications

    One commenter recommends that screening for disorders that are
associated with excessive daytime sleepiness be included as a required
element of the medical examination for

mariners, similar to the medical examination of pilots.
    The Coast Guard provides guidance for the completion of medical
examinations for mariners, which includes medical conditions that may
cause daytime sleepiness. Additionally, the new medical examination
form (CG-719K) provides a place where the medical examiner may note
such diagnosis.
    One commenter notes that proposed Sec.  10.217 makes it appear as
though the Coast Guard intends for applicants to submit their
application packages directly to the NMC without first submitting it to
the RECs.
    The proposed Sec.  10.217, which allows applicants to submit a
package to any REC or any other location designated by the Coast Guard,
will remain unchanged. The Coast Guard will establish a policy offering
guidance about alternative locations where an applicant can submit his
or her application package. The current policy is to send all
applications to an REC.
    One commenter asks if an STCW endorsement goes into continuity when
a mariner replaces his or her domestic endorsement with a Document of
Continuity.
    Domestic endorsements go into continuity, while STCW endorsements
do not. However, by virtue of the STCW endorsement's relationship with
the domestic endorsement, the STCW endorsement will be re-instated with
the domestic endorsement upon application, subject to all other renewal
requirements. The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec.  10.227(g) to
specify that only domestic credentials will be issued for continuity.
    One commenter asserts that the minimum age for issuing a rating or
STCW endorsement should be 15.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Department of Labor has determined
that the maritime industry is especially hazardous and that individuals
under the age of 16 should not be allowed to work in this environment.
However, the Coast Guard may recognize training and experience prior to
age 16 in certain situations and within approved programs.
    Two commenters ask the Coast Guard to explain the provision in
Sec.  11.205(b)(2).
    The provision in Sec.  11.205(b)(2) was moved to Sec.  10.232. In
this provision, the Coast Guard is pointing out that it does not intend
to impose greater requirements or restrictions on naturalized citizens
than it does on U.S.-born citizens. This is existing text.
    One commenter says that Sec.  11.205(f)(2) advises applicants to
take an examination as soon as possible, which seems to be unnecessary
and may not be advisable. The commenter suggests that applicants should
be reminded that applications are only good for a year.
    This specific provision in Sec.  11.205(f)(2) was moved to Sec.
11.201(j)(2). The Coast Guard agrees with the comment and has amended
the text to clarify that the validity of the application period is 1
year.
    Three commenters remark that proposed Sec.  11.205(e)(3) is unclear
and seems to require applicants for 200-ton credentials and towing
vessel mate/master to complete a higher level of medical training.
    The provisions for CPR training in Sec.  11.205(e) were transferred
to Sec.  11.201(i). The proposed text in Sec.  11.205(e)(3) of the NPRM
was deleted from this SNPRM. The proposed requirements in Sec.
11.201(i) state that all applicants for an original officer endorsement
must take at least first-aid and CPR courses, except those specifically
exempted in Sec. Sec.  11.429, 11.456, and 11.467, which include some
masters of not more than 100 GRT and OUPVs. All applicants for officer
endorsements above 100 GRT on oceans routes must comply with this
provision.

Course Approvals

    Thirteen commenters disagree with the proposed requirement for
training institutions to offer approved training courses every 12
months or lose approval for that course.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the proposal in this SNPRM.
    Six commenters disagree with the proposed requirement that company
owners, as well as students, fill out and submit questionnaires upon
employees' completion of approved training.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the proposal in this SNPRM.
    Five commenters disagree with the proposed requirement that a
course approval expires when there is a change in the ``management'' of
the training provider.
    The Coast Guard agrees and proposes to retain the current
requirement that a course approval expires when there is an ownership
change in the training institution.
    Thirteen commenters object to the proposed requirement that each
training institution submit an annual report for each course. The
commenters feel this requirement should be limited to educational and/
or training institutions with individually approved courses only, and
not to educational and/or training institutions with approved programs
containing multiple courses which are already subject to the U.S. Coast
Guard's approval process, independent and internal audits under a QSS.
    The Coast Guard agrees. This proposed requirement was not intended
to apply to individual courses within approved training programs, which
typically have several approved courses embedded in them. In this case,
one annual report would cover all of the embedded courses within a
training program.
    One commenter disagrees with proposed Sec.  10.302(b)(5)(i), which
requires that instructors at training institutions have either recent
experience or training in effective instructional techniques (within
the past 5 years).
    The Coast Guard disagrees. If an instructor does not teach within 5
years, he or she risks losing proficiency. As such, Sec.
10.302(b)(5)(i) will remain unchanged.
    Three commenters disagree with proposed Sec.  10.303(a)(4), which
states that schools must ``require each student to successfully
demonstrate practical skills appropriate to the course material and
equal to the endorsement for which the course is required.'' The
commenters feel that this is the responsibility of the Coast Guard.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The course approval will determine and
state the authority and scope of the requirements, which will become
the responsibility of the training institution. Some courses are
required to include practical demonstration of skills as part of the
approval.
    One commenter writes Sec.  10.303(a)(7)(i) seems out of place.
There is a need for clarification on this topic to make it both fair
and workable.
    The Coast Guard deleted the text for Sec.  10.303(a)(7)(i) from
this SNPRM.
    One commenter asks what is meant by ``Follow-up activities'' as
written in Sec.  10.302(b)(7)(ii)(E).
    The Coast Guard has amended the text to clarify the statement to
indicate that the lesson plans should include homework, reading
assignments, and any other activity to be performed after the lesson
has been presented. This requirement is now found in Sec.
10.402(b)(7)(ii)(E).
    One commenter asks why visual aids must be ``modern'' as written in
Sec.  10.303.
    The Coast Guard notes that this requirement currently exists.
Nonetheless, in this SNPRM the Coast Guard proposes to omit the word
``modern.''
    Two commenters request clarification for the phrase ``deviating
from course-

approved curricula'' as written in Sec.  10.302(g)(2)(ii).
    The Coast Guard believes the proposed rule is sufficiently clear
and does not need revision. When a training institution submits a
course approval package, part of that package is a course curriculum,
which explains how the course will be presented (instructors, printed
material, use of simulators, examinations, etc.). Once the course has
been approved by the Coast Guard, training institutions may not deviate
from, or make any changes to, the curriculum without submitting a
request for a change to the course approval.
    One commenter recommends the Coast Guard amend the approved
curriculum reporting requirement (in Sec.  10.303 of the NPRM) that
training institutions provide an annual report to the NMC to include a
summary for each of the provider's approved courses as it may likely
add hardship to small entity operations.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the requirement for training
institutions to provide an annual report to the NMC to include a
summary for each of the provider's approved courses. The general
standards requirements for schools with approved courses and programs
are now found in Sec.  10.403 in this SNPRM.
    One commenter asks the Coast Guard to consider computer-based
distance learning training for theory portions of courses and for
courses not requiring an instructor.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has added a new Sec.  10.412 regarding
distance and e-learning.
    Six commenters note that the proposed regulation in Sec.
10.303(a)(5) would require each school with an approved course to
maintain physical or electronic records for at least 5 years after the
end of each student's enrollment. The commenters request that this
provision be kept at the current 1-year requirement.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Since all parties to the STCW Convention
may, at any time, request documentary proof of a mariner's
qualifications and training, documentary evidence of such training and
qualifications must be retained for the life of the mariner's
credential (5 years). Therefore, the Coast Guard is retaining this
proposed requirement.
    One commenter says Sec.  10.303(a)(5) needs to be clarified and
asks what part of the student record that must actually be maintained.
    The Coast Guard disagrees and the proposed regulations in 46 CFR
10.403(a)(6) clearly state what is required to be maintained in a
student record.
    One commenter is concerned that the wording of the proposed Sec.
11.401(j) could impact a mariner with current credentials who has been
teaching Coast Guard-approved courses at a training institution when
seeking renewal or upgrade to that credential.
    The Coast Guard partially agrees. The SNPRM includes an existing
provision in Sec.  10.232(e) that allows the Coast Guard to accept
evidence of employment in a position closely related to the operation,
construction, or repair of vessels (either deck or engineer, as
appropriate) as meeting the sea service requirements for renewal under
Sec.  10.227(e)(1)(iv). This service may be creditable for service for
raise of grade of an engineer or deck officer endorsement; however, it
may not be used for obtaining an original STCW management-level
endorsement.
    One commenter suggests that in Sec.  10.227, the phrase ``position
closely related to the operation * * *'' is being inconsistently
applied to applicants for renewal who are instructors, examiners, port
engineers, and port captains.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. We have a long history of accepting such
closely related service and have made all efforts to do so in a
consistent fashion. If the commenter has specific examples of
inconsistency, he or she may send those examples to the Office of
Vessel Activities (CG-543) and the Coast Guard will take appropriate
action.
    Five commenters remark there is a need for greater specificity on
the qualification requirements for instructors in Coast Guard-approved
courses.
    The Coast Guard agrees that this information is beneficial, but
also feels this detail is better provided by a Navigation and Vessel
Inspection Circular (NVIC) or similar guidance document, which we plan
on issuing after publication of a Final Rule.
    One commenter states instructors with expired credentials or
military personnel with the appropriate experience should be allowed to
act as instructors of approved training courses or programs.
    Acceptance of instructors is conducted on a case-by-case basis and
considers the whole of the prospective instructor's experience. Lack of
a current merchant mariner credential will not necessarily disqualify a
candidate.
    Two commenters note that proposed Sec.  12.630(d) offers the
alternative for an applicant to complete an approved training program.
Because of differing interpretations of this phrase, the commenters
believe it would be better to use the words ``approved training'' as in
Sec.  11.407(a)(2).
    The Coast Guard disagrees. An ``approved training program'' is more
comprehensive and includes sea service training and assessment, while
``approved training'' may only include a single course and/or
assessment.
    One commenter raises concerns with the use of the terms ``Coast
Guard accepted'' and ``Coast Guard approved'' in regards to training
and recommends removing all reference to ``approved training.''
    The Coast Guard is cognizant that the terms may cause confusion,
but disagrees with eliminating ``approved training.'' In this SNPRM, we
have clarified the definitions. In general, ``Coast Guard approved''
refers to training that is approved by the Coast Guard through the
process outlined in regulation. ``Coast Guard accepted'' refers to
training that is approved by and/or provided by other entities and do
not go through the Coast Guard approval process. Currently, the only
Coast Guard-accepted training is first aid, CPR, fishing vessel safety
instructor, and VSO.

Examinations

    Two commenters express concern over the Coast Guard substituting a
Coast Guard-prepared examination for one used in an approved course,
unless the course is approved to substitute for a Coast Guard
examination for a merchant mariner credential.
    The Coast Guard agrees. It was our intent to limit this provision
to courses approved to substitute for a Coast Guard exam, and we have
revised the wording of this requirement to make this more apparent.
    Three commenters suggest that the standard for approval of a course
to substitute for the Coast Guard-administered examination for an
officer or rating endorsement be changed to require only that the
course's exam be equivalent to that given by the Coast Guard.
    The Coast Guard disagrees and does not propose to amend this
requirement from its present form.
    One commenter suggests removing the word ``written'' from Sec.
10.303(a)(3). The commenter says some training institutions are
providing online examinations, which are not written examinations and
that there may be a situation where the evaluation is based on a
simulator examination.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the intent of the comment to provide
flexibility for the various means for examination (written or
electronic) and has amended the text to reflect this

change. The requirement was moved to Sec.  10.403(a)(4).
    One commenter states Sec.  11.430(d), which requires international
rule outside the COLREGS line but within the boundary, will be an
administrative nightmare and asks how the NMC reviewer would know if
the international rules exam was taken by someone who took an inland/
Great Lakes course.
    The Coast Guard notes that this requirement has existed for many
years and is found in the current Sec.  11.430. If the course approval
states that it covers Great Lakes and inland waters and that it
includes both inland and international rules of the road examination
questions, no COLREGS limitation is placed on the credential. If an
applicant tests at an REC, the Coast Guard assigns the module that
covers both inland and international waters. If the mariner states he
or she wants only an inland rules examination, the Coast Guard gives
the applicant an inland rules module, and a COLREGS limitation is
placed on the MMC.

Quality Standard System (QSS)

    Seven commenters express confusion and disagreement with their
interpretation that the Coast Guard is removing itself as one of the
QSS monitors for Coast Guard-approved courses and training programs.
The commenters believe that this will require training institutions to
spend large amounts of money for an independent organization to help
them develop and monitor a QSS for their organizations.
    It was not the intent of the Coast Guard to remove itself from the
monitoring of courses. The Coast Guard has amended the text in 46 CFR
part 10, subpart D by providing two options. The first option is a
Coast Guard-approved course for which the Coast Guard also provides the
QSS monitoring. The second option is using a Coast Guard-accepted QSS
organization that approves and monitors a course. Under the second
option, the Coast Guard monitors the Coast Guard-accepted QSS
organization. The Coast Guard will continue to perform oversight of all
approved courses and training programs.
    Five commenters recommend that the proposed regulations in
Sec. Sec.  10.308 and 10.303 permit the maritime academies to
demonstrate compliance with the QSS provisions in Regulation 1/8 of the
STCW Convention and those items specifically listed in Sec.
10.303(b)(1)(i)(x) through existing recognized academic accreditation,
where accredited degree programs and license/STCW courses which make up
an approved program are linked.
    The Coast Guard partially agrees with the comment. The STCW
Convention requires that the training is monitored by a QSS, however
the Convention also allows for the acceptance of a QSS as part of an
accreditation body provided it covers the Convention training
requirements. The Coast Guard recognizes that academic accreditation
bodies address some (not all) of the STCW Convention requirements and
have amended the text to allow acceptance of the accreditation
documentation for one or more of the QSS required items.
    One commenter suggests that the federal and state maritime
academies be subject to the same QSS requirements and instructor
qualification standards as other schools offering Coast Guard-approved
courses.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The proposed QSS requirements will
apply to all organizations with Coast Guard-approved courses or
programs, including the maritime academies. However, the Coast Guard
notes that specific application of these requirements will vary as the
maritime academies are also regulated by the Maritime Administration in
46 CFR part 310.
    One commenter requests that the Coast Guard remove the requirement
in proposed Sec.  10.303(a)(8) for an annual internal audit of each
individual approved course as this requirement is overly burdensome. If
this requirement cannot be removed, the commenter believes that
training facilities that maintain full ISO 9001 certification by a USCG
recognized QSS organization should be exempt from this requirement.
    The Coast Guard partially agrees. Section 10.303(a)(8) of the NPRM
proposed that a training institution conduct an internal audit midway
through the term of the course's approval and submitted to the NMC.
Course approvals are typically good for 5 years, so the midway point is
at two-and-a-half years. The Coast Guard is using accepted quality
practices that require companies to implement internal auditing
functions.
    If, as part of its ISO certification, a training institution is
required to conduct an annual internal audit, that same documentation
can be utilized for the required QSS audit. Also, the school is only
required to conduct a single internal audit of the QSS regardless of
how many individually approved courses the institution offers.
    Seven commenters request that the Coast Guard delete the
requirement in proposed Sec.  10.303(a)(10) for a QSS.
    A QSS is required by the STCW and will remain a requirement for
training courses required to obtain an STCW endorsement. Schools that
do not offer STCW courses will not be required to have a QSS.
    One commenter notes that Sec.  10.303(b)(1)(vii) states that the
QSS must define the provider's responsibility for ``enabling mariner
completion of Coast Guard applications * * *.'' The commenter further
states that a school's primary purpose is to provide training, rather
than to deal with application paperwork. Although training institutions
may provide assistance with application preparation, that service is an
ancillary feature and, as such, is not an appropriate component to be
addressed by a rulemaking. The commenter recommends that this
requirement be deleted from the proposed regulations.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has deleted that language from Sec.
10.403.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard delete Sec.
10.303(b)(1)(vii), which requires that course providers assist students
in the preparation of their Coast Guard MMC applications.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has deleted that language from Sec.
10.303(b).

Training Record Book (TRB)

    Three commenters state the additional Training Record Book (TRB)
entries proposed in Sec.  10.304 exceed the current requirements given
the one-time use of the TRB for original license application only. The
commenters believe requiring dual signatures in the TRB does nothing to
enhance safety and is an enormous documentation burden with no added
value.
    The Coast Guard partially agrees. We agree that the TRBs are made
to be used for onboard training and assessment as part of a training
program. Therefore, the requirements have been amended to reflect that.
The Coast Guard disagrees that the signatures do not add any value. We
believe that the signatures are necessary to establish when and to whom
the prospective officer has demonstrated that he or she has achieved
the standard of competence. This requirement is consistent with Section
B-II/1, paragraph 9 of the STCW Convention.

Designated Examiner (DE)/Qualified Assessor (QA)

    Six commenters disagree with the proposed definition of designated
examiner. The commenters believe that the DE is not qualified to
evaluate

whether an applicant has achieved the level of competence required to
hold an endorsement on an MMC.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has revised its definition for
designated examiner to make it specific to towing vessels and removed
references for determining competence. We have further added a
definition for qualified assessor for those individuals conducting STCW
assessments and the assessor's skills and/or training would be focused
on conducting assessments instead of training.
    Three commenters express concern over the requirement that a
designated examiner must have experience and/or training in assessment
techniques and feel that this would impose an additional burden on
mariners who conduct STCW assessments that will negatively impact
mariners' willingness to serve assessors.
    The commenters appear to have confused a qualified assessor, who
witnesses a demonstration of skill for STCW purposes, with a designated
examiner, who assesses the competence of candidates for towing vessel
licenses and who is required to be approved by the Coast Guard. The
requirement for experience and/or training in assessment techniques was
not changed in the NPRM or this SNPRM. The proposed amendments to this
definition were limited to the use of the term strictly with regard to
the towing vessel TOAR.
    One commenter notes a disparity between Sec.  10.305(a)(3), which
allows a DE to assess anyone seeking an endorsement lesser than or
equal to the endorsement the DE possesses, and Policy Letter 14-02,
which requires a RFPNW be assessed by an unlimited second mate or
master. The commenter recommends that the standard stated in the NPRM
be followed immediately, and into the future.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The provisions for DE training in Sec.
10.305 were transferred to Sec.  10.405. As previously noted, a
``designated examiner'' differs from a ``qualified assessor,'' and the
proposed Sec.  10.405(a)(3) describes the qualifications of a
designated examiner, it does not specify what assessments they can
conduct.
    Four commenters express concern that the proposed rule would impose
an additional burden on mariners who conduct STCW assessments that will
negatively impact their willingness to serve as assessors.
    A qualified assessor witnesses a demonstration of skill for STCW,
while a designated examiner assesses the competence of candidates for
towing vessel licenses that is required to be approved by the Coast
Guard. Also, as used in the proposed rule at Sec.  10.405(a), ``must
have * * *'' refers to the requirements to qualify for Coast Guard
approval as a designated examiner; it does not impose a burden for the
designated examiner or qualified assessor to carry documentation of the
experience.

Subjects for Deck and Engine Officer Endorsements

    One commenter recommends that the format of proposed Table 11.901-2
(Deck), Tables 11.950-1 and 2 (Engineer) and Table 12.516(B) (Ratings)
be harmonized and amended to more clearly identify the degree of
expertise required at different levels.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has harmonized the tables.

Towing

    Two commenters question the training schedule to receive an STCW
endorsement, saying it is overly burdensome to the marine assistance
operators. The commenters suggest that if the industry cannot be
exempt, a shortened program designed for their needs is necessary to
alleviate this burden.
    Assistance towing vessels operating within the jurisdictional
waters of the United States will not be required to undergo additional
training and assessment beyond what is already required for a domestic
endorsement. Those vessels operating beyond the boundary line must meet
the STCW requirements.
    Three commenters point out that proposed Sec.  10.304(f)(5) states
that a TOAR must have a space for an instructor or officer to document
that the applicant has received the training needed to perform the task
or skills. The commenters believe the TOARs posted by the Coast Guard
as part of NVIC 4-01 on towing endorsements do not have space for
documenting this training, even though that requirement appears in the
current rules. The commenters recommend that the requirement for
documentation of training be dropped from this section.
    The Coast Guard is taking necessary steps to revise the NVIC to
include a space for the designated examiner's signature. However, the
Coast Guard still believes there is value in documenting that an
individual has determined that an applicant has achieved the level of
proficiency required to hold a towing vessel endorsement.

Tankerman

    One commenter remarks that the proposed requirement to not allow
sea service granted for attendance at a Coast Guard-approved course to
meet requirements for sea service recency for renewal of a tankerman
endorsement conflicts with renewal requirements in Sec.  13.120.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The regulations concerning renewal of a
tankerman endorsement specifically allow completion of a Coast Guard-
approved course as an alternative to recent sea service on tank vessels
for renewal of a tankerman endorsement.
    Three commenters ask that the proposed rule be revised to retain
the ability for a mariner holding an endorsement as tankerman-PIC
(barge) to qualify for an STCW endorsement.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has revised the proposed rule to allow
mariners who hold a tankerman-PIC (barge) endorsement to qualify for a
corresponding STCW endorsement. The STCW endorsement will be restricted
to ``non-self propelled vessels.''

Offshore Supply Vessels (OSVs)

    One commenter notes there needs to be a clearly defined pathway out
of the OSV licensing structure to the non-trade restricted licenses.
    The Coast Guard agrees and will issue guidance to describe the
difference in required competence between OSV credentials and non-trade
restricted credentials.
    Six commenters note that the NPRM proposes that applicants for OSV
officer endorsements on seagoing vessels must complete a Coast Guard
approved program of training, assessment, and sea service that meets
the requirements of the STCW regulations. The commenters recommend that
the final OSV credential rules retain the more flexible language to
insure the continuity of an alternate qualifying method for vessels of
limited tonnage on domestic voyages.
    The Coast Guard has revised the proposed requirements to allow for
the use of the various methods for meeting the STCW standard of
competence for both STCW and domestic endorsements.
    One commenter states application of the STCW to mariners serving on
vessels of less than 200 GRT/500 GT in the OSV industry should be held
to the same standard as the deep sea industry.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and these regulations ensure that mariners
in all near-coastal and ocean industries, including the OSV industry,
will comply with the STCW Convention.

MODUs

    One commenter points out that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Regulation and Enforcement no longer approves courses, specifically the
blowout prevention and well control training program, and recommends
that the rulemaking be revised to reflect this change in the
regulations.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has made the change.
    Two commenters feel that the Coast Guard is issuing credentials for
mariners on MODUs, such as chief engineer MODU, assistant engineer
MODU, and able-bodied seaman MODU, but that the Coast Guard fails to
include them in the appropriate portions of the CFR, instead listing
them in an obscure volume of the Marine Safety Manual, which is a
guidance publication.
    Some of the requirements for MODU endorsements are already
contained in the regulations in the previous Sec.  10.540 series for
engineer officers and in the previous Sec.  10.470 series for deck
officers. They now appear in Sec. Sec.  11.540-11.544 for engineer
officers and in Sec. Sec.  11.468-11.474 for deck officers. The Coast
Guard has proposed in the regulations those endorsements which we have
statutory authority to issue.

Small Passenger Vessels

    One commenter asks the Coast Guard to exempt small passenger
vessels subject to subchapter T or K of Title 46, CFR from having to
comply with subpart J.
    The Coast Guard partially agrees. The STCW Convention requires that
small passenger vessels on seagoing voyages comply with the STCW
Convention and Code. The Coast Guard maintains that individuals serving
on such vessels on domestic voyages are in substantive compliance with
STCW and will not have further obligations under this rule. However,
those same individuals, when operating in the waters of another nation,
must meet the STCW Convention requirements.

Economic Comments--Training Requirements

    Nine commenters express concern about costs for STCW training
requirements that are absorbed not by mariners, but their employers and
state that companies will have a direct and significant impact from the
proposed requirements because, to a large extent, companies pay for the
training their employees will obtain under collective bargaining
agreements where contributions are made to a pooled training fund.
    The NPRM does not directly require companies or maritime employers
to pay for the proposed training requirements for affected mariners.
However, the Coast Guard acknowledges that some companies employing
mariners might be indirectly impacted in the future. The Coast Guard
understands there are companies that have made the business decision to
help pay for mariner training. In recognition of this possibility,
Coast Guard has modified the analysis of impacts on small entities in
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to include a sensitivity
analysis showing the impact of additional training costs on small
entities. In addition, under the SNPRM, the Coast Guard would accept
various methods for demonstrating competence that would reduce the
costs of training requirements proposed in the November 17, 2009 NPRM,
a significant cost relief to companies or maritime employers. Please
see the discussion under ``Methods for demonstrating competence'' for
additional details.
    Twelve commenters suggest that proposed training requirements may
create or exacerbate shortages of qualified mariners due to excessively
high personal and financial costs imposed on mariners, and present
challenges to owners and operators in manning vessels due to higher
compensation requirements for a shrinking pool of qualified mariners.
    The Coast Guard is cognizant that additional training requirements
can have an impact on the mariner pool available to man the vessels.
The Coast Guard does not believe that the proposed training
requirements in this SNPRM will create or exacerbate shortages of
qualified mariners. In response to public comments received after the
publication of the November 17, 2009 NPRM, the SNPRM would permit the
Coast Guard to accept various methods for demonstrating competence,
such as on the job training. These methods would significantly reduce
the costs of training requirements proposed in the NPRM. Furthermore,
the Coast Guard would allow for the preservation of the ``hawsepipe''
program and foster career paths that were not previously available. The
Coast Guard would also grant sea service towards STCW endorsements and
for domestic endorsements of unlimited tonnage when those mariners
provide proof of service on the Great Lakes or inland waters. Finally,
the Coast Guard proposes to remove the requirement proposed in the
November 17, 2009 NPRM for an OICEW or DDE candidate to complete
approved education and training of at least 30 months.

Economic Comments--QSS Requirements

    Four commenters state that the NPRM requires training schools to
use a non-governmental entity QSS organization or employ professional
outside consultants. They add that the costs of using a third-party
organization or consultants should be included in the regulatory
analysis. Further, one commenter says that the magnitude of these costs
may break the budgets of many mariners and their employers.
    The Coast Guard included a range of costs to develop a QSS program
for an entire organization (not for individual courses) of $4,320 to
$12,240. This range is sufficiently broad to include the possibility
that a training provider hires a professional outside consultant, uses
a non-governmental entity QSS organization, or develops its own QSS
using its internal human resources at lower costs.

Economic Comments--Small Entities

    Six commenters express concern about the cost impact of proposed
STCW training requirements on small entities that would not be able to
pay for their mariners' training or compensate them with higher wages
they may request after obtaining additional training.
    The Coast Guard concurs that small entities may be impacted by the
training requirements and has revised the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to assess the impact of training costs on small entities.
However, as mentioned in the previous responses, the alternative
methods for demonstrating competence proposed by the Coast Guard in
this SNPRM would significantly reduce the cost impact of the training
requirements.

Response to Comments From MERPAC

    Below, the Coast Guard responds to comments received from the
MERPAC. Several of MERPAC's comments noted non-substantive, editorial
errors in the NPRM. The Coast Guard has incorporated these comments
where appropriate, without further discussion.
    MERPAC recommends that this rulemaking be merged to include the
results of the comprehensive review adopting the 2010 amendments to the
STCW Convention and STCW Code, which was concluded by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) in June 2010.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has decided to publish this SNPRM, which
describes proposed changes from the NPRM published on November 17,
2009, and includes the new proposed regulations which address the IMO
2010

amendments to the STCW Convention and Code.
    MERPAC believes sea service should be accepted based on the
applicability to the credential being sought rather than for a
geographical area. For example, service on a large vessel on the Great
Lakes should be deemed equivalent to service on a large vessel on the
open ocean.
    The Coast Guard agrees and proposes to grant sea service for STCW
endorsements as follows: Great Lakes: day-for-day; and inland waters: 2
days of inland service equals 1 day of ocean service. The reason for
the difference in service credit is based on the fact that Great Lakes
service most closely resembles the length, breadth, equipment, and
operation of ocean service.
    MERPAC recommends that the medical certificate described in the
2010 amendments should only apply to those required to hold an STCW
endorsement, which are valid for 2 years.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has included the medical certificate in
Sec.  10.301. It will be valid for a 2-year period for those mariners
to which STCW applies and for a 5-year period for all other mariners.
The sole exception to this is pilots, and their medical certificates
will be valid for a 1-year period per the existing requirement.
Mariners will need a valid medical certificate to apply for a
credential.
    MERPAC recommends that all methods for demonstrating competence
listed in column three of the tables in Part A of the STCW Code should
be accepted, not just training.
    The Coast Guard agrees and proposes to amend the requirements in
parts 11, 12, and 13 to accept different methods for demonstrating
competence in accordance with the STCW competency tables, as
appropriate for each competence. This will allow the preservation of
the ``hawsepipe'' path and retain existing career paths.
    MERPAC believes the Coast Guard needs to ensure that those
implementing these regulations be involved in the process to make sure
the new regulations can be implemented.
    The Coast Guard agrees; representatives from the National Maritime
Center and the Office of Vessel Activities, both of which will carry
responsibility for implementing these proposed regulations, have been
closely involved in the development of the implementation process for
this rulemaking.
    MERPAC recommends that the amended STCW Code be used as the base
language for the new regulations and amended as needed to fit U.S.
needs.
    The Coast Guard partially agrees. The Coast Guard has used STCW
language for STCW endorsement requirements but has retained the current
language for domestic requirements.
    MERPAC recommends that the following changes be made to the
definitions section of this rulemaking:
    In the definition of ``assistance towing'', MERPAC feels the
addition of ``for hire'' is not clarifying as intended and should be
deleted.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and the definition has been revised.
    Regarding the definition of ``chief mate'', MERPAC expresses
concern regarding the two-watch system. MERPAC feels that the language
is too specific to large vessels with multiple mates and that many
smaller vessels do not actually carry a chief mate, which causes myriad
of problems, including truncated career paths. MERPAC recommends
removing the new language.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and is retaining the existing definition.
    MERPAC suggests that the Coast Guard add ``competent'' to the list
of definitions.
    The Coast Guard disagrees and believes that the definition of
``competent'' alone would be redundant, given that we define
``competent person''.
    Regarding the definition of ``competent person'', MERPAC believes
all definitions should be spelled out in the CFR part in which the term
is used, not referenced to another section.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed this definition and included
the relevant information in part 13.
    Regarding the definition of ``day'', MERPAC suggests that the
policy of issuing 1\1/2\-day credit for a 12-hour work day should be
extended to all mariners.
    The Coast Guard disagrees and sees no reason to revise the
definition published in the NPRM, as it already allows for this credit,
if appropriate.
    MERPAC feels the definition of ``designated examiner'' should state
``observed demonstration of proficiency and other assessments required
for MMC's'', and that the Coast Guard should strike the words
``training or'' and retain the words ``of assessment''.
    The term ``designated examiner'' (DE) has been revised and now
refers only to the person assessing proficiency aboard towing vessels
in a TOAR. The Coast Guard has developed a new term and definition,
``qualified assessor'' (QA), for assessment of practical demonstration
of proficiency on other vessels. The Coast Guard disagrees with the
removal of the words ``training or'' because DEs and QAs often first
act as teachers before acting as assessors of a candidate's practical
demonstrations.
    MERPAC feels that the definition of ``domestic voyage'' does not
allow for voyages from one United States port to another that enter
Canadian/Mexican waters. MERPAC believes Great Lakes voyages need to be
included here as well.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the comment. The definition of
``domestic voyage'' is consistent with the application of the STCW
near-coastal provisions, which requires that vessels operating in
another country's waters meet the STCW requirements. Furthermore, the
STCW Convention does not apply to vessels operating in the Great Lakes;
therefore, mariners operating in these waters can use the U.S. domestic
credential specifically created for this area. It is unnecessary to
include Great Lakes voyages in the definition, as this is already a
route established on credentials.
    MERPAC believes the definitions of ``dual mode/ATB'' and ``dual
mode/ITB'' do not add clarification about which type of vessel is
intended, and suggests that the Coast Guard use industry verbiage.
    The Coast Guard agrees, but did not revise the definitions. The
Coast Guard is seeking comments on this issue, to include specific
suggestions of the proper definitions to be included in the definition.
    In the definition of ``first assistant engineer'', MERPAC suggests
deleting second engineer officer. MERPAC feels that the effort to
harmonize domestic and international terminology and standards is only
causing more confusion.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has made only minor changes to the
definition currently in the regulations. The proposed definition for
``first assistant engineer'' is as follows: ``First assistant
engineer'' means the engineer officer next in rank to the chief
engineer and upon whom the responsibility for the mechanical propulsion
and the operation of maintenance of the mechanical and electrical
installations of the vessel will fall in the event of the incapacity of
the chief engineer.'' This would change ``next in seniority,'' as used
in the existing definition, to ``next in rank.'' It would also add
responsibility for ``the operation of maintenance of the mechanical and
electrical installations of the vessel.''
    MERPAC believes the definitions of ``horsepower'' and ``propulsion
power'' should state that the manufacturer's

rating of the engine refers to the continuous-rated output.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has revised the definition.
    MERPAC feels that the Coast Guard has not specified when a
credential is ``valid'' or ``invalid''.
    The Coast Guard term ``invalid credential'' is clearly defined in
existing text within Sec.  10.107.
    MERPAC believes that the term ``lifeboatman'' should be deleted and
that the term ``survival craft operator'' would be more appropriate.
MERPAC believes two levels of ``survival craft operator'' should be
created for all survival craft or limited to those vessels without
lifeboats.
    The term lifeboatman must be retained because it is mandated in the
law at 46 U.S.C. 7316. The Coast Guard is proposing the following
domestic endorsements: Lifeboatman; and lifeboatman-limited. The Coast
Guard is also proposing two STCW endorsements: Proficiency in survival
craft and rescue boats other than fast rescue boats (PSC); and
Proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats other than lifeboats and
fast rescue boats--limited (PSC--limited).
    MERPAC feels that since the term ``lower level'' is only used to
assess fees, the Coast Guard should either delete this term or find a
more appropriate, less demeaning term.
    The terms ``upper level'' and ``lower level'' were used in Sec.
10.219. The Coast Guard has replaced the term ``upper level'' with the
term ``unlimited'' (which means credentials authorizing service on
vessels of any gross tons/unlimited tonnage or unlimited propulsion
power). The Coast Guard has also replaced the term ``lower level'' with
the term ``limited'' (which means credentials authorizing service on
vessels of less than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT).
    MERPAC believes the term ``management level'' means ``a level of
responsibility within STCW'' and should state as much.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has revised the definition consistent
with this recommendation.
    Regarding the term ``near-coastal'', MERPAC suggests the Coast
Guard add the words ``and its possessions'' after the words ``waters
off the United States.''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has revised the definition.
    MERPAC believes the definition of ``operational level'' should say
``vessel'' not ``ship'' to be inclusive of all vessels affected by
STCW. MERPAC feels the Coast Guard should be consistent throughout the
document, removing other references to ``ship''.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed references to the term
``ship''.
    Regarding the definition for ``orally assisted examination'',
MERPAC believes that only Coast Guard personnel at an REC, approved and
trained to administer these tests, should provide an oral exam. MERPAC
does not believe the language ``by Coast Guard examiner'' captures the
intent and that it needs to assure that this cannot be interpreted to
include ``Coast Guard-approved examiner''.
    The Coast Guard agrees that special training is needed to properly
administer an oral examination, but does not think it necessary to make
the suggested revision, as the phrase, ``Coast Guard,'' is not the same
as saying ``Coast Guard-approved''.
    In the definition for ``qualified rating'', MERPAC feels that
``lifeboatman'' should be noted as an endorsement and should be removed
from the definition.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has revised the definition.
    MERPAC feels that the second sentence in the definition of ``QSS''
should be removed.
    The Coast Guard modified the definition as follows: ``QSS means a
set of policies, procedures, processes and data required to establish
and fulfill the organization's objectives.''
    MERPAC suggests revising the definition of ``rest'' by removing the
language regarding administrative tasks.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The language regarding administrative
tasks clarifies the definition. This is an existing definition that was
transferred from part 15.
    MERPAC suggests harmonizing the definition of ``seagoing service''
with the definition in the STCW Convention.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has adopted the STCW definition of
seagoing service.
    MERPAC believes the Coast Guard should add the words ``on file at
the Coast Guard'' into the definition of ``senior company official''.
    The Coast Guard disagrees and has removed this language as
signatures are no longer kept on file at the Coast Guard.
    MERPAC suggests breaking the tables of exam topics into STCW versus
applicable to all, or somehow designate with an asterisk to eliminate
confusion. MERPAC also suggests that the Coast Guard review the
contents for true harmonization with the STCW concepts of operational
and management levels.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part and has conducted a review of
examination topics to ensure they are up to date and reflect both
domestic and STCW requirements at both operational and management
levels.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delete the word ``ratings''
in Sec.  10.109(b) that are endorsements. For example, a lifeboatman is
not a person and is not a rating; it is an endorsement applied to a
credential held by a person.
    The term ``rating'' in Sec.  10.109 is used to identify a type of
endorsement. Every position listed in Sec.  10.109(b) can be
independently held; therefore they are endorsements.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard separate the domestic
endorsements from the STCW endorsements.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has clearly separated the two
endorsement schemes to ease the reading of the requirements.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard amend Sec.  10.219(d)(3) to
say that cash is no longer accepted, but checks, certified checks, and
money orders are accepted.
    The Coast Guard agrees that cash payments should not be accepted,
but disagrees that checks, certified checks, and money orders should be
acceptable methods of payment. Eliminating payment by those means
reduces costs and administrative burden, including audit requirements
and the necessity for specially trained personnel to handle these types
of transactions. Additionally, movement to all-electronic records and
payment systems is expected to produce significant efficiency
improvements and cost reductions.
    MERPAC recommends that in Sec.  10.225(b)(2), the Coast Guard
should delete the requirement that applicants provide proof that they
have applied for a TWIC within the past 30 days. Proof of holding/
applying for a TWIC should be sufficient. MERPAC believes it is not the
mariner's fault if the TSA takes longer than 30 days to provide
mariners with the document.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The language to hold a valid TWIC is
necessary for mariners who may apply for a change in their existing
credential. These mariners are already TWIC holders.
    MERPAC recommends that, in Sec.  10.225(b)(7), the Coast Guard
retain the previous language of ``Coast Guard-approved form'' when an
applicant submits an MMC application. MERPAC believes this will allow
mariners to submit other forms as appropriate.
    The Coast Guard disagrees, and believes that the specific Coast
Guard form, which is the only form accepted

by the Coast Guard, should be specified in lieu of the more general
verbiage of the current regulation.
    MERPAC recommends that, in Sec.  10.227(e)(1)(iv), the Coast Guard
add elaborating language to the phrase ``position closely related to
the operation * * *'' for applicants to provide proof of meeting
professional requirements for MMC renewals, as the current language is
insufficient. MERPAC expresses concern that instructors/examiners as
well as port captains/port engineers may not be approved as providing
``closely related service''.
    The Coast Guard disagrees and feels that the language is adequate
as proposed. Individual circumstances will be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard clarify Sec.  10.227(g) with
regard to Documents of Continuity. Specifically, MERPAC wants to know
which document/endorsement goes into continuity. MERPAC believes that
the license is in continuity but the STCW certificate/endorsement goes
away completely and that domestic endorsements go into continuity,
while STCW endorsements do not. However, MERPAC points out, by virtue
of the STCW endorsement's relationship with the domestic endorsement,
the STCW endorsement will be re-instituted with the domestic
endorsement upon application, subject to all other renewal
requirements.
    The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec.  10.227(g) to specify that
only domestic credentials will be issued for continuity. A new Sec.
10.227(g)(3) will discuss STCW endorsements tied to domestic
credentials, which go into continuity. Domestic endorsements go into
continuity, while STCW endorsements do not. However, by virtue of the
STCW endorsement's relationship with the domestic endorsement, the STCW
endorsement will be re-instated with the domestic endorsement upon
application, subject to all other renewal requirements.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  10.235(d) should read, in part, as
follows: ``* * * will be issued a replacement MMC reflecting the
remaining endorsements''.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. We have not proposed any changes to this
paragraph from the existing text, and we believe that the current
language is sufficiently clear.
    MERPAC recommends that, in Sec.  10.302(d)(2), the Coast Guard
remove the requirement that a course must be offered every 12 months or
its approval will expire.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed this requirement in this
SNPRM.
    MERPAC believes that clarification is needed in Sec.  10.302(d)(5)
and that the Coast Guard should create a new section to address change
in management and name change of school, notifying NMC of changes.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part, and we propose in this SNPRM to
retain the current regulation that a course approval expires when there
is an ownership change in the training institution.
    MERPAC recommends that, the Coast Guard delete the words ``and
employers'' from the requirement in Sec.  10.302(b)(7)(iii) to complete
surveys after completion of approved courses.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the proposed requirement
that mariners' employers be required to complete course evaluation
surveys.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard amend Sec.  10.303(a)(3) to
read as follows: ``Give written examinations to each student
appropriate for the course material and should be equivalent in scope
and difficulty of an examination prepared by the Coast Guard based upon
the knowledge requirements of the position or endorsement for which the
student is being trained.''
    The Coast Guard agrees in part and has amended the proposed
requirement to clarify that the reference to an examination prepared by
the Coast Guard is only for courses that are approved to substitute for
a Coast Guard examination for an officer or rating endorsement.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delete the words ``including
the substitution of an applicable Coast Guard exam'' from Sec.
10.303(a)(9)(iv).
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. It was our intent to limit this
provision to courses approved to substitute for a Coast Guard exam, and
we have revised the wording of this requirement to make this more
apparent.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delete Sec.
10.303(b)(1)(vii), which requires that course providers assist students
in the preparation of their Coast Guard MMC applications.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has deleted that language from Sec.
10.303(b).
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard amend Sec.  10.304(b) as it
conflicts with current practice and needs to be corrected. MERPAC
believes there are exceptions to the statement that recency
requirements may not be achieved by service granted as a result of
successful completion of approved training or by training on a
simulator. For example, applicants for renewal of their tankerman-PIC
endorsements can take a course in lieu of service to satisfy recency
requirements.
    The Coast Guard agrees that there are some exceptions to the
requirement and has amended this section accordingly.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delete Sec.  10.304(c) which
states, ``Unless otherwise allowed, training obtained before receiving
an endorsement may not be used for subsequent raises of grade,
increases in scope, or renewals.''
    The Coast Guard disagrees and has retained the proposed language.
There are some exceptions to the statement, including establishing
continued professional competence by means of training.
    MERPAC feels that the requirements put forth in Sec.  10.304(d)(2)
and (3) are redundant with the STCW Code and should be deleted. MERPAC
believes the Coast Guard should insert language that says the training
record book will cover the knowledge, training, and proficiency in
accordance with Part A of the STCW Code.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The training record book should be used
to document training and assessment which will be performed on board a
vessel. It is expected that not all training and assessment will be
conducted onboard, therefore there is a need to differentiate between
what is conducted on board and what is conducted ashore.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard revise Sec.  10.304, and
suggests an entire rewrite of the proposed section.
    In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard has utilized some of MERPAC's
recommendations in revising Sec.  10.404 of the NPRM.
    MERPAC feels that the language in Sec.  11.213 is too restrictive
and does not give credit that is needed to allow military officers to
utilize quality training and sea service. MERPAC recommends that the
Coast Guard develop an equivalency table for military personnel to
demonstrate equivalent service. The table, MERPAC believes, will need
to be sufficiently detailed to establish job tasks and actual underway
time for application.
    The Coast Guard agrees that the language in the NPRM is too
restrictive and has retained the existing text. The provisions for
``sea service as a member of the armed forces'' were moved to proposed
Sec.  10.232. However, the Coast Guard disagrees that there is a need
for a table showing equivalencies for military personnel because they
are subject to the same STCW requirements set out in 46 CFR parts 11
and 12.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delete the term
``practical'' from

Sec.  11.401(i), which requires that, ``An applicant for his or her
first deck officer endorsement authorizing service on vessels of 200
GRT/500 GT or more on ocean or near-coastal waters must pass a
practical signaling examination (flashing light).''
    In this SNPRM, we are proposing that mariners demonstrate their
competence in practical signaling by completing a Coast Guard approved
course. This change is consistent with the STCW Code, which specifies
practical instruction as the only acceptable method of demonstrating
competence.
    MERPAC recommends that in Sec.  11.407(a)(1), ``seagoing'' vessels
should be deleted, because the language in this provision does not meet
the language of the STCW Code. MERPAC believes it also exceeds the
requirement of the STCW Code that requires 6 months of bridge
watchkeeping duties. MERPAC also recommends that the Coast Guard delete
the requirement of 6 months of service while holding an A/B endorsement
or hold the rating of RFPNW.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the text accordingly. The
Coast Guard separated the domestic and STCW licensing schemes into
separate requirements. The STCW requirements are in the Sec.  11.300
series and the domestic officer endorsements are in the Sec.  11.400
series.
    MERPAC recommends that OUPV applicants serving in the near vicinity
of Puerto Rico, as stated in Sec.  11.467(g) should be required to know
standard maritime phrases and communications in English.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. OUPVs are not required to meet the
requirements of STCW and would not be required to meet the IMO Standard
Marine Communication Phrases, which is found in the requirements in the
STCW Code and was adopted by the 22d IMO Assembly in November 2001.
    MERPAC feels there is an error in Figure 11.505(a) and suggests the
Coast Guard add a path from DDE and assistant engineer into ships of
3,000 kW/4,000 HP. MERPAC also suggests adding a path into ships of
7,500 kW/10,000 HP and to invoke Article IX of the STCW Convention to
resolve career path problems.
    The STCW endorsements have been separated from the domestic
endorsements in this SNPRM, and a table of entry paths is provided for
each of the five STCW engineering levels. The 7,500 kW/10,000 HP
domestic endorsement has been removed. Figure 11.505(a) is revised to
reflect these changes.
    MERPAC feels Sec.  11.507 is too detailed.
    The Coast Guard has removed the subject list from Sec.  11.507 and
now references the appropriate section of the STCW Code.
    MERPAC believes there should be consistency and a harmonization of
standards between deck and engine requirements that does not currently
exist.
    The Coast Guard has separated STCW and domestic endorsements and
has harmonized the language with the STCW Convention. Deck and engine
endorsements, while not completely identical, have been harmonized as
far as practicable to ensure consistency.
    MERPAC feels that Sec.  11.520 needs some reference to non-STCW
endorsements.
    The STCW endorsements have been separated from the domestic
endorsements in this SNPRM.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  11.551 be clarified in the preamble on
the intent of meeting the language of Sec.  11.553(b).
    The Coast Guard has revised the sections on OSV endorsements to
allow for the use of the various methods for meeting the STCW standard
of competence for both STCW and domestic endorsements.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delete the words, ``through
practical demonstration of professional skills'' from Sec.  11.901(c),
which deals with subjects of examinations and practical demonstrations
of competence.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has made this revision.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard add requirements for all
classifications of A/B endorsements listed in the U.S. Code.
    The Coast Guard agrees and this SNPRM proposes to amend Part 12 to
include all A/B endorsements included in the U.S. Code.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delete the term
``survivalman'' from Sec.  12.412(f), which discusses general
requirements for able seaman endorsements.
    The Coast Guard has withdrawn its proposed use of the term
``survivalman'' and substitutes, in its place, lifeboatman-limited for
the domestic endorsement. Regarding the STCW endorsement, the Coast
Guard is proposing to use the term proficiency in survival craft and
rescue boats other than lifeboats and fast rescue boats--limited (PSC--
limited), to ensure consistency with the Convention.
    MERPAC feels that, in Sec.  12.420, the Coast Guard is imposing
difficulties on applicants by requiring service to be only on seagoing
vessels.
    The Coast Guard agrees and proposes to grant sea service on other
than ocean waters for STCW endorsements as follows: Great Lakes: Day-
for-Day; and inland waters: 2 days of inland service equals 1 day of
ocean service. The reason for the difference in service credit is based
on the fact that Great Lakes service most closely resembles the length,
breadth, equipment, and operation of ocean service.
    MERPAC suggests that, in Sec.  12.420, the term ``seagoing
service'' needs clarification. MERPAC recommends that it should be re-
phrased to read ``service onboard a ship relevant to the issue of a
certificate or other qualification.''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has revised the definition in Sec.
10.107.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  12.420(c)(1)(ii) be deleted. MERPAC
notes that this section requires at least one-half of the required
experience (to obtain RFPNW certification) be obtained on vessels of at
least 200 GRT/500 GT.
    The Coast Guard has amended this section and is adopting the STCW
language for seagoing service.
    MERPAC recommends that the number of abandon ship drills required
in Sec.  12.610 be reduced, as 24 is excessive.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the requirement from this
SNPRM because weekly abandon ship drills are built into the sea service
requirements.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delete Sec.  12.610(c)(2),
which requires participation in abandon ship drills that must include
the boat being placed in the water and being exercised in all means of
propulsion.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed this requirement from the
SNPRM.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delete Sec.  12.620(c),
which requires participation in drills that must include a fast rescue
boat being placed in the water and the applicant performing man-
overboard recovery drills.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the requirement from the
SNPRM.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delete Sec.  12.630(c)(2),
which requires participation in rescue boat, liferaft, or other drills
involving lifesaving apparatus, and include a rescue boat being placed
in the water and the mariner being exercised in rescue boat drills.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the requirement from the
SNPRM because weekly abandon ship

drills are built into the sea service requirements.
    MERPAC believes that Sec.  12.630(d) should read ``course/program *
* * that includes a prescribed period of sea service and BST''.
    The Coast Guard is proposing to separate the domestic requirements
for lifeboatman endorsements (found in Sec. Sec.  12.407 and 12.409)
from the STCW requirements for proficiency in survival craft
endorsements (found in Sec. Sec.  12.613 and 12.615). The Coast Guard
partially agrees with the inclusion of the word ``course'' and has
amended Sec.  12.409 accordingly to replace the word ``program'' with
``course''. The Coast Guard agrees with the inclusion of the BST
element in the requirements for the STCW endorsement and has amended
Sec.  12.615 accordingly.
    MERPAC recommends that steward department should be added as an
additional rating in Sec.  12.704.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  12.704 accordingly.
    MERPAC recommends that the text of Sec. Sec.  15.1103(b),
15.403(c), and 15.404(a), read as follows: ``All require a person
serving as RFPNW to hold an STCW endorsement attesting to his or her
qualifications to perform those functions. Those qualifications require
6 months of service, which can be reduced to a minimum of 60 days if
the person has completed an approved course.''
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Qualifications for RFPNW are found in
Sec.  12.605, and it is not appropriate to put them in part 15, which
consists of manning requirements.
    MERPAC notes that, adding to the barriers created by the STCW
standards are interpretations imposed by the Coast Guard in Policy
Letter 14-02 (which would be codified in proposed Sec.  12.420) that
require at least one-half the sea time to be on vessels of at least 200
GRT/500 GT. Beyond that, MERPAC believes the assessments for helm
commands must now be performed on vessels of at least 100 GRT. These
provisions mean that individuals who already have considerable
experience on smaller vessels cannot use their service to qualify as
RFPNW and apply for positions on larger vessels. Because qualifying
service must be on seagoing vessels, mariners from the inland segment
of the U.S. merchant marine are denied the opportunity to move offshore
without having to go through the convoluted qualification process. STCW
states in Chapter I under definitions that ``Seagoing service means
service on board a ship relevant to the issue of a certificate or other
qualification''. Thus, according to MERPAC, it is clear that the
Administration can decide what is or is not relevant. MERPAC says its
members have seen too many careers thwarted or never started due to the
interpretations and language used. Many other countries provide liberal
interpretations and thus promote seagoing opportunities and careers.
Recognizing the difficulties presented by these provisions and other
aspects of the 1995 amendments, the Secretary of Transportation at the
time of the implementation of the current regulations declared that the
Coast Guard would utilize the flexibility afforded by the Convention to
mitigate some of the adverse effects. To that end, the Coast Guard
stated that tonnages in the Convention would be applied as gross
register tonnage for vessels in U.S. domestic service. MERPAC notes
that the ``trigger tonnage'' of 500 gross tonnage for applicability of
Regulation II/4 was to be interpreted as 500 GRT, citing a 1999 letter
from the Chief of Marine Personnel, which states:

    * * * vessels of not more than 500 gross register tons on near
coastal, domestic voyages will not be required to have seamen
qualified as ratings forming part of a navigational watch because
that STCW rating does not apply to vessels of less than 500 gross
tons.

    In view of the above, MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard honor
the agreement reached in 1999 and make the requirements for RFPNW
applicable to vessels over 500 GRT/1,200 GT in domestic service.
Vessels in international service will be bound by the STCW standard set
at 200 GRT/500 GT.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that the regulations and policies
implementing the STCW requirements have been the subject of different
interpretations, and is therefore issuing this SNPRM to ensure clarity
of the regulations. This SNPRM proposes a new approach to implement the
STCW Convention requirements. The SNPRM proposes to allow different
methods for demonstrating competence as permitted by the STCW and
appropriate to each individual competence.
    Also, the Coast Guard proposes to grant sea service on other than
ocean waters for STCW endorsements as follows: Those serving on Great
Lakes waters will receive day-for-day credit. Those serving on inland
waters will receive 1 day of ocean service credit for every 2 days of
service.
    Also, in order to align the regulations with the intent of the STCW
Convention, we have adopted the STCW definition of ``seagoing
service.''
    With regard to the recommendation that the Coast Guard make the
requirements for RFPNW applicable to vessels over 200 GRT/500 GT in
domestic service, the Convention is clear in its application as it is
stated in Regulation II/4, paragraph 1--``Every rating forming part of
a navigational watch on a seagoing ship of 500 gross tonnage or more* *
*''. Therefore, the Coast Guard must apply the requirements for RFPNW
endorsements to service on vessels of 200 GRT or more.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  12.420(c)(ii) be deleted, that the
assessment of helm commands be permitted on any vessel of more than 50
GRT, and that service on inland waters be acceptable to qualify for an
assessment.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the requirements accordingly
for an applicant for an endorsement as RFPNW. The RFPNW requirements in
this SNPRM are contained in Sec.  12.605.
    MERPAC recommends that, in Sec.  15.405, the term ``crewmember'' be
deleted and that the term ``credentialed crewmember'' be used in its
place.
    The Coast Guard is retaining the existing text with some minor
amendments. The existing text uses the term ``credentialed,'' and it is
being retained in this SNPRM.
    MERPAC recommends that, in Sec.  15.530(a), the Coast Guard add
language to ensure that the citation stays current by amending the
paragraph as follows: ``ILO Convention or subsequent convention* * *''
MERPAC believes there must be a means of referencing the latest
amendments to the Coast Guard's version of such international
conventions without going through a laborious rulemaking processes.
    By regulation, an incorporation by reference cannot incorporate
successors to it. 1 CFR 51.1, which regulates how references are
incorporated into regulations, states that incorporations by reference
are limited to the edition of a publication that is approved for
incorporation. It explicitly states, ``Future amendments or revisions
of the publication are not included.''
    MERPAC recommends that, in Sec.  15.805(a)(5), the Coast Guard
replace the phrase ``under the command of'' with the phrase ``command
as Master''.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Subparagraph (5) must be read in
conjunction with paragraph (a), which states that a master with the
appropriate endorsement must be in command.
    MERPAC recommends that, in Sec.  15.815, the Coast Guard clarify
the term ``valid'' endorsement for radar. MERPAC also believes that a
school should be able to send proof of course completion.

    The Coast Guard is retaining the existing text and adding a new
paragraph to clarify the term ``readily available''. It is the
responsibility of the mariner or his or her company to make the
certificate of training available to the Coast Guard. The text does not
prevent the mariner or company from obtaining the document from the
school.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delete Sec.  15.1101(c) that
states that ``A vessel with a valid Safety Management Certificate and a
copy of a Document of Compliance issued for that vessel under 46 U.S.C.
3205 is presumed to comply with the STCW Convention.''
    The Coast Guard agrees and proposes to remove this section.
    MERPAC recommends that, in Sec.  15.1111, the Coast Guard change
the title to read ``Rest Periods'', and that the Coast Guard should
delete the words ``Work hours'' from the title as work hours are
already addressed in Sec.  15.701.
    The Coast Guard disagrees, as this section addresses both work and
rest periods.
    MERPAC asks if, in Sec.  15.1105, it is the master's obligation to
check competency.
    Section 15.1105 states that ``no person may assign any person to
perform shipboard duties* * * and no person may perform those duties,
unless the person performing them has received training, sufficient
familiarization, or instruction.'' Ultimately, the master is the person
responsible for ensuring that the person performing these duties has
received the necessary training, sufficient familiarization, and
instruction.
    MERPAC recommends that, in Sec.  15.1105(b)(2), the Coast Guard
change the phrase ``relevant to his or her routine or emergency duties
or responsibilities'' to ``relevant to his or her routine and emergency
duties or responsibilities.''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has made this change.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard amend the title of part 10,
subpart C to ``Approved courses and programs.''
    The Coast Guard partially agrees and has amended the text to read
``Training courses and programs.'' It would be inappropriate to use
``approved'' in the title since the Subpart also includes requirements
for ``Coast Guard-accepted courses.''
    MERPAC recommends certain topics for the operational level in the
7,500 kW/10,000 HP category be added.
    The 7,500 kW/10,000 HP domestic endorsement has been removed in
this SNPRM.
    MERPAC recommends that certain changes to the topic list be made
for the engineering management level in Sec.  11.511.
    The specific list for these endorsements has been removed and now
references the appropriate section in the STCW Code.
    MERPAC recommends specific qualification standards for the various
levels of domestic engineering endorsements of 7,500 kW/10,000 HP.
    The 7,500 kW/10,000 HP domestic endorsement has been removed in
this SNPRM.
    MERPAC recommends three conversion provisions for persons holding
chief engineer-limited oceans, chief engineer-limited near-coastal, and
DDE unlimited horsepower to the proposed 7,500 kW/10,000 HP
endorsements.
    The 7,500 kW/10,000 HP domestic endorsement has been removed in
this SNPRM.
    The Coast Guard received comments in the following areas that
address subjects beyond the scope of the revisions proposed in the
NPRM. The Coast Guard does not discuss these comments in detail:
Increasing user fees for oral examinations; Definition of ``invalid
credential;'' Medical NVIC; Medical examination forms/requirements;
Developing minimum standards for qualification; requirements for
approved instructors; VSO course requirements; Adding tonnage to
endorsements; language on COIs, Safety Management Certificates and
SOLAS Passenger Safety Certificates; MMC issues (consolidating the
MMC); Marine Safety Manual issues; TWIC issues; specific course
content; and manning requirements.

VIII. Incorporation by Reference

    Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in
Sec. Sec.  10.103, 11.102, 12.103, 13.103, and 15.103. You may inspect
this material at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters where indicated under
ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed
in Sec. Sec.  10.103, 11.102, 12.103, 13.103, and 15.103.
    Before publishing a binding rule, we will submit this material to
the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the incorporation
by reference.

IX. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and requires an assessment of potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has
reviewed it under that Order.
    A combined ``Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis'' report is available in the docket as indicated
under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. A summary of the report
follows:
    This proposed rule would ensure that U.S. mariners comply with the
standards set forth in the STCW Convention and Code. This proposed rule
would implement all amendments under the Convention, including the 2010
amendments previously discussed. In addition, the Coast Guard is
issuing the SNPRM to respond to the comments, feedback, and concerns
received from the public as a result of the NPRM. In order to address
those comments and concerns, the SNPRM would simplify domestic
licensing requirements and separate them from STCW requirements;
provide alternative means for demonstrating competence; clarify
oversight requirements for approved courses; amend lifeboatmen
requirements; and allow for acceptance of sea service on vessels
serving the Great Lakes and inland waters to meet STCW requirements
(see ``Discussion of Proposed Rule'' for additional details).
    The changes in this SNPRM that result in additional impacts involve
the following categories of provisions:
    (1) Medical Examinations and Endorsements--The medical certificate
would be reduced from a maximum period of validity of 5 years to 2
years for mariners serving on board STCW vessels in accordance with the
2010 amendments to the STCW Convention.
    (2) Leadership and Managerial Skills--The proposed rule would
require leadership and managerial skills for the management-level
credential in accordance with the 2010 amendments to the STCW
Convention.
    (3) Engine Room Resource Management (ERM)--The proposed rule would
require ERM training for engineers seeking operational-level
credential, and leadership and managerial skills for the management-
level credential in accordance with the 2010 amendments to the STCW
Convention.
    (4) Tankerman Endorsements--The proposed rule would add new STCW
endorsements for basic and advanced

oil and chemical tanker cargo operations, and for basic and advanced
liquefied gas tanker cargo operations, in accordance with the STCW 2010
amendments.
    (5) Safety Refresher Training Requirements--The proposed rule would
require safety refresher training for all STCW-endorsed mariners
holding a credential in Basic Safety Training (BST), Advanced
Firefighting, Proficiency in Survival Craft and Rescue Boats Other than
Fast Rescue Boats (PSC), or Proficiency in Fast Rescue Boats every 5
years, in accordance with the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention
and Code.
    (6) Able Seafarer deck and engine--The proposed rule would require
that personnel serving on STCW vessels as able seafarer meet the
requirements for certification in order to comply with the STCW 2010
amendments.

Costs

    We estimate that this proposed rule would affect approximately
60,000 affected mariners and 316 owners and operators of 1,044 vessels
with additional costs. Each of the proposed requirements would affect a
different subset of these mariner and owner/operator populations. We
used Coast Guard's data on mariners, publicly available information on
training costs and mariner wages, and other available industry
information to develop the estimates of potential costs to affected
mariners and to the owners and operators employing affected mariners
for each proposed requirement.
    This proposed rule would also affect approximately 141 STCW
training providers by requiring them to implement a quality standards
system (QSS) and write and maintain a QSS manual; be subject to
internal and external audit requirements of each Coast Guard-approved
course, and extend the time period for which they must keep a paper or
electronic record on each student completing a course.
    The costs of the SNPRM are presented in Table 1. We estimate the
total present value cost over the 10-year period of analysis to be
$230.7 million at a 7 percent discount rate ($274.3 million at a 3
percent discount rate). Over the same 10-year period of analysis, we
estimate the annualized costs to be about $32.8 million at a 7 percent
discount rate ($32.2 million at a 3 percent discount rate).

        Table 1--Summary of Present Value Costs of Proposed Rule
                               [$Millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Discount rate
                         Year                          -----------------
                                                           7%       3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................................    $18.8    $19.5
2.....................................................     39.0     42.1
3.....................................................     36.4     40.8
4.....................................................     34.0     39.7
5.....................................................     31.8     38.5
6.....................................................     29.8     37.4
7.....................................................     11.3     14.7
8.....................................................     10.6     14.3
9.....................................................      9.9     13.8
10....................................................      9.2     13.4
                                                       -----------------
  Total*..............................................    230.7    274.3
                                                       =================
Annualized............................................     32.8     32.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    We estimate the mariner training requirements are the primary cost
driver throughout the 10-year period of analysis. See Table 2 for a
summary of annualized costs by requirement category.

      Table 2--Summary of the Annualized Costs of the Proposed Rule
                               [$Millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annualized*
                       Category                        -----------------
                                                           7%       3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mariner Training**....................................   $27.06   $26.40
2-Year Medical Examination............................     3.99     3.99
Sea Service...........................................     1.04     1.04
Training Providers....................................     0.74     0.72
                                                       -----------------
  Total...............................................    32.83    32.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Includes changes for officer, engineer and rating endorsements.

    The proposed changes to mariner training make up about 82% of the
costs throughout the 10-year period of analysis. Table 3 below presents
a summary of the costs by requirement as a percentage of the total
annualized costs of the proposed rule.

      Table 3--Summary of Costs by Requirement of the Proposed Rule
                  [As a percentage of annualized cost]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Annualized
                        Requirements                           cost  %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mariner Training...........................................           82
2-Year Medical Examination.................................           13
Sea Service................................................            3
Training Providers.........................................            2
                                                            ------------
  Total....................................................          100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that the training costs discussed above would likely be
high estimates as the SNPRM provides flexibility in choosing
alternative methods if these are more cost effective to the mariners,
owners and operators (see the ``Economic comments--training
requirements'' section for more detail).
    In the absence of additional information, such as the choice of
alternative methods by company size and time differences to complete
one alternative compared to another, we estimate potential regulatory
compliance costs by assuming that mariners and their employers would
fulfill these requirements through classroom training. This results in
upper-bound monetized costs for these training provisions.

Benefits

    This SNPRM would implement all amendments to the STCW and ensure
that the U.S. is meeting its obligations under the STCW Convention. The
STCW Convention sets the standards of competence for mariners
internationally, bringing U.S. mariners in line with training,
certification and medical standards developed by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO). In addition to the primary benefit of
improving marine safety and a decrease in the risk of shipping
accidents, additional benefits of this SNPRM are expected to accrue to
the U.S. economy in the form of: (1) Preventing and mitigating
accidents on STCW Convention-compliant foreign vessels in U.S. waters;
(2) Maintaining U.S. status on the ``White List'' and avoiding the
detention of U.S. vessels in foreign ports due to non-compliance with
the STCW Convention; (3) Ensuring U.S. mariners can compete in the
global workforce market; and (4) Providing consistent international
performance standards based on international consensus and IMO
convention, which minimizes variation in standards of training and
watchkeeping.
    One benefit of the proposed rule is an increase in vessel safety
and a resulting decrease in the risk of shipping casualties. According
to one study on the Review and Analysis of Accident Databases by the
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), the human element is involved in 80
percent of shipping casualties, with 45 percent of the casualties
primarily due to human error, and another 35 percent in which humans
failed to adequately respond.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Clifford C. Baker and Denise B. McCafferty. 2004. ABS Review
and Analysis of Accident Databases. American Bureau of Shipping.
Accessed at http://www.slc.ca.gov/Division_Pages/MFD/Prevention_First/Documents/2004/Human%20and%20Organizational%20Factors/McCafferty%20paper.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule seeks to decrease human error and improve
responsiveness through a three pronged approach--increased training and
service requirements, consistency of training, and enhanced medical
evaluation and reporting.
    Lack of mariner competence in situational awareness and assessment
are primary causes of human error. The enhanced competency and service
requirements of the STCW Convention are expected to increase mariners'
situational awareness and situational assessment. Mariners are also
expected to be able to better respond to potential hazards.
    The requirements for training providers to develop and follow a
quality standard system help to ensure that the STCW training given to
mariners is of consistent quality. Unidentified medical conditions can
also impair a mariner's ability to perform tasks and respond, thus
contributing to the human element of casualties. The proposed rule
would require more frequent medical exams for STCW mariners, thus