revised, the commenter says, it could be construed so broadly as to
include every person in the crew (except for the VSO), which raises the
concern--particularly for cargo vessels with crews of limited size--of
placing an unnecessary and unwieldy certification or formal training
burden on mariners and vessel operators. The commenter recommends that
this section should use the term ``personnel with designated security
duties'' throughout.
    The Coast Guard agrees. The Coast Guard is revising the definition
of

``Vessel personnel with designated security duties'' to harmonize it
with the guidance in Section B-VI/6 of the STCW Code and to ensure
consistency with the requirements in 33 CFR 104.220 and 104.225. The
expression ``with designated security duties'' denotes those having
specific security duties and responsibilities in accordance with the
vessel security plan. The Coast Guard amended the requirements in
Sec. Sec.  12.625 and 15.1113 to ensure that the term ``vessel
personnel with designated security duties'' is used throughout.
    The same commenter recommends minor revisions to Sec. Sec.  12.625
and 12.627, where STCW endorsements for ``vessel personnel with
designated security duties'' and ``security awareness'' are obtained by
providing ``satisfactory documentary evidence'' of meeting the
requirements in 33 CFR 104.220. Since ``satisfactory documentary
evidence'' is not defined, the commenter recommends adding language to
read ``Present satisfactory documentary evidence, such as a certificate
or letter signed by a company official, or a certificate of completion
from an approved training course, of meeting the requirements in 33 CFR
104.220.''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the text accordingly. At
this time, the Coast Guard intends to meet the STCW 2010 amendments
regarding security training via the regulations in 33 CFR 104.220 and
104.225, which require personnel to have knowledge on a number of
topics. Documentary evidence may include a certificate or letter signed
by a company official or a certificate of course completion from a
Coast Guard accepted course.
    One commenter states that, with regard to Sec. Sec.  12.625(a) and
12.627(a), the Coast Guard does not describe or identify the process
for obtaining security endorsements or certificates for existing
mariners that have already received security awareness, security system
and security duties-related training. The ``grandfathering'' of
existing mariners who received the appropriate training and are working
under a MTSA-required security system prior to July 1, 2012, is not
addressed. Neither does the proposal indicate if the organization may
issue course completion certificates for existing mariners or define a
process for documentation of past training and service under a security
system. Previous training needs to be accepted as meeting the
requirements for issuance of certification prior to July 1, 2012.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the proposed requirements in
Sec. Sec.  12.625 and 12.627. These sections will include the STCW
transitional provisions for security awareness and for seafarers with
designated security duties that would allow existing mariners who took
a course and/or can document service onboard vessels to obtain an
endorsement. In accordance with Section A-VI/6 of the STCW Convention,
this transitional provision will only be available until March 24,
2014.
    One commenter states that these requirements should include the
acceptance of approved, non-proctored, eLearning Computer Based
Training (CBT) to meet the requirements of Sec.  15.1113.
    The Coast Guard agrees. The requirements in 33 CFR 104.220 and
104.225 allow for the use of in-house training, which includes
eLearning and distance learning. The Coast Guard will consider a
separate, future rulemaking if changes to those sections are needed.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard amend Sec.  12.625 to
read as follows:
    (a) An applicant for an STCW endorsement as vessel personnel with
designated security duties must:
    (1) Present satisfactory documentary evidence of meeting the
requirements in 33 CFR 104.220; and
    (2) Meet the physical examination requirements in 46 CFR, part 10,
subpart C.
    The same commenter recommends that the Coast Guard amend Sec.
12.627 to read as follows:
    (a) An applicant for an endorsement for security awareness must:
    (1) Present satisfactory documentary evidence of meeting the
requirements in 33 CFR 104.225; and
    (2) Meet the physical examination requirements in 46 CFR, part 10,
subpart C.
    The Coast Guard partially agrees. The two requirements proposed by
the commenter are included in this final rule in Sec. Sec.  12.625 and
12.627. However, an additional requirement to meet the safety and
suitability requirements and the National Driver Registry review
requirements in Sec.  10.209(e) is included in this final rule in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7101.
    One commenter notes that, with regard to Sec.  15.1113, applicants
will, in the near term, have to rely on the STCW Code transitional
provisions, which permit use of experience, as opposed to approved
training, to qualify for these endorsements until January 1, 2014. This
will not be an option for new mariners and others without relevant
experience. Not only are adequate training resources unlikely to be
available, but the commenter states it is also not clear that there
will be sufficient time for compliance by those with adequate
experience. Presumably mariners cannot apply for, and the Coast Guard
cannot issue, endorsements until they are authorized by regulation.
    The STCW Convention requires that mariners who commenced service
after January 1, 2012, meet the training requirements for vessel
personnel with designated security duties and security awareness, as
appropriate. In addition, the STCW Convention also provides
transitional provisions for mariners who started service prior to
January 1, 2012. Recognizing that the implementation date was fast
approaching, and that there may be practical difficulties for all
seafarers with security related requirements to obtain necessary
certifications and/or the necessary endorsements required in accordance
with Regulation VI/6 of the 2010 amendments to the STCW Code and
Convention, the IMO issued Circular STCW.7/Circ.17 providing advice for
port state control officers on transitional arrangements leading up to
full implementation of the 2010 amendments to the STCW Code and
Convention on January 1, 2017. The circular recommends that
administrations should inform their port state control authorities
that, until March 24, 2014, even if a seafarer's documentation with
regard to the security-related training in regulation VI/6 is not in
accordance with the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention and Code, it
would be sufficient to accept compliance with section 13 of the ISPS
Code. Taking the information in the circular into account, the Coast
Guard has amended Sec.  15.1113 to implement the requirements for
``vessel personnel with designated security duties'' and for ``security
awareness.'' The requirements in 33 CFR 104.220 and 104.225 meet the
requirements of Section 13 of the ISPS Code.
14. Course approvals
    One commenter requests existing guidance on instructor
qualification be published immediately and prior to the intended NVIC.
    The Coast Guard is working to provide guidance on this subject as
soon as practicable with a NVIC within 60 days of publication of this
rule or as soon as possible.
    Two commenters offered several recommendations for improvement of
the course/program approval process through clarification, elimination,
or addition of certain requirements. More specifically, the commenters
suggested that the Coast Guard provide guidance

on the content of course approval application components, including the
cover letter, teaching syllabus, goal statement, assessment tools, and
course completion certificates.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part with these recommendations and some
have been incorporated into this final rule while some will be
published in a NVIC. For clarification, the cover letter should contain
a general description to clearly describe the request. The goal
statement should explain the overall intent of the course or program
while the performance objectives should support the goal statement with
individual components of the entire course. Assessment instruments
include all methods used to measure the abilities of the student to
successfully complete the course/program. For both initial and renewed
approvals, instructors must have performed the instruction within the
previous 5 years or provide evidence of current training in
instructional techniques (i.e. Train the Trainer).
    One commenter believes the copy of the course completion
certificate in the course approval submission is redundant.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The certificates are required to ensure
they will contain the necessary information used by professional
qualification evaluators at NMC to verify course completion. The Coast
Guard hopes to eliminate the need for course completion certificates
with a future electronic solution. Until then, the certificates are a
required component of the course approval submission package.
    One commenter notes that, in Sec.  10.403(a)(2), the phrase
``visual aids for realism'' is vague and unnecessary. He recommends
that the item read, ``Have the equipment necessary, including
simulators where appropriate. . . .''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has changed ``visual aids for realism''
to ``the necessary equipment. . . .'' Necessary equipment encompasses
more than just visual aids.
    The same commenter notes that Sec.  11.301(a)(1)(xiii) probably
should read `` . . . successful completion of an approved course''
because the courses are approved. An approved school could run a non-
approved course.
    The Coast Guard agrees. This change has been made to ensure
consistency with other sections.
    One commenter contends that the proposed requirements to obtain
course approval in Sec.  10.402 are excessive and exceed the
information required in IMO model courses. It is recommended that the
Coast Guard minimize the administrative burden and cost on all training
providers by requiring only the information currently required for IMO
model courses.
    The Coast Guard partially agrees. All of the course approval
application requirements in Sec.  10.402 are critical components of a
curriculum package and are required for review by the regulatory agency
granting approval. The IMO model courses are not meant to be the
documentation model for approval. They are meant to help organize and
present the training course. To ensure consistency in the use of the
terminology, the Coast Guard has amended Sec.  10.402 to use the IMO
model course terminology.
    The same commenter states that Sec.  10.402 for course approval and
Sec.  10.403 for general standards for courses appears to have been
written with non-academy training institutions in mind, who offer only
individual stand-alone courses. The commenter therefore recommends that
the Coast Guard consider separating the requirement for approved
courses and approved programs by adding a separate section in the
regulations that apply only to maritime academies, or other similar
institutions that operate under multi-year approved education and
training programs.
    The Coast Guard agrees and new section Sec.  10.407 has been
created to apply solely to training programs. The Coast Guard
recognizes that the 4-year academy training programs are subject to
standards by state and regional/national accrediting bodies and
therefore will accept information from these accrediting bodies to meet
one or more of the course approval requirements. Standardization of the
requirements for training programs will simplify the regulations and
reduce administrative costs, which can be passed on to mariners as a
reduction of the cost of training.
    The same commenter notes that in the Coast Guard's response to
comments on the NPRM, which were published in the SNPRM, concerning the
need for greater specificity regarding the qualification requirements
for instructors, the Coast Guard states that this beneficial
information would be better provided by a NVIC or similar guidance
document. The commenter urges the Coast Guard to engage in a dialogue
with the public academies before initiating any such policy.
    The Coast Guard agrees. Additional details on the qualification for
instructors in Sec.  10.402 will be provided by a NVIC or similar
guidance document which we plan on issuing after the publication of the
final rule. The Coast Guard will gather industry input and comment
through MERPAC and/or through notice and comment.
    Three commenters object to Sec.  10.403(a)(7), which states that
each school with an approved course must not change its approved
curricula without approval from the NMC as specified in Sec.  10.402(e)
of this subpart. Supplemental material to enhance relevant learning
points is regularly used to enhance Coast Guard-approved courses and
approved curriculum. This allows students to stay current with industry
and regulatory changes between course approval submissions. The
commenter recommends that this section be changed to read ``not
significantly change its approved curriculum without approval from the
NMC''.
    Another commenter recommends that the Coast Guard define which
significant changes to courses or training programs require approval,
including changes in curriculum, classrooms, and new simulators.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  10.403(a)(7) to ensure
that only significant changes are submitted for review and approval. We
plan to issue additional details on changes to curricula by a NVIC or
similar guidance document after the publication of the final rule. The
Coast Guard will gather industry input and comment through MERPAC or
through notice in the Federal Register.
    One commenter states that all course providers know and understand
that the Coast Guard currently uses internal guidance on instructor
qualifications for approval in each course area. This guidance would be
beneficial to maritime training providers and would assist them in
saving time, effort, and resources. The commenter believes that the
Coast Guard should publish the current internal guidance until a NVIC
can be published.
    The Coast Guard agrees that all guidance on instructor
qualification should be made available to the public. The Coast Guard
will make available any of the current instructor qualification
requirements on the NMC's Web site. Additional details on the
qualification for instructors will be provided by a NVIC or similar
guidance document, which we plan on issuing after the publication of
the final rule. The Coast Guard will gather industry input and comment
through MERPAC and/or through notice in the Federal Register.
    Two commenters recommend that, in Sec.  10.402(b)(5)(iii) the word
``hold'' should be changed to ``has held'' in the requirement that
course instructors

``hold a license, endorsement, or other professional credentials . . .
.'' There are mariners who have come ashore and, for whatever reason,
did not renew their licenses.
    Another commenter objects to the requirement in Sec.  10.402(b)(5)
that course instructors ``hold a license, endorsement, or other
professional credential that provides proof of having attained a level
of qualification equal or superior to the relevant level of knowledge,
skills, and abilities described in the performance objective.'' Many
maritime security instructors come from military or law enforcement
backgrounds and have substantial relevant experience, but no piece of
paper that proves their qualifications.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has deleted the requirement that the
instructor hold a license, endorsement, or other professional
credential in proposed Sec.  10.402(b)(5) and broadened the requirement
for instructors now found in Sec.  10.402(b)(2)(iii)(C). The instructor
must have the level of experience and qualification equal or superior
to the relevant level of knowledge, skills, and abilities described in
the performance objective.
    One commenter notes that training onboard vessels and on-the-job
training are critical to a mariner's growth and experience. However,
the commenter states that ships' facilities and areas used as
``training rooms'' may not meet the Coast Guard requirements for shore-
side facilities. This seems in conflict with the Coast Guard's initial
reasoning for establishing such classroom criteria. Additionally, the
working environment onboard a continually operating, revenue generating
ship may be in conflict with a focused, uninterrupted learning
environment for sufficiently rested mariners. Will vessels providing
training to meet the onboard assessments (e.g., Basic Safety Training's
first aid element) be required to meet the same course requirements,
training facility requirements, and serve the Coast Guard the same 21-
day advanced notice of training? If not, then the commenter says there
is a major discrepancy between shore side and onboard training.
    All Coast Guard-approved training will have to meet the
requirements in the regulation. The Coast Guard will issue a NVIC with
additional information on any departure or any interpretation of these
regulations regarding on-the-job training. The option for onboard
training and assessments is permitted provided the vessel has the
equipment and capabilities necessary for successful execution.
    Two commenters object to the requirements in Sec.  10.402(b)(1)(ii)
and (b)(6), which require training providers seeking course approval to
submit detailed site information. Holding a course at an alternative
location already requires approval from the NMC.
    This is an integral part of the oversight process and is necessary
to prevent the use of spaces unsuitable for classroom purposes.
Further, detailed site information is required as part of an
application for course approval, which is not redundant with any
subsequent request for approval of an alternative location. However,
the Coast Guard appreciates the concern and will make efforts to
expedite the process. We plan to issue additional details on changes to
curricula by a NVIC or similar guidance document after the publication
of the Final Rule. The Coast Guard will gather industry input and
comment through MERPAC and/or through notice in the Federal Register.
15. Quality Standards System (QSS)
    One commenter notes that the Coast Guard proposes to add QSS
requirements for Coast Guard-approved courses. The commenter states
that this proposal is incomplete in that it does not include the
standard of performance metrics that are to be applied. Furthermore, it
does not provide exemptions for companies that maintain and audit their
training programs to ISM or ISO codes. While the proposal does appear
to provide for the application of ISM or ISO codes, the commenter says
it seems to do so outside of a company's existing ISM safety management
system and framework.
    The same commenter notes that the Coast Guard proposes to accept
documentation from a national academic accreditation body or from a
national or international quality standard system as meeting one or
more of the QSS requirements. The commenter states that this proposal
is superfluous and, if implemented, its application should be limited
to maritime training institutions and schools.
    Section 10.410(e) as currently written is broad and does not apply
only to training institutions and schools. That paragraph of the SNPRM
provided that Coast Guard will accept documentation from a training
institution certified under ISO as evidence of satisfying one or more
of the requirements in Sec.  10.410(c). However, the Coast Guard
recognizes that other management systems should be included as a means
to comply with the QSS requirement. Therefore, the Coast Guard has
added a new paragraph (g) to include ISM, which is an industry-wide
system, as an alternate means of compliance for the QSS provision. This
will allow schools that currently implement ISM to comply with the new
QSS requirements without needing to modify their programs. Regarding
the issue of performance metrics, the STCW Convention already specifies
the metrics. It is expected that the QSS ensure compliance with the
STCW requirements as implemented by the regulations.
    One commenter asks for justification and confirmation regarding the
QSS requirements contained in Sec.  10.410 as they apply to the state
maritime academies. Based on the rigorous standards for accreditation
by regional and national organizations, and the ongoing self-assessment
review of their licensing programs and individual courses at each of
the academies, as well as Coast Guard and U.S. Department of
Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) oversight of their
training programs through the Joint Coast Guard/MARAD/Academy Review
Committee Charter utilized since the implementation of the 1995 STCW
amendments, the commenter believes the academies already meet the
spirit and intent for a QSS as allowed by STCW Sections B-l/8-5 and 7
where ``education quality standards'' and ``government agencies'' are
permitted to satisfy the QSS requirements.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard does not have
flexibility in whether or not the QSS or the independent evaluation is
implemented, since this is a Convention requirement. All courses and
programs in support of an STCW certificate must meet the STCW
requirements. Section 10.410(e) was included to give the academies
credit for their accreditation program. The Coast Guard recognizes that
there is some overlap between the oversight provided by the different
accreditation bodies and the Coast Guard responsibility for oversight
to meet the STCW requirements. While we recognize the Academies'
courses are already subject to a review and oversight process, it does
not assess compliance with STCW, nor does this process ensure a quality
system oversight of those STCW items. It is envisioned that the
academies can use documentation from the academy accreditation process
to meet the requirements for a QSS. Consequently, the manual may take
the form of a reference document for those areas that are part of the
Academies' accreditation program, and detailed information will be
required to fill gaps between the QSS requirements and the Academies'
accreditation information.

    One commenter recommends that, with regard to Sec.  11.410, the
Coast Guard consider a transitional provision, which would approve
stand-alone courses containing any new training or assessments mandated
by the 2010 STCW amendments, and would be required for mariners who
begin their service or training on or after July 1, 2013. This
provision would allow training providers until January 1, 2017, to
implement a QSS for all stand-alone Continuing Education courses
offered after that date.
    The Coast Guard agrees that a transitional provision is necessary
to ensure course providers are afforded time for implementation. The
Coast Guard has amended Sec.  10.410(f) to ensure that all courses,
programs and training creditable towards STCW meet the requirements of
a QSS by January 1, 2017. Furthermore, during this transitional period,
the Coast Guard will accept course completion certificates submitted
with mariner applications in order to ensure mariners are not impacted
while the course providers are in the process of coming into compliance
with the QSS requirements.
    One commenter notes that the Coast Guard proposes to add QSS
requirements for training schools offering Coast Guard-approved STCW
courses. According to the commenter, bona fide training schools will
have few issues with this if done in a reasonable and cost-effective
manner. However, in the commenter's view, there has been a lack of any
substantive or realistic oversight by the Coast Guard of training
schools. If the Coast Guard does not engage itself in meaningful and
practical training school oversight, it's not clear how a QSS will
solve this issue.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the need for robust oversight. The QSS
requirements are meant to work with the new oversight provisions in
Sec. Sec.  10.409 and 10.410. The Coast Guard continues to work to
improve its oversight responsibilities over the training schools.
    One commenter notes that, with regard to Sec.  10.410, course
providers have not actually ``arranged'' for any Coast Guard audits.
The commenter expects that the Coast Guard will continue to notify
training providers of the dates of intended administrative visits.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the text in Sec.  10.410 to
clarify this point.
    One commenter believes, with regard to Sec.  10.410, that the Coast
Guard must retain oversight and provide a no-cost option for a QSS.
    The Coast Guard agrees. The Coast Guard is not mandating the third-
party auditor. The Coast Guard is providing two alternatives for the
QSS in Sec.  10.410(b): (1) Third party quality system oversight
through a Coast Guard-accepted QSS organization; or (2) where the
organization develops their own QSS and the Coast Guard does the
oversight.
    One commenter asks why, in Sec.  10.409(f), in the information to
be submitted by the QSS Organization related to approved courses, a
one-paragraph description of course content is required. Wouldn't it be
better to have a standard course code, developed by Coast Guard/NMC, to
which the QSS Organization refers in the submission document?
    The Coast Guard disagrees. We allow training providers discretion
to tailor their courses or programs to meet their unique needs, and the
Coast Guard will approve such courses and programs for any requirements
the training may satisfy. Accordingly, we consider it infeasible to
require the use of standard, ``one size fits all'' course codes because
such a step would significantly reduce flexibility for training
providers.
    One commenter asks whether the reference to certification of
international quality management systems standards acceptable for
training providers in Sec.  10.410 includes maritime education and
training standards such as ones being used internationally by the
commenter's QSS organization, which are based on ISO 9001, and are
designed especially for maritime training providers and courses.
    Yes. The Coast Guard has provided for the use of other nationally
and internationally-accepted quality management systems standards
(e.g., ISO 9001) in Sec.  10.410(e).
    One commenter asks if the applicability of the requirement for
approval of training courses and programs in Sec.  10.401 include
courses and programs put on by ship owners and operators for their own
seafarers or others. If so, must these ship owners/operators have their
own QSS? And if so, will the QSS system need approval?
    The requirements in Sec.  10.401 do not differentiate between
courses provided at a training institution or onboard a vessel.
Therefore, all courses which may be accepted instead of service
experience or examination required by the Coast Guard must meet the
requirements in Sec.  10.401. Courses offered by vessel owners/
operators will also need to meet the QSS requirements. The Coast Guard
recognizes that vessels subject to STCW are also subject to the ISM and
that there is some overlap between the QSS requirements in Sec.  10.410
and the ISM requirements. To address this overlap the Coast Guard has
included a new subparagraph Sec.  10.410(g). It is envisioned that the
vessel owners and operators will use ISM documentation to meet the
requirements for a QSS.
    One commenter is concerned that the proposed requirement to
participate with a QSS is not clear. It is unclear whether or not Coast
Guard approval of a training course is an alternative to using a QSS.
Nonetheless, it is important that a course provider, having Coast Guard
approval for one or two courses, be allowed to continue to submit these
courses directly to the Coast Guard for approval. For small companies
that have one or two courses, a relationship with a QSS is impractical,
burdensome and unnecessarily expensive.
    Section 10.410(a) requires that all providers of Coast-Guard
approved courses, programs, training and Coast Guard-accepted training
towards an STCW endorsement maintain a QSS. The Coast Guard is
providing two alternatives for the QSS in Sec.  10.410(b): (1) Third-
party quality system oversight through a Coast Guard-accepted QSS
organization; or (2) where the organization develops their own QSS and
the Coast Guard does the oversight. Furthermore, the Coast Guard is
accepting documentation from equivalent standards as meeting one or
more of the QSS requirements: (1) A national academic accreditation
body; (2) a national or international quality management system
standard (e.g., ISO 9001); and/or (3) ISM.
    Three commenters ask if the QSS requirements apply only to STCW
courses. If it applies to all courses, this is a huge expansion, the
commenters said, and doesn't add any benefit to non-STCW courses
compared to the pain imposed on small maritime educators.
    The QSS requirements in Sec.  10.410 only apply to Coast-Guard
approved courses, programs, training and Coast Guard-accepted training
leading towards an STCW endorsement.
    One commenter agrees with the QSS proposal as written. However, the
commenter says there needs to be further explanation of the ``National
Academic accreditation body'' the Coast Guard is proposing. Who, what,
and where is the organization based, what are their credentials, and
how do they apply to the maritime industry?
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. Because of the large volume of
academic accreditation bodies in the U.S., the Coast Guard is not
including them in

the rulemaking. The Coast Guard will publish guidance on those
accreditation bodies accepted by the Coast Guard. The accreditation
bodies include: (a) The New England Association of Schools and
Colleges; (b) Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges; (c)
Southern Association of Schools and Colleges; (d) North Central
Association of Schools and Colleges; (e) Western Association of Schools
and Colleges; and (f) American Council on Education.
    One commenter asks, with regard to Sec.  10.409, if there will be
user fees associated with conducting audits, reviewing programs, and
issuing letters of acceptance to QSS.
    The Coast Guard may consider establishing such fees as part of a
separate, future rulemaking.
16. Applicability
    Four commenters state that a lot of the regulations start out with
the phrase ``all personnel.'' However, STCW mainly applies only to
self-propelled vessels. The commenters ask the Coast Guard to
differentiate the application of the regulations.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The Coast Guard has made some
additional changes to the text to ensure clarity. Section 15.1101
specifies that the regulations in subpart K apply only to vessels
subject to the STCW Convention. The requirements apply to self-
propelled vessels that operate beyond the boundary line specified in 46
CFR part 7, except for those vessels exempted from the application
under Sec.  15.1101(a)(1), and small vessels engaged exclusively on
domestic voyages that are not subject to any obligations under the STCW
Convention under Sec.  15.1101(a)(2).
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard should interpret the
STCW Convention to regard pilot vessels as not being considered
seagoing ships because they operate ``in waters within, or closely
adjacent to, sheltered waters or areas where port regulations apply''
in accordance with Article II of the STCW Convention.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has revised Sec. Sec.  15.105(f) and
15.1101(a) to exclude pilot vessels engaged on pilotage duties from the
application of STCW.
    One commenter asks how the A/B- Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
(MODU) endorsement, which is recognized in the Marine Safety Manual,
will be affected by the proposed rulemaking.
    The rating of A/B-MODU is not affected by this rulemaking. Unlike
the other A/B ratings established pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 7306-7311a, A/
B-MODU is not a rating authorized by statute or regulation. The A/B-
MODU endorsements for ratings were issued to address a perceived
deficit of seaman qualified for the unique requirements of serving
onboard a MODU. However, it is likely that the Coast Guard will work to
phase out this endorsement, providing transitional procedures that will
allow those currently holding this rating to continue to serve aboard
MODUs.
    Two commenters state that proposed Sec.  12.409(a) requires every
person serving onboard vessels fitted with liferafts, but not fitted
with lifeboats, to hold an endorsement as lifeboatman-limited. The
commenter recommends that the Coast Guard amend this section to read
that ``those serving under the authority of this rating endorsement''
must hold the endorsement.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  12.409(a) to clarify
that persons fulfilling the manning requirements for lifeboatman must
hold a lifeboatman-limited endorsement.
    One commenter states that proposed Sec.  15.520(e) would exempt a
dynamically-positioned drillship from its requirements. As written this
section requires that a drillship be under the command of an MMC
officer with an endorsement as master when underway, and an endorsement
as offshore installation manager (OIM) when on location. Appendix (i)
to the Coast Guard-BOEMRE Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation Final
Report concluded that a dynamically-positioned drillship is never on
location. Therefore, the commenter concludes that a dynamically-
positioned drillship master would not require an OIM endorsement since
it is never on location.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The text in Sec.  15.520(e) has been
amended to clarify that drillships operating with a dynamic positioning
system (DP) must be under the command of a master with an OIM
endorsement.
    One commenter notes that the proposed rule changes apply to
mariners who operate internationally, seaward of the boundary line. The
Coast Guard states in the SNPRM that it does not intend to ``apply
strict international standards upon our domestic mariners. . . .'' The
commenter does not agree that operations on the Great Lakes and in the
Inside Passage (extending between Seattle, Washington; British
Columbia, Canada; and southeast Alaska) should be exempt from the STCW
Code. Those areas are as navigationally complex and operationally
challenging as international oceangoing voyages and thus deserve the
high safety standards that STCW provides, standards which, the
commenter believes, are not met by existing Coast Guard domestic
regulations for inland waters.
    The Coast Guard partially agrees. The STCW Convention applies to
mariners serving on seagoing vessels, except pleasure craft, fishing
vessels, and vessels entitled to sovereign immunity such as warships.
Article II of the STCW Convention defines a seagoing ship as a ship
other than one that ``navigates exclusively in inland waters or in
waters within, or closely adjacent to, sheltered waters or areas where
port regulations apply.'' The STCW Convention does not apply to vessels
operating on the Great Lakes. The provisions in this final rule that
would implement amendments to the STCW Convention only apply to
commercial vessels operating seaward of the boundary line, as specified
in 46 CFR part 7. Vessels on the Inside Passage between Puget Sound and
Cape Spencer, Alaska, are not exempted from the application of the STCW
Convention. Discretionary application of STCW standards on inland
waters is neither necessary nor supported by historical casualty data,
which do not demonstrate the need for substantive changes to domestic
regulations for inland waters. The Coast Guard does not intend to apply
international standards to our domestic mariners in this regard.
    One commenter states that the final rule should clearly state that
the requirements of STCW do not apply to inland towing operations or to
crewmembers who work on inland towing vessels.
    The Coast Guard agrees and emphasizes the STCW Convention applies
to mariners serving on seagoing vessels, except pleasure craft, fishing
vessels, and vessels entitled to sovereign immunity such as warships.
Article II of the Convention defines a seagoing ship as a ship other
than one that ``navigates exclusively in inland waters or in waters
within, or closely adjacent to, sheltered waters or areas where port
regulations apply.'' The provisions in this final rule that implement
amendments to the STCW Convention only apply to commercial vessels
operating seaward of the boundary line, as specified in 46 CFR part 7.
    Three commenters state that, since the STCW Convention and Code
were written to correct the well-documented lack of competence and
professionalism on some large, deep-sea vessels with large and diverse
crews, the authors and users of the U.S. MMC regulations need to
remember that the U.S. workboat fleet, consisting of tugs, OSVs,
crewboats, seismic boats, etc., are NOT small ships. These boats have
simplistic

and redundant propulsion systems, wheelhouse engine control, small crew
size, and typically operate on nearshore voyages with well-documented
competence and an exemplary safety record. As such, a ``one-size-fits-
all'' STCW system is unwarranted, unworkable, and unfair to the
workboat fleet, say the commenters. They note and appreciate that the
SNPRM has shown some flexibility in application to workboats, but say
more flexibility is needed to avoid damage to this industry.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that one-size-fits-all is not the
correct implementation of the STCW Convention to the U.S. industry.
Taking this into account, the Coast Guard has included the
flexibilities provided by the Convention in this rule. For example, the
regulatory text in 46 CFR part 11 includes an allowance for knowledge,
understanding and proficiencies that may not be applicable to a certain
type of vessel, in which case a limitation would be issued. Such
exemptions are consistent with the Convention flexibility that allows
for limitations based on size, operational area and vessel type.
    Three commenters state that Sec. Sec.  15.403(c) and 15.404(a) are
too broad. They recommend that the Coast Guard replace ``200 GRT/500 GT
or more'' with ``500 GRT or more on a domestic voyage or 200 GRT/500 GT
or more on an international voyage'' for clarity and accuracy.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard has amended Sec. Sec.
15.403(c) and 15.404(a) by replacing ``200 GRT/500 GT or more'' with
``500 GT or more'' consistent with the STCW requirements for RFPNW and
able seafarer-deck. The STCW is a binding agreement with foreign
countries, and these tonnage cutoffs are required by the STCW
Convention.
    The same commenters feel that the last sentences in Sec. Sec.
15.404(b) and 15.404(d)(3) are overly broad. They suggest replacing
them with ``An Able Seaman filling an A/B billet on the COI and serving
onboard a seagoing vessel, except those vessels listed in Sec.
15.105(f) or (g) of this part, must also hold an STCW endorsement as
able seafarer-deck.'' They also suggest replacing the last sentence in
Sec.  14.404(d)(3) with ``A QMED filling a QMED billet on the
Certificate of Inspection and serving onboard a seagoing vessel, except
those vessels listed in Sec.  15.105(f) or (g) of this part, must also
hold an STCW endorsement as able seafarer-engine.''
    The same commenters feel that Sec. Sec.  15.404(e) and 15.404(f)
are inaccurate as drafted. They suggest that ``Persons serving on
vessels subject to the STCW Convention'' be replaced with ``Persons
serving as Lifeboatman onboard a seagoing vessel, except those vessels
listed in Sec.  15.105(f) or (g) of this part''.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with adding the proposed text because it
would be redundant with the text in Sec.  15.105(f) and (g).
Furthermore, to add such a phrase might lead to confusion on those
vessels that have a lifeboatman manning requirement without the
associated STCW manning requirement. Finally, the exemptions in
Sec. Sec.  15.105(f) and (g) apply to all of 46 CFR part 15, including
Sec.  15.404. Vessels listed in Sec.  15.105(f) or (g) are already
exempted from STCW compliance.
    The same commenters ask if the endorsements in Sec. Sec.
15.404(i), (j) and (k) are national endorsements, STCW endorsements, or
both.
    These endorsements are STCW endorsements.
    Three commenters recommend that the Coast Guard amend proposed
Sec.  15.1103(b) by replacing ``200 GRT/500 GT or more'' with ``over
500 GRT on a domestic voyage or over 200 GRT/500 GT on an international
voyage'' for clarity and accuracy.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard amended Sec. Sec.
15.403(c) and 15.404(a) by replacing ``200 GRT/500 GT or more'' with
``500 GT or more'' consistent with the STCW requirements for RFPNW.
STCW is a binding agreement with foreign countries, and these tonnage
cutoffs are required by the STCW Convention.
    One commenter states that, in Sec.  15.1101(a)(2)(ii), STCW vessel
certificates don't apply to vessels of less than 200 GRT/500 GT.
However in Sec.  15.1103(c), language is missing which would exempt 200
GRT/500 GT vessels. The commenter recommends that the exclusion
language in Sec.  15.1103(b) be included in Sec.  15.1103(c).
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The applicability of the entire subpart
is identified in Sec.  15.1101. The applicability of endorsements for
deck ratings in Sec.  15.1103(b) and (c) is 500 GT or more. The
applicability of endorsements for engineering ratings in Sec.
15.1103(d) and (e) is 1,000 HP/750 kW. These applicability requirements
are consistent with Chapters II and III of the STCW Convention. Using
the deck rating limitations on engineering ratings would be
inconsistent with the STCW Convention.
    Three commenters recommend that the Coast Guard amend Sec. Sec.
15.1105(b) and (c) by replacing ``Onboard a seagoing vessel,'' with
``Onboard a seagoing vessel, except those vessels listed in Sec. Sec.
15.105(f) or (g) of this part.''
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec. Sec.  15.1105(b) and
(c) to ensure it clearly specifies the applicability of the section.
    Three commenters feel that the proposed applicability in proposed
Sec.  15.1109 seems overly broad. In place of ``all masters'' they
suggest it should say ``all masters, except those serving on the
vessels listed in Sec.  15.105(f) or (g) of this part.''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  15.1109 as recommended
for clarity.
    Three commenters observe that Sec.  15.1109, concerning
watchkeeping principles, refers to provisions of the Convention and
Code that consist of more than 21 pages. In comparison, proposed Sec.
15.1111 inserted the STCW Code text nearly verbatim. The commenters
believe that if the Coast Guard is going to require the master to
observe an external standard, it should at least summarize it in this
section.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. While the full text of the STCW
Convention and STCW Code is not readily available to individuals, the
Coast Guard intends to publish NVICs with the relevant text of the
Convention and Code, most notably the tables of competency from Part A
of the STCW Code, consistent with the copyright held by the IMO. These
NVICs will be made available online and will enable the public to view
them as necessary.
    One commenter is concerned that, on page 45933 of the SNPRM
preamble, the Coast Guard notes that individual variances issued to
small vessels on international voyages by local Captains of the Port
for vessels on short international voyages to Canada, the Bahamas, the
British Virgin Islands, and Mexico will be rendered null and void once
the proposed rulemaking becomes final. The commenter requests that the
Coast Guard clarify the mariner credential, endorsement and manning
requirements for small vessels of less than 200 GRT/500 GT, including
towing vessels, engaged in international voyages to nearby foreign
countries, such as Canada, the Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, and
Mexico.
    The Coast Guard disagrees that the proposed regulations are
unclear. Existing regulations excepting smaller vessels in Sec.
15.105(e) and (f) remain unchanged. Small vessels are considered to be
in compliance with STCW when on domestic voyages. The regulations also
provide for issuance of a restricted STCW endorsement for an occasional
international voyage for these vessels. This regulatory provision has
never provided for these endorsements to be used for routine

international voyages. For those operators that routinely operate on
international voyages, we have clarified the requirements for these
STCW endorsements consistent with the STCW Convention and Code.
Further, those small vessel operators that make routine international
voyages have always been responsible for holding the appropriate STCW
endorsement or certificate.
    Four commenters state that it is the clear intent of 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 143 and the IMO to not impose increased regulatory burdens on
industry if the Convention measurement were used for applicability
determinations of domestic and international rules. Therefore, they
feel that any revisions to the regulations should include language to
the effect of: ``Existing Subchapter T/K vessels built prior to July
18, 1982 shall be allowed to apply United States regulations and
international conventions, including SOLAS, STCW and MARPOL using their
respective US regulatory tonnages that were in force prior to coming
into force of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement 1969
(ITC) for the life of the vessel.''
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Owners of vessels built prior to the ITC
are not required to obtain an ITC tonnage. However, if they do, they
must comply with the provisions of STCW and other international
conventions that apply GRT.
    Four commenters state that all U.S. flag vessels with dual tonnages
built prior to July 18, 1982, should have the following statements
placed on the COI, International Ship Security Certificate, Safety
Management Certificate, and SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificates:
(1) ``The gross tonnage according to the measurement system previously
in force to the measurement system of the International Convention on
Tonnage Measurement, 1969 is {insert U.S. Regulatory Tonnage{time} ,
according to the regulations of the United States of America.''; and
(2) ``When operating on an International Voyage: All licensed
individuals must hold licenses authorizing service on vessels of a
tonnage at least equal to the vessel's U.S. Regulatory Tonnage as
indicated on this Certificate of Inspection.''
    With regard to (1), this recommendation is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. With regard to (2), the Coast Guard disagrees. STCW and the
International Tonnage Convention require mariners on international
voyages to meet the credentialing requirements applicable to the
tonnage indicated for the voyage on which they are engaged.
    One commenter states that uninspected fishing industry vessels are
currently exempt from STCW. The United States is not currently a
signatory party to the STCW-F convention which applies to fishing
industry vessels; however, the commenter recommends that the domestic
license structure be altered to include the second engineer, similar to
the proposed limited, OSV, and MODU engineer license tracks.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The STCW Convention does not apply to
fishing vessels. This final rule is intended to implement the STCW
Convention, and provisions solely addressing domestic credentialing are
outside its scope.
    One commenter wants to exempt persons serving on pilot boats from
application of the STCW Convention. The commenter recommends that the
United States interpret the STCW Convention regarding pilot vessels as
follows: Pilot vessels are not considered seagoing ships because they
operate ``in waters within, or closely adjacent to, sheltered waters or
areas where port regulations apply.'' Consistent with this recommended
interpretation of the U.S. obligations under the STCW Convention,
persons serving aboard pilot boats should be exempt from application of
the STCW. Therefore, the commenter recommends that a new subparagraph
(5) be inserted in Sec.  15.105(f) as follows: (5) Pilot boats.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec. Sec.  15.105(f)(5) and
15.1101(a)(1)(v) to exempt pilot vessels engaged in pilotage duty from
STCW requirements in those sections.
    One commenter states that there is no exclusionary language in
Sec.  15.404(c) exempting vessels of less than 200 GRT/500 GT. They
request that such an exemption be inserted in this section.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The STCW Convention's RFPEW requirements
are based on HP/KW limitations and not tonnage limitation. The change
proposed by the commenter would be inconsistent with the Convention.
    One commenter states that there is a long history of cooperation
between Canada and the United States concerning reciprocity of
recognizing domestic licensing schemes. The commenter requests
clarification of STCW applicability to vessels on voyages on these
waters.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended text in Sec.  10.232(b)(3)
so that seafarers working under national endorsements but who sail on
STCW-equipped and -manned vessels inside the boundary line can claim
STCW sea service on a one-for-one basis.
17. General requirements
    One commenter appreciates the Coast Guard efforts to listen to
comments to NPRM. Another commenter appreciates the separation of the
domestic and the STCW licensing schemes, and a third commenter states
that NMC Policy Letter 11-07 was very beneficial to their company.
    The Coast Guard appreciates these comments.
    One commenter notes that Sec.  11.301(c)(2) specifies the form for
providing evidence of continued competence in fire fighting for STCW
endorsements, but the proposal has no similar provision for the fire-
fighting training required for domestic endorsements. The commenter
recommends that a statement be included to describe the form of
acceptable evidence to document continued competence for domestic
endorsements.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Changes to fire-fighting training in
this final rule are required by the STCW Convention and Code. The
requested changes to fire-fighting training for domestic endorsements
are outside the scope of this rulemaking because the Coast Guard
proposed no changes in that area in the SNPRM. Therefore, we are not
extending this requirement to vessels to which STCW does not apply.
    One commenter is concerned that the Coast Guard is narrowing the
spectrum of jobs that will qualify for sea service credit in Sec.
10.232(f).
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard did not change the types
of jobs that will receive sea service credit. The change in sea service
credit was limited to: (1) Consolidating all requirements in parts 10,
11 and 12 into one section that addresses sea service; and (2)
expanding the type of service creditable towards STCW credentials to
include near-coastal and Great Lakes service.
    One commenter states that the various tables in 46 CFR part 11,
subparts C, D, and E are confusing and do not clearly show how someone
with a domestic license (e.g., second mate) can enter and qualify for
an appropriate STCW endorsement (e.g., chief mate). The commenter
recommends that these tables be combined into a single table, or shown
as a figure instead of a table.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The separate tables in part 11 describe
the endorsement requirements more clearly than a single consolidation
would and are co-located with the associated requirements referenced in
the tables.

    Two commenters recommend that the Coast Guard publish a list of
existing policy documents (or portions of policy documents) that it
intends to cancel upon publication of the final rule.
    The Coast Guard agrees. All policy letters that have been
incorporated or overcome by this final rule will be cancelled, and the
Coast Guard will notify the public as soon as possible through a notice
in the Federal Register.
18. Hours of Rest
    Fourteen commenters feel that, with regard to Sec.  15.1111(g),
requiring records of daily hours of rest for mariners would be
redundant with records kept in the official ship's logbook. This will
impose an unnecessary administrative burden upon vessel officers,
mariners and oversight authorities since the information required by
this section should be available for all parties to check in the
official ship's logbook. They also recommend that the Coast Guard
change the last sentence to read ``A copy of the records shall be
provided to the mariner upon request.''
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The Coast Guard will accept entries
in the logbook. This section, as drafted, does not preclude the use of
the logbook as a means to keep records of rest periods. The Coast Guard
will consider developing a consolidated form to capture mandated work/
rest information. In response to the commenters' second recommendation,
the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention require that seafarers
receive a copy of the records pertaining to them. Although the language
of the provision has been altered slightly from what was proposed in
the SNPRM, the requirement to provide seafarers with a copy of their
records, whether requested or not, has been retained.
    One commenter notes that the SNPRM proposes to increase the amount
of rest that mariners must be provided in any 7-day period from 70
hours to a minimum of 77 hours. This increase enhances mariners'
ability to reduce fatigue. However, the commenter notes that the change
still falls short in two areas. First, the commenter believes, it does
not apply to mariners in domestic service, including those transiting
the Great Lakes and the Inside Passage. Second, it does not address the
hours of the day/night during which the rest should be obtained, and
thus does not preclude disrupted circadian rhythms or fragmented sleep
periods from adversely affecting mariner performance. The commenter
believes that the Coast Guard should modify its hours of service rules
accordingly. Moreover, the commenter urges the Coast Guard to work with
the IMO to change international rules to ensure that mariners worldwide
operate under work schedules that, in accordance with the scientific
literature on circadian rhythms, provide sufficient rest.
    One commenter stated that language should be added to Sec.
15.1111(g) to the effect that if the vessel is a day boat, records of
daily hours of rest are not required. Why record the rest period for a
crew member if they have left the vessel for home and are returning a
different day for another run?
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The hours of rest in part 15, subpart K
only apply to vessels subject to STCW and not inland vessels. We are
unable to modify the hours of rest for vessels to which STCW does not
apply as part of this rulemaking because it would require changes to
the U.S. Code and is therefore outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    Two commenters recommend that, with regard to Sec.  15.1111, the
Coast Guard, working with MERPAC, develop a U.S. standard record
keeping form or program for the maintenance of daily hours of rest so a
uniform system across the U.S. flag fleet can be implemented. This will
not only assist port state control oversight but also lessen any
additional burden upon the U.S. mariner.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The Coast Guard will accept entries
in the logbook and the use of the standard IMO/ILO record of hours of
rest as a means to document hours of rest. The text as currently
drafted does not preclude the use of the logbook as a means to keep
records of rest periods. The Coast Guard will consider developing a
consolidated form to capture mandated work/rest.
    One commenter notes that, in Sec.  15.1111, the term ``rest
period'' has no real definition. It should be replaced with the term
``off duty period'' for the sake of clarity.
    The Coast Guard disagrees and is retaining the existing definition
for ``rest'' in Sec.  10.107, which provides, in part, that rest is a
period of time during which the person concerned is off duty.
    Two commenters state that, with regard to Sec.  15.1111, the
proposal is ambiguous and requires amendments to address, or exclude,
off-watch work-related hours spent on travel, dead-heads, etc. The
proposal fails to outline a method by which crews working a 12-hour
watch, commuting to and from the vessel on a daily or nightly basis,
are to record so called ``rest periods.'' Lastly, the full definition
of a ``rest period'' needs to be presented and clarified.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Rest is defined in 46 U.S.C. 8104 and in
Sec.  10.107 of this final rule, as that period when the mariner is off
duty, not performing work, and allowed to sleep without interruption.
The Coast Guard has previously established policy that traveling to and
from the vessel is neutral time, which is neither rest nor work.
    Seafarers serving onboard vessels authorized to implement a 12-hour
watch under 46 U.S.C. 8104 will be required to document the hours of
rest. The Coast Guard will accept entries in the logbook and the use of
the standard IMO/ILO record of hours of rest as means to document hours
of rest. The Coast Guard will also consider developing a consolidated
form to capture mandated work/rest. The Coast Guard plans to retain the
definition for ``rest'' in Sec.  10.107, which provides, in part, that
rest is a period of time during which the person concerned is off duty.
    One commenter asks, with regard to Sec.  15.1111, if the Coast
Guard will summarize the impact of this requirement on vessel
operations and potentially manning, as it will apply not only to
watchkeepers, but also to those with safety, pollution prevention and
security responsibilities--this includes the master and chief engineer.
    The rest requirements apply to all persons assigned duty as an
OICNW or OICEW, or duty as ratings forming part of a navigational or
engineering watch, or designated safety, prevention of pollution, and
security duties onboard any vessel. It is the company's responsibility
to ensure that all persons mentioned above are afforded rest in
accordance with Sec.  15.1111.
    Three commenters note that Sec.  15.1111(g) requires both the
master and each mariner to ``endorse'' the rest schedule. This
``endorsement'' is not required by the STCW Code and will reduce the
rest of all vessel personnel, if reporting to a central location to
sign the rest schedule after each watch is required. The commenters
recommend dropping the proposed endorsement requirement.
    The Coast Guard agrees. The copy of the records due to the mariner
is what is required to be endorsed, and we have amended Sec.
15.1111(g) to reflect this.
    With regard to Sec.  15.1111, one commenter believes that requiring
more rest for mariners equates to requiring more crew. Many U.S.
shipping companies are at minimum manning due to the high cost of
maintaining crews and vessels. Additional regulations will only drive
business overseas and deplete the U.S. fleet further.

    The Coast Guard disagrees because no commenter has provided, and
the Coast Guard is not aware of, any data in support of these
arguments. Additionally, the STCW Code and Convention prescribes
training, not manning, requirements, and the hours of rest are
international requirements that apply to all vessels subject to STCW.
    As discussed in the SNPRM and supporting Regulatory Analysis, we
believe that the new requirements can be accommodated without changing
existing watch rotations or current crew sizes, therefore resulting in
no additional cost. According to Coast Guard industry experts, STCW
vessels engaged in transoceanic voyages are staffed with a 3-watch crew
rotation. Even for STCW vessels staffed with only 2 watches, resulting
in an average of 12 hours of rest per day or 84 hours a week, the 77
hours a week rest requirement should be able to be met without change
in watch schedules. The Coast Guard will monitor the implementation of
rest hour requirements and report any new data it finds on industry
costs to implement these requirements.
    One commenter notes that offshore petroleum operators are required
to meet both the work-hour requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (OPA 90) and rest hour requirements of STCW. The SNPRM includes a
definition of ``rest'' but not one for ``work.'' This is problematic,
as it could be interpreted that a mariner, who is not resting,
therefore, must be working. If that were the case, it will be
impossible for some operators to meet the requirements of OPA 90, since
drills will be considered work. The commenter recommends that a
definition of ``work'' be added that explicitly states emergencies and
drills will not be considered ``work.'' This will allow petroleum
operators the flexibility to track all work/rest/drill hours in one
continuous log rather than maintain separate logs for each purpose
under unclear guidelines.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Part 15, subpart K applies to vessels
subject to STCW, and the Convention does not address work. Therefore,
it was not included in this rulemaking. Adding a definition for
``work'' would need to be part of a separate rulemaking subject to
public notice and comment.
    One commenter believes that the need to track both work and rest
hours may be overly burdensome for these mariners. With that said,
however, the commenter states that there may be some trends in
identifying fatigue, or advantages in tracking rest in lieu of work or
vice-versa. The commenter recommends that the Coast Guard examine the
efficacy of tracking hours of rest and hours of work.
    This is outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking only
made changes related to the hours of rest in the STCW Convention. This
rulemaking does not include changes to work-hour requirements.
Furthermore, we are unable to modify the hours of service as part of
this rulemaking because it would require changes to the U.S. Code.
19. Radar Endorsements
    One commenter notes that currently mariners need only carry the
radar certificate with them and it does not have to be endorsed on
their new credential. The commenter says the Coast Guard has provided
no rationale for the change in Sec.  11.480(d), which requires that an
applicant for a radar observer endorsement or for renewal of such an
endorsement to submit evidence of training to the Coast Guard. The
commenter states that this is both time-consuming and an additional
expense for mariners, and recommends that the current policy remain in
place.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard proposed changes to the
radar observer requirements that explicitly permit mariners to submit
evidence of training in person, by mail, fax, or other electronic
means. The requirement to submit such evidence, however, predates this
rulemaking, and was established by a rule published in the Federal
Register on September 11, 2008, (73 FR 52789).
    Two commenters note that Sec.  10.209 states that if the applicant
desires a credential with a radar-observer endorsement in accordance
with Sec.  11.480 of this subchapter, either the radar-observer
certificate or a certified copy must be presented. The commenter notes
that current Coast Guard policy is to accept copies of any certificate
when submitting the application. The commenters recommend that the
current policy be retained and that the Coast Guard continue to accept
copies of any training certificates and documents submitted with the
application.
    The Coast Guard agrees. We currently accept copies of all course-
completion certificates, including those for radar, and we have amended
Sec.  10.209 accordingly.
20. Ratings
    Four commenters note that, in Sec. Sec.  12.603(b) and 12.607(b),
it says ``Until January 1, 2017, seafarers may be considered to have
met the requirements of this section.'' The phrase ``may be'' is
unclear. The commenters recommend replacing ``may be'' with ``will be''
to improve application and clarity. Assuming the effective date of the
final rule will be very soon, this flexibility will be necessary to
avoid overwhelming the Coast Guard with able seafarer applications and
stripping the U.S. flag fleet of qualified crew members while awaiting
thousands of new STCW endorsements.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has revised the sections as recommended
to ensure clarity.
    One commenter notes that, in proposed Sec.  12.701, the paragraph
begins with ``Every person employed in a rating other than A/B or QMED
aboard U.S. flag vessels requiring such persons.'' As drafted, this
paragraph appears intended to apply 46 U.S.C. 8701, but instead expands
the requirements of the law. The commenter suggests it say instead
``Every person employed as a rating aboard U.S. flag vessels of 100
GRT/100 GT or more, except as exempted by 46 U.S.C. 8701.''
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. As written, the paragraph appears
to require MMDs in more situations than envisioned by 46 U.S.C. 8701.
Section 12.701 has been revised to clarify: (1) That a rating
endorsement on an MMC qualifies as holding an MMD; and (2) that the
requirement to hold an MMD only applies to vessels subject to 46 U.S.C.
8701. The MMD requirement in the statute extends beyond those employed
as a rating to anyone employed or engaged upon the vessel.
    One commenter notes that, in light of STCW standards for able
seafarer-deck that go far beyond the U.S. requirements for service and
training that have served our mariners well, it is laudable that the
Coast Guard has adopted transitional provisions in Sec. Sec.  12.603(a)
and (b) that will delay, if not mitigate, the additional burdens
imposed by the Convention. The table in Sec.  12.603(e), however, could
be read to ``trump'' those provisions. The commenter recommends
changing Sec.  12.603(e) to the effect that, ``Except as provided in
(b) and (c), seafarers with the following . . . .''
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The table in Sec.  12.603(e)
already accounts for the provisions in Sec.  12.603(a). Additionally,
to avoid misinterpretation, the Coast Guard amended footnote ``*'' to
link the table to the requirements for certification as a RFPNW in
Sec.  12.603(a)(2) and (3). The Coast Guard amended Sec.  12.603(e) to
ensure that it does not override the provisions in paragraphs (b) and
(c).
    Two commenters express concern that the A/B maintenance and
watchstander billets will be replaced by the ordinary

seaman, who does not have enough experience to be steering vessels.
Therefore, the commenter recommends leaving the RFPNW restricted to
lookout duties until he becomes able seaman-special.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. RFPNW is a prerequisite for able seaman
but requires competence in lookout duties, steering, etc. U.S. Code and
existing manning regulations also include provisions on when an
ordinary seaman can actually assume the duties of a helmsman as well as
standing watches.
    Two commenters state it is their understanding that our domestic
RFPNW able seaman-special will no longer be able to sail
internationally (outside the boundary lines) until he obtains an able
seafarer-deck endorsement (Sec. Sec.  15.404 and 12.603). The
commenters ask if a mariner sails as a RFPNW, will this reduce the need
for able seafarer-deck onboard. They would like the assurance that
entry level mariners will not replace able seamen onboard ships sailing
beyond the boundary line.
    Entry-level mariners will not replace able seamen onboard vessels
sailing beyond the boundary line. The numbers of able seamen are
required by regulation. Section 15.404(b) has been amended to clarify
the manning of vessels with A/Bs holding either RFPNW or able seafarer-
deck.
    One commenter states that Sec.  12.607(e) could be misconstrued to
take precedence over the transitional provisions in paragraphs (b) and
(c).
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The table in Sec.  12.607(e)
already accounts for the provisions in Sec.  12.607(a). Additionally,
to avoid misinterpretation the Coast Guard amended footnote ``*'' to
link the table to the requirements for certification as a RFPNW in
Sec.  12.607(a)(2) and (3). The Coast Guard also is amending Sec.
12.607(e) to ensure that it does not override the provisions in
paragraphs (b) and (c).
21. Recognition of Certificates
    One commenter suggested that the MMCs issued to foreign mariners in
recognition of their STCW endorsement contain specific language
describing the scope and authority of the MMC.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the concerns of the commenter and notes
that foreign mariners will not be issued an MMC. Rather, they will be
issued a separate document. The Coast Guard has yet to decide upon the
specific design of this document, and will consider the recommendations
of the commenter when the document is designed. Part 11, subpart J of
this final rule contains provisions on recognition of STCW certificates
issued by foreign nations.
    One commenter disagrees with the proposal to recognize certificates
issued by other parties to the STCW Convention. Presently there is a
shortage of U.S. merchant mariners, and the commenter says it is
incumbent upon our regulatory bodies as well as industry itself to
promote the U.S. merchant marine to maintain a strong maritime presence
in the U.S. and worldwide.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The U.S. will recognize certificates
issued by other parties to the STCW Convention in accordance with
existing laws of the United States. Under 46 U.S.C. 8103(b)(3)(A), the
citizenship requirements can be waived for mariners other than master
on OSVs operating from a foreign port. To ensure compliance with the
STCW Convention, in the limited cases of OSVs, the U.S. needs to
recognize seafarer competence certificates from other countries that
have ratified the STCW Convention.
22. Qualified Assessors (QA)
    One commenter notes that, in Sec.  10.405(c), the requirement for a
``Train-the-Trainer'' course to follow IMO model course 6.09 is
contrary to the Coast Guard's existing policy of allowing most 40-hour
``Train-the-Trainer'' courses offered by State educational systems. The
commenter recommends that the current policy continue to be accepted as
meeting ``another Coast Guard-accepted syllabus.''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  10.405(c) to broaden
the acceptance of courses based on another Coast Guard-accepted
syllabus.
    Thirty three commenters feel that, just because a mariner may
possess any given rating or license, this does not mean that this
mariner is also proficient in teaching and assessment competencies. The
commenters believe that any program that includes onboard teaching and
assessments should be Coast Guard certified as meeting QSS requirements
including ongoing oversight of assessor qualifications including
periodic audits consistent with the requirements already imposed on
shore based training providers.
    The Coast Guard agrees and will be developing guidance for
qualified assessors (QAs) and the assessment of STCW proficiencies.
    One commenter states that one valuable thing that a well-rounded
licensed officer must have is experience on all type of vessels, in all
types of waters under all types of conditions. The licenses for third
and second mate allow the mariner to ``sail'' on all types of vessels.
However, the proposed rules will allow assessments to be made on only
one type of vessel. How could a mariner sailing on an OSV gain any
knowledge of a container ship, car carrier, tanker, tug boat, etc.?
Years of training have given the U.S. airline industry one of the
safest records in the world. The commenter believes that the maritime
industry needs to follow this plan.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The STCW requirements and the U.S.
credentialing system allow for mariners to sail on all types of
vessels; however, the average mariner does not have experience on all
types of vessels. The competence requirements in the STCW convention
and U.S. regulations are supplemented by familiarization requirements
onboard the vessel prior to the seafarer taking the responsibilities of
his or her assigned duties.
    The Coast Guard will be developing guidance for QAs and the
assessment of STCW proficiencies. It is important that the U.S. not
reduce its commitment to ensuring that its mariners develop according
to a high standard of competence. However, the Coast Guard also
recognizes that this development of competencies must be flexible and
multifaceted to facilitate mariner training. The use of QAs and
standardized assessments will provide options for mariner development,
as well as providing standards for the training and maritime industries
to use in development of required and optional courses and programs.
Those courses and programs will also provide other options for mariner
training and development.
    One commenter recommends that Sec.  10.405(c) become Sec.
10.405(b)(4). The commenter points out that applicants for QA positions
may provide documentary evidence of a ``Train-the-Trainer'' course,
which seems inappropriate. The commenter recommends that a ``train the
assessor'' course be added as an acceptable program.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  10.405 to ensure that
the QA is trained in proper assessment techniques, by means of an
``assessor training'' course. In addition, this topic will also be
discussed in the guidance that the Coast Guard is developing concerning
QAs.
    The Coast Guard disagrees, however, with re-designating Sec.
10.405(c) as Sec.  10.405(b)(4). Section 10.405(c) provides specific
information applicable to both Sec.  10.405(a) and Sec.  10.405(b),
which set out the requirements for QA and DE respectively.

    One commenter notes that in Sec.  11.301(a)(1)(i), it says that
assessments are signed by a DE, but he believes that it should read
``qualified assessor'' because these provisions are specific to STCW
endorsements.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has revised Sec.  11.301(a)(1)(i) as
recommended.
23. License Progression
    One commenter states that, with regard to Sec.  11.305(e), he
strongly supports the crossover paths from domestic to STCW
endorsements. These advancement opportunities will not only encourage
ambitious individuals to enter the maritime workforce, they will
motivate those individuals to obtain the training needed to establish
the required competence.
    The Coast Guard appreciates this support.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard develop career paths
for chief engineer (MODU) and assistant engineer (MODU).
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The MODU industry has established
processes for their personnel and the Coast Guard already has
established progression tasks for engineers who wish to transition to a
conventional vessel.
    Three commenters note that Sec.  11.305 requires evidence of 36
months service as OICNW to qualify for an STCW endorsement as unlimited
master oceans without any time required as chief mate. In current Sec.
11.404, the minimum service required to qualify an applicant for an
endorsement as master of ocean any gross tons is 1 year of service as
chief mate or a minimum of 6 months as chief mate with 12 months as
second or third mate. The proposed reduction in experience is a
deskilling of the unlimited master ocean license. The commenter
recommends retaining the current requirements.
    Another commenter notes that proposed Sec.  11.305 has a provision
that would permit a master of less than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT to cross
over to master 3,000 GT or more (unlimited) with only 6 months service
on vessels of under 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT and no experience on vessels of
unlimited size. Under the current regulations, a master 1,600 GRT
oceans can cross over to third mate unlimited oceans with 12 months
service or second mate unlimited with an examination. The commenter
says that permitting the proposed drastic reduction in experience from
the current regulation in essence allows an individual with a license
that formerly was considered equivalent to third or second mate
unlimited to progress to unlimited ocean master with only 6 months
experience in ships of limited size. The commenter says this is an
astounding reduction of standards, and recommends retaining the current
requirements.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. This cross over provision, which is
consistent with the STCW Convention, is available only to those
mariners who have already obtained a national endorsement with
authority to operate vessels of unlimited tonnage or offshore support
vessels of up to 10,000 GT. Additionally, the STCW competence and
training requirements will ensure that those persons seeking to obtain
the management-level STCW endorsement have demonstrated competence and
achieved the required level of training.
    One commenter notes that the definition of ``chief mate'' in Sec.
10.107 clearly characterizes the role and responsibility of a 1,600 GRT
mate on a vessel allowed to operate under a two-watch system. Therefore
the commenter expects that the use of the term ``chief mate'' in Sec.
11.311 will permit such service (or service while holding a master
endorsement) to satisfy the provision allowing for a reduction in
service to 24 months provided that 12 months is ``served as chief
mate.'' However, the commenter is concerned that the provision will be
misconstrued as written and recommend that it be reworded to allow the
reduction ``. . . if the applicant served in the capacity of chief mate
for not less than 12 months.''
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. Where the mariner holds a
management-level credential, and fills the position as mate, and the
position meets the definition of chief mate found in Sec.  10.107, then
that service will be credited as chief mate. However, the Coast Guard
does not believe this section is confusing and likely to be
misconstrued, nor did the Coast Guard revise this definition as part of
this rulemaking project.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard consider streamlining
ocean, OSV, and Uninspected Vessel qualification training pipelines by
utilizing current STCW certifications for their basis rather than the
HP rating.
    The Coast Guard did not propose a change in the national
endorsement scheme. Regulatory changes on that subject would need to be
part of a separate rulemaking and subject to public notice and comment.
    One commenter notes that, for unlimited tonnage vessels (at least
1,600 GRT), the U.S. domestic license structure provides for four
licenses, whereas the STCW convention provides for three licenses. The
commenter says that our domestic licensing system works well and is
easily adaptable to meet STCW requirements. It supports a three-watch
system or periodically unmanned engine rooms.
    The Coast Guard has been using the four-license national structure
to fit in with the STCW three-license system since the 1997 IR. The
national third assistant engineer and second assistant engineer
endorsements, as well as the national third and second mate
endorsements, fall neatly within the STCW OICNW and OICEW endorsements.
Typically, national master and chief mate align with their STCW
counterparts, and the national chief engineer and first assistant
engineer endorsements also align with theirs.
    One commenter notes that, for limited tonnage vessels (at least 500
GT up to 1,600 GT), our domestic license structure provides for only
two licenses, whereas the STCW convention provides for three licenses.
Currently, the limited assistant engineer license is endorsed for
oceans. The restricted limited chief engineer license is endorsed for
near-coastal, where the unrestricted limited chief engineer license is
endorsed for oceans. Therefore, the commenter recommends that the Coast
Guard restructure the domestic license track to mirror STCW and
introduce a limited second engineer license. Any restrictions, in terms
of routes, would be issued strictly on the basis of STCW certification.
Without the appropriate STCW certificate, the domestic license would be
restricted to near-coastal, regardless of the level of the license.
With the appropriate STCW certificate, the scope of the license would
be extended to oceans, again regardless of the level of the license.
This proposed license structure would support a two- or three-watch
system or a periodically unmanned engine room.
    The same commenter proposes that the domestic license tracks for
OSV and MODU follow the same pattern as proposed for the limited-
license track, introducing a second engineer license. This proposed
license structure would support a two- or three-watch system or
periodically unmanned engine rooms.
    The same commenter also notes that, for limited tonnage vessels
less than 500 GT, our domestic license structure provides for three
designated duty engineer licenses, although most vessels would carry
just one licensed engineer. The restrictions placed on the DDE license
are based on horsepower and routes as a function of qualifying sea
service in the engine room. The commenter recommends that the
horsepower limits be based on

conventional methods used for the other license tracks, rather than sea
service requirements.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part and has removed the endorsement for
chief engineer (limited-near-coastal) in Sec.  11.520. We also amended
sections Sec. Sec.  11.518 and 11.522 to establish new crossover points
from limited to unlimited national engineering endorsements. However,
the remainder of the commenter's suggested progression paths are
unnecessarily complex. The Coast Guard's licensing scheme is clearer
and is based upon the Coast Guard's long experience and the maritime
industry's needs.
    Ten commenters believe that the proposed changes in the engineering
training requirements in the SNPRM represent a significant improvement
over the NPRM. The commenters believe, though, that additional changes
are needed to ensure an engineering career path that meets the twin
goals of safety and practicality. The commenters recommend the removal
of all route restrictions in Sec.  15.915 so an engineer seeking to
sail on an international or ocean voyage will require an STCW
endorsement. The commenters believe that the need to obtain an STCW
endorsement creates a route restriction.
    Additionally, five commenters recommend that the Coast Guard allow
direct crossover from lower-level to upper-level licenses where
appropriate, including a new crossover from chief engineer (limited) to
first assistant engineer (unlimited).
    Similarly, five commenters recommend that the Coast Guard provide a
direct crossover from third assistant engineer to DDE-unlimited HP and
assistant engineer (limited) to vessels under 1,600 GRT, and from
second assistant engineer to chief engineer (limited) to vessels under
1,600 GRT.
    The Coast Guard agrees with most of these comments. In this final
rule, the Coast Guard has provided a crossover from chief engineer
(limited) to first assistant engineer. Direct crossover from third
assistant engineer and assistant engineer (limited) to DDE is already
permitted in current regulations. Additionally, the Coast Guard has
added, in figure Sec.  11.505(a) of this final rule, a direct crossover
from third assistant engineer to assistant engineer (limited). The
Coast Guard does not agree, though, with the need for a crossover from
second assistant engineer to chief engineer (limited) because first
assistant engineer is the crossover point to chief engineer (limited).
Also, removal of the national route restrictions would require a
separate rulemaking subject to public notice and comment.
    One commenter encourages the Coast Guard to take this opportunity
to review engineer endorsements and licenses for the operation of 46
CFR chapter I, subchapter H vessels on inland waters within three miles
from land.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The current regulations allow the OCMI
to set manning requirements and national credentials already exist to
cover this type of operation, and changes to these regulations are
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter states that proposed new language will allow officers
serving on vessels subject to 46 CFR chapter I, subchapters T and K to
obtain an STCW endorsement, but at the same time will prohibit officers
serving on the vessels subject to 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter H from
realizing the same benefit. The commenter recommends that the Coast
Guard reverse this policy and grant STCW endorsements to those officers
serving on 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter H vessels.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. STCW applies to seagoing commercial
vessels, except fishing vessels. However, special provisions allow for
exempting smaller vessels on near-coastal voyages from unreasonable or
impracticable requirements. The exemptions for small passenger vessels
engaged exclusively on domestic voyages is limited to vessels less than
100 GRT and engaged in domestic trade. In 1997, the Coast Guard
determined that an equivalency between STCW requirements and current
U.S. laws and industry practice is justified. The revisions to the
rules on inspection and certification of small passenger vessels (46
CFR chapter I, subchapters T and K), as well as the fact that the Coast
Guard has the opportunity to perform direct oversight of the
operational aspects of these vessels, supports such an equivalency.
Therefore, this final rule imposes no new requirements either on
personnel serving on these vessels or on their owners or operators. In
contrast, 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter H applies to vessels of more
than 100 GRT. Because these vessels are more complex, and can carry
more passengers onboard, STCW regulations require additional training,
service, and assessments.
    One commenter recommends that Figure 11.403 should include the
master of towing vessels progression and appropriate crossover points.
    The Coast Guard agrees, but has provided the separate progression
paths as well as credentialing crossovers in Figure 11.463 for improved
readability.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard add to Sec.  11.412
an upgrade from master 500 GRT Oceans (domestic) to 1,600 GRT oceans
(domestic) with one additional year of sea service under the authority
of the license above 50 GRT. This is congruent with the service
requirement in Table 1 to Sec.  11.311(d) for ocean master more than
200 GRT/500 GT and less than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part and has added a paragraph noting
that mariners may raise the grade of an officer endorsement as master
from less than 500 GRT to less than 1,600 GRT with 1 year of service as
a master, mate, or master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on vessels
over 100 GRT.
    One commenter disagrees with the route limitation in Sec.
15.915(a)(1) and recommends that the Coast Guard remove it, because
there is a lot of towing commerce between the West Coast, Alaska, and
Hawaii. The commenter believes insertion of this route restriction will
hurt the towing industry.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard did not propose any
changes to this paragraph. This final rule provides for a progression
to endorsements valid for oceans service. If mariners serve on vessels
operating on oceans, they may obtain one of the engineer endorsements
authorizing service on oceans.
    One commenter notes that Sec.  11.420 requires 1 year of service as
mate in order to obtain an original mate 500 GRT Ocean license. This is
illogical, the commenter says, as a mate position is an entry level
deck officer position. A provision allowing for an original 500 GRT
mate license with 3 years of service on ocean or near-coastal routes on
vessels greater than 50 GRT should be added.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard did not propose any
changes to the service requirements for an endorsement as mate less
than 500 GRT in Sec.  11.420. The requirement in that section for an
applicant to have at least 1 year service as a master, mate or
equivalent supervisory service, of which at least 6 months must be on
vessels of more than 50 GRT, to qualify for this endorsement remains
unchanged from the current regulation.
    One commenter notes that there are currently two paths to master on
vessels of less than 200 GRT: 36 months on vessels of greater than 200
GRT; and 1 year acting as master on a towing vessel, but there are no
tonnages mentioned in regulation.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has deleted the tonnage requirement from
Sec.  11.317(a)(1).

    Two commenters recommend that the Coast Guard look very closely at
the implementation schedule proposed for these credentials, especially
for those vessels of less than 200 GRT. There will be a great shortage
for engineers on these vessels. The commenters say the Coast Guard
should work with industry to develop career paths and a realistic
implementation period.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The rule provides an implementation
period ending on January 1, 2017. In addition, we have provided
multiple progression paths to facilitate engineers operating on tow
boats to be able to obtain an STCW endorsement.
    Two commenters believe that the new STCW requirements will make it
even more challenging for their industry to develop future engineers.
The commenters recommend that QMED time be credited on a 2-for-1 basis
for up to 50 percent of the service time required for upgrade. They
believe that such a provision is necessary in order to allow
individuals with significant service time as unlicensed engineer to
obtain the STCW endorsement needed to continue their career in the
towing industry.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The STCW Convention does not allow for
the use of rating time towards management level credentials. We have
added new progression paths in part 12, subpart F to ensure engineering
ratings can qualify.
24. License Separation Scheme
    Four commenters state that separation of the STCW endorsements from
the domestic licensing scheme does nothing to make it easier for
mariners to read and understand the requirements for each STCW
endorsement. By separating the two sides of the existing credentialing
scheme, the commenters believe the Coast Guard fails to consider the
simplicity of the STCW scheme and the manner in which it accounts for
credentialing options limited to near-coastal voyages.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. This final rule clarifies endorsement
requirements, while being responsive to comments to the SNPRM and NPRM
from industry supporting separate schemes. The final rule also provides
clearer career progression paths from national to STCW endorsements.
    One commenter is in agreement with the proposal to separate the two
licensing schemes, but notes that there are many domestic mariners who
either have come from the STCW realm and continue to work as mariners
or are deep-sea mariners who work domestically during periods of time
off and then return to their regular duties. The commenter recommends
that OCMIs should evaluate training and drill programs of the domestic
fleets and allow credit for any training and drills that meet OCMI/NMC
guidelines.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. Evaluation of training courses and
evidence of drills are part of the NMC's functions. Providing these
functions from a central location ensures a uniform and consistent
implementation of the STCW Convention requirements. One of the
functions of the Regional Examination Centers is to provide oversight
for the courses.
    One commenter states that, in the requirements for a domestic 500
GRT oceans master endorsement (Sec.  11.418) in accordance with
paragraph (c), an individual ``may qualify for an STCW endorsement,
according to Sec. Sec.  11.307, 11.311, 11.313 and 11.315 of this
part.'' However, the proposed rules do not provide an STCW endorsement
as master beyond 200 GRT/500 GT without additional sea service; nor do
they provide ability to work as an OICNW on vessels of less than 200
GRT/500 GT, requirements which would have been met according to Sec.
11.309.
    The Coast Guard agrees. This rulemaking only allows the master of
oceans self-propelled vessels of less than 500 GRT to obtain an
endorsement as master of vessels of less than 500 GT without providing
additional service. If a seafarer holds an STCW endorsement as OICNW,
Sec. Sec.  11.307, 11.311, 11.313, and 11.315 of this final rule
contain provisions for obtaining the management-level endorsements.
    Two commenters state that, according to Sec.  11.305(d), seafarers
holding an STCW endorsement as master of vessels of 200 GRT/500 GT or
more and less than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT in accordance with Sec.  11.311
are eligible to apply for the endorsement as master on vessels of 1,600
GRT/3,000 GT or more upon completion of 6 months of sea service, under
authority of the endorsement; and complete any items in Sec. Sec.
11.305(a)(2) and (a)(3) not previously satisfied. The commenters ask if
this means that someone holding the respective domestic license would
be able to upgrade to an unlimited master.
    As previously noted, we are separating the national officer
endorsement from the STCW endorsement in this final rule, and mariners
must meet the separate qualification requirements for each endorsement.
25. GT/GRT Equivalency
    One commenter states that, in Sec.  15.915(a), the Coast Guard has
added the 200 GRT wording to what currently only says 500 GT. The
commenter believes this has a great effect on uninspected towing
vessels between the 200 and 300 GRT range, which would mean that a DDE-
unlimited would no longer be able to work on vessels in this range. The
commenter recommends either retaining the original language, or
substituting terms of uninspected vessels which would limit it to 300
GRT, or defining it as 300 GRT/500 ITC. This, the commenter believes,
would allow engineers who have been working on these vessels for many
years to continue doing so.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has restored the 500 GRT limit as found
in existing Sec.  15.915(a). DDEs working on vessels subject to STCW
are covered by their STCW endorsements as found in Sec. Sec.  11.325
and 11.331. However, the DDE limitations on their national endorsements
still apply.
    One commenter states that Sec.  11.301(d)(4) regarding dual-tonnage
service may cause confusion and result in unintended consequences and
notes that several dual-tonnage vessels have tonnage that falls above
one threshold but below the other (i.e., 199 GRT/538 ITC or 235 GRT/424
ITC). In these instances, the commenter believes, the manning
requirements are primarily driven by whether the vessel is operating
domestically or internationally. The commenter recommends that this be
considered and that the Coast Guard modify this section so that the
mariner is given sea service credit at whichever equivalency is higher.
    The Coast Guard agrees that using dual-tonnage may cause confusion.
In order to address this issue, the Coast Guard will issue guidance to
specify the process for determining the tonnage to be used when
applying for a credential.
26. High-Speed Craft (HSC)
    Four commenters feel that the type rating certificate renewal
period every 2 years is too short a span and should be increased to 5
years to match all other industry standard MMCs. The commenters
recommend that, if the HSC licensing has to remain at 2-year renewal
intervals: (1) 90 days sea service should be required as opposed to 180
days; and, (2) 4 round trips over each route instead of 12 round trips,
as long as the licensed deck officer also has current first-class
pilotage over the routes. Another option could be to stay with the
present 12 required round trips every 2 years, but allow trips aboard
non-HSC type vessels to be credited on a 2-for-1 basis for up to 50
percent of the

trips so long as the licensed deck officer is also a first-class pilot
for those routes.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. This proposal would diminish the
requirements applied under the HSC code that were taken directly from
that code. The Coast Guard has amended the HSC code section to ensure
it is only applicable to seafarers operating vessels subject to the HSC
Code.
    Three commenters are concerned that the wording in Sec.  11.821
could cause a problem for every operator of a vessel to which the HSC
Code does not apply. The commenters recommend that the wording be
changed because the Coast Guard inspectors may apply this to any vessel
that operates at high speed. Alternatively, the commenters believe the
Coast Guard should further define the application here and the term
``High Speed Craft'' should be added to the definitions section in part
10, so that it is clear to all that the Coast Guard is not requiring
every operator of every craft that goes over 25 knots to be type rated.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the HSC code section to
ensure it is only applicable to seafarers operating vessels to which
that code applies.
    One commenter is opposed to having a separate type rating
certificate (TRC) for each type of HSC and believes it would require
repetition in the already archaic licensing application process. If
existing licensed crew members are hired, and they have to have a
separate individual type rating added to their existing license, the
commenter believes it will stall the entire process of hiring.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The HSC code requires an operator to be
trained on specific vessels or classes of vessels. If the HSC code is
applicable to a vessel, the Coast Guard will continue to require
compliance with that requirement; however, the training requirement
would not apply to the owners and operators of those vessels not
subject to the HSC code.
    Three commenters believe that it is inappropriate and confusing to
insert TRC in proposed Sec.  11.821 and that the requirement for a TRC
for a HSC is derived from the HSC code, not from STCW. The commenters
note that the HSC code is not referenced and not incorporated into this
rulemaking and that there are currently two vessels in the U.S.
operating in compliance with the HSC code, and a fleet of vessels that
are not ``code boats.'' The commenters believe it would be confusing to
the Coast Guard and the industry to have this section of a separate
code incorporated here without sufficient definition or explanation. As
a result, the commenter believes the entire section should be deleted.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. We proposed to include the high-
speed craft provisions in the SNPRM, and included them in this final
rule, because these vessels are in use within the U.S. and the existing
regulations did not account for them. These new requirements will
further promote safe operation of these vessels. Section 11.821 has
been amended to clarify that it applies only to vessels subject to the
HSC code.
27. Horsepower
    One commenter observes that trade publications highlighting
significant new vessel deliveries noted all of the offshore vessels and
many inland boats had propulsion power exceeding 4,000 HP. For that
reason, the commenter recommends increasing all current domestic
credential HP breakpoints to better reflect the current fleet
composition. The commenter recommends that the Coast Guard submit a
paper to a future STCW meeting to increase the STCW limits from the
current 1,000/4,000 HP breakpoints. More realistic breakpoints could be
4,000/10,000/20,000 HP. Alternatively, on a vessel with multiple
identical main engines, regulators could count only the power level of
a single engine as the required power limit on the engineer credential.
    This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Coast
Guard did not propose any new requirements in this area, and regulatory
changes would require a separate rulemaking, including public notice
and comment.
28. Designated Examiners (DE)
    Six commenters agree with the new definition that restricts DEs to
only evaluating the proficiency of any applicant for a towing-vessel
endorsement. The commenter also believes that the current system of
applying for recognition through the NMC is appropriate.
    The Coast Guard agrees and will continue to approve the DEs for
evaluation of applicants for towing endorsements.
    Three commenters ask if the definition of ``designated examiner''
indicates that he or she could be approved by either the Coast Guard or
a Coast Guard-accepted organization.
    The definition in Sec.  10.107(b) has been revised to reflect that
the Coast Guard will continue to approve all DEs.
29. Equivalency
    One commenter urges the Coast Guard to recognize the limited size
and scope of towing vessel engine rooms and account for this by issuing
safe manning certificates for towing vessels subject to STCW that allow
an individual serving as officer in charge of an engineering watch or
designated duty engineer in a periodically manned towing vessel engine
room meeting the operational (STCW III/1) rather than management (STCW
III/2) level training requirements to serve as chief engineer.
    Pursuant to the STCW Convention, persons with chief engineer
functions are required to meet Regulation III/2 or III/3 as
appropriate. STCW does not provide for any exemptions from these
requirements. If a DDE is the only engineer on the boat, then he is the
de-facto chief engineer and must meet Regulation III/2 or III/3 of the
STCW Convention. If he or she is an engineer in addition to another who
is acting as the chief engineer, then he or she would only be required
to meet Regulation III/1 of the STCW Convention.
    One commenter requests that the Coast Guard allow OCMI's to exempt
crew members, or at least members of the steward's department, on
passenger vessels operating on very short-duration cruises inside
completely protected bays and harbors from the requirement to obtain
MMCs.
    The same commenter requests that the Coast Guard designate San
Francisco Bay and San Diego Harbor as ``Rivers'' when applying the MMC
requirement.
    This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Coast
Guard did not propose any new requirements in this area, and regulatory
changes would require a separate rulemaking, including public notice
and comment.
30. Electro-Technical Officer (ETO)
    One commenter recommends that an additional requirement to qualify
for an endorsement as an ETO aboard an unlimited tonnage vessel (Sec.
11.335) should be an endorsement as an OICEW (engineers' license).
Service as an ETO requires a thorough knowledge and operational
experience of all shipboard engineering systems.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Qualification as an OICEW is not a
prerequisite for an ETO endorsement under the STCW Convention. In
addition, the Convention provides for other personnel without a marine
engineering credential to qualify for this endorsement.
    One commenter states that there is no clear education, training or
certification requirement for ETO. The commenter states that the
minimum requirement for an applicant should be that he or she hold a
GMDSS maintainer license and be certified as CompTia A+ Network+ and
Security+. There should also be a

requirement that he or she is also certified in the repair and
operation of Automatic Identification System, Long Range Identification
and Tracking, Ship Security Alert System, Simplified Voyage Data
Recorder Radar/Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS)
and all bridge electronics. The commenter also recommends that there
should be a recertification requirement.
    The Coast Guard partially agrees. Section 11.335 has been amended
to include training requirements appropriate for an ETO. The Coast
Guard disagrees that the GMDSS maintainer should be a pre-requisite for
the ETO since the STCW Convention does not expressly require it. This
final rule allows companies to add this requirement as an additional
responsibility of an ETO.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard establish the
following minimum knowledge for Sec.  11.335, ETO and Electro-technical
rating: Each applicant for an endorsement/license as an electro-
technical officer/rating shall furnish evidence that he or she meets
the standard of the GMDSS maintainers as required by the Coast Guard
and having met the requirements for electro-technical officer/rating as
outlined in STCW A-III/6 or A-III/7.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The GMDSS maintainer and ETO are
separate endorsements that are now established in STCW. This final rule
allows companies to add this requirement as an additional
responsibility of an ETO.
    One commenter asks, with regard to Sec.  11.335:
    (1) In what engine room capacity does the potential ETO have to
serve?
    (2) If proficiencies are demonstrated onboard a vessel, who signs
the competencies?
    (3) Does any new OICEW or greater endorsement qualify as ETO
without additional training, service, or assessment?
    (4) Is ETO to be a subsidiary duty of any OICEW or higher?
    (5) Is this the intended outcome or is the ETO to be a specialized
Electronics/Automation/Controls engineer?
    The STCW Convention is not a manning document; therefore, the Coast
Guard will not require that any vessel carry a mariner holding this ETO
endorsement. However, anyone serving in the capacity of ETO must hold
the endorsement. If proficiencies are demonstrated onboard a vessel, a
qualified assessor would sign the competencies. Any new OICEW must meet
the requirements of Sec.  11.335 in order to qualify as an ETO. Any
mariner who meets the ETO requirements in Sec.  11.335 will be issued
an ETO endorsement without regard to whether they also hold or qualify
for a corresponding national endorsement or any other STCW endorsement.
31. Examinations
    One commenter notes that Sec.  11.201(j)(2) contains a
recommendation that an applicant take the exam ``as soon as possible,''
even though the preamble of the SNPRM (76 FR 45939) states that the
Coast Guard agreed with a comment that the advice is unnecessary and
would be dropped. The commenter recommends deleting the statement.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and Sec.  11.201(j)(2) has been amended to
delete this language and indicate only that the approval for
examination is good for 1 year.
    One commenter recommends that, in Sec.  12.205, the Coast Guard add
a consequence to the last sentence of (c), such as ``or the application
will be voided.''
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The regulatory text is clear that the
approval for examination is good for 1 year.
    Two commenters note that Sec.  11.201(j)(1)(iii) requires
applicants (e.g., cadets) enrolled in a comprehensively approved
program of training, service and assessment be authorized for the Coast
Guard exam ``not more than 3 months prior to the completion of the
program provided all applicable sea service requirements are completed
prior to the examination.'' The commenters believe the 3-month period
is more restrictive than the 6-month period previously allowed by the
Coast Guard and recommended that the 6-month period be retained.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The exams need to be completed soon
before or after issuance of the credential to ensure that new officers
have the knowledge prior to receipt of their officer endorsement.
However, the Coast Guard recognizes that some training schools complete
the training program ahead of time and the rest of the time is spent
prepping for the exam. In order to facilitate the examination process
while ensuring that the examinees have the knowledge for the exam, the
Coast Guard has added an additional sentence to allow applicants to
test earlier (a maximum of 6 months prior to the program end and
graduation), provided they have completed all parts of the
comprehensive program that pertain to maritime credentialing
requirements.
    One commenter states that, in Table 11.910-2, the examination
topics should make reference and include specific knowledge,
understanding and proficiencies required in the STCW tables in the
applicable deck or engine license category.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The exam subject tables in Sec.
11.910 cover the general subjects and topics for each credential
issued. Subjects, topics, and sub-topics related to STCW KUPs will be
defined in guidance issued by the Coast Guard.
    One commenter asks how the Coast Guard will approve simulators
discussed in Sec.  11.901(c).
    The Coast Guard does not approve individual simulators. The Coast
Guard approves courses that use simulators and, as part of the approval
process, evaluates whether the simulator is suitable for the proposed
training.
    One commenter states that Tables 11.910-2, 11.930-2, and 12.950-2
do not include security training requirements.
    Tables 11.910-2, 11.930-2, and 12.950-2 depict exam topics for
endorsements requiring examinations. The security endorsements do not
require examinations.
    One commenter suggests that, if the tables of examination topics
(Sec. Sec.  11.910 and 11.950) were relocated to the ``Examination
Guide,'' they could be more quickly updated as necessary. If strictly
adhered to, these tables would provide essential direction to the
testing mariner without compromising the integrity of the examination.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The tables need to remain in the
regulations until such time as the Coast Guard replaces them in
regulation or issues guidance. The tables are necessary to provide the
mariners with the topics for the exams. The Coast Guard will consider
issuing a task to MERPAC to develop suitable information on exam
topics.
    The same commenter notes that, with regard to Sec.  10.219(a), the
current regulations used ``Upper Level'' to apply specifically to
unlimited master any gross tons (AGT), near-coastal/oceans chief mate
AGT near-coastal or oceans, second mate AGT near-coastal or oceans,
third mate AGT near-coastal or oceans, chief, first, second, and third
engineers without tonnage or route restrictions. But in the reference
beneath this SNPRM table, ``Upper Level'' is defined as AGT or
unlimited horsepower. Is the master inland AGT considered ``unlimited''
here for fee purposes? The new Deck Examination Guide relies on the old
Sec.  10.107 definitions, which included ``Upper Level'' as defined
above and distinguishes two retesting procedures and two waiting
periods for ``Upper and Lower Levels.''

    The same commenter also pointed out that ``Upper Level'' candidates
who failed three sections of their examinations were required to retest
on all sections. ``Lower Level'' candidates did not have to meet this
threshold. ``Upper Level'' candidates had to wait 3 months before
beginning a new exam cycle after having failed a previous go-round;
``Lower Level'' candidates had to wait only 2 months. Will the
procedures of the Deck Examination Guide remain in place or will the
testing procedures and waits change to one system for all candidates as
described in Sec.  10.219?
    The Coast Guard has changed the testing procedures and waiting
periods for both deck and engine ``Upper and Lower'' level examinations
to one system for all candidates as detailed in Sec.  11.217(a) of this
final rule. The examination guide will be changed accordingly.
Additionally, the Coast Guard has added a definition for ``unlimited''
in Sec.  10.107.
    The same commenter noted that Sec.  11.418(b) should be changed to
provide for a limited examination instead of a full examination.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and provisions in the existing regulations
calling for a limited examination remain unchanged. We will also retain
the existing regulation specifying a limited examination in Sec. Sec.
11.418(b), 11.429(a)(3), 11.446(b), 11.456(a)(3), and 11.467(f)(3).
    One commenter requests a near-term update to the tables of
examination subjects in part 11 to reflect the 1995 and 2010 STCW
amendments. Of great importance, the commenter believes, is the
accuracy of the list of examination subjects, which enables maritime
educators to determine more precisely what must be included in training
and education programs to ensure their students can adequately prepare
for the Coast Guard's exam.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the examination tables to
include the general topics for the various examinations. The Coast
Guard recognizes that additional information may be necessary to
further develop these topics. The Coast Guard will consider issuing a
task to MERPAC to develop suitable additional information on exam
topics.
    The same commenter asks, as an example, if a mariner has an STCW
endorsement as chief mate on vessels of 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT or more,
would the candidate, among other requirements, have to pass the chief
mate unlimited near-coastal/ocean examination? And, having passed that
examination, later on, would the candidate meet the service and tonnage
requirements of the domestic chief mate any gross tons, and would he or
she be required to take the unlimited master/chief examination again?
    A mariner as described in this comment would not be required to
retake examinations previously and successfully completed at a lower
level.
32. Dynamic Positioning
    One commenter expresses disappointment that the SNPRM does not
include an endorsement for Dynamic Positioning Officers (DPO) under B-
V/f of the STCW Code. Issuing this endorsement, even if not required by
the COI on U.S. flag vessels, would highlight the unique training and
experience of DPOs and set a standard among other STCW signatory
nations. The commenter urges the Coast Guard to consider creating such
an endorsement.
    DP requirements are being addressed in a separate rulemaking.
Additionally, Sec.  15.520 has been amended to clarify the status of a
MODU on DP.
33. Fast Rescue Boats
    One commenter recommended that, since existing SOLAS and U.S.
requirements mandate that the STCW competency of ``Operate Fast Rescue
Boat Engine'' be accomplished at least once a month, the Coast Guard
should add to the list of STCW competencies that it will accept as
onboard training for the STCW competency ``Operate Fast Rescue Boat
Engine.''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  12.617 to include
operating the fast rescue boat engine as a competency that can be
completed onboard vessels.
34. Deck Officer Requirements
    Four commenters note that on page 45918 of the preamble the Coast
Guard cites Sec.  11.401 as ``removing the requirement for deck
officers to obtain a qualification as Able Seaman,'' which ``provides
consistency with the STCW Convention.'' Although the requirement is
absent from STCW endorsements, it is still found in Sec. Sec.
11.407(a)(1), 11.414(a)(2), 11.416(a), and 11.421(a), which are the
prerequisite credentials to obtain STCW authority. Moreover, the
prerequisite to hold A/B is also found in Great Lakes and Inland
Sec. Sec.  11.437, 11.444, and 11.448. The commenters recommend that
the Coast Guard remove the prerequisite of holding an A/B endorsement
from these sections.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec. Sec.  11.407(a)(1),
11.414(a)(2), 11.416(a), 11.421(a), 11.437(a)(1), 11.444(a)(1), and
11.448 to remove the requirement that applicants for these endorsements
must hold an able seaman endorsement.
35. Ceremonial License
    Six commenters acknowledge and thank the Coast Guard for
recognizing the importance of a mariner's credential by creating the
``ceremonial license.'' The commenters added that this document
demonstrates respect for the professionalism of the mariner and that a
ceremonial license means a document that reflects a mariner's existing
domestic officer endorsement and is suitable for framing, but is not
valid for use as an MMC.
    One commenter states that, although he appreciates the Coast
Guard's willingness to make the ceremonial license available, it would
be nice to recognize the issue number which is a source of pride to
experienced mariners as well as a valuable tool for potential
employers.
    The Coast Guard appreciates the desirability of including an issue
number on the ceremonial license. Because the MMC does not currently
contain an issue number, though, the Coast Guard is unable to include
such a number on the ceremonial license. The ceremonial license,
however, would show the existing national officer or rating
endorsement.
    One commenter states that a ceremonial license would fill the gap
left by the current passport format license. The commenter adds that
passengers have come to expect to see the master's license publicly
displayed onboard with all the other documents.
    The Coast Guard agrees that passengers have come to expect to see
the master's license publicly displayed onboard, and 46 U.S.C. 7110
requires the posting of the master's MMC. However, the ceremonial
license ``is not valid for use as a Merchant Mariner Credential'' (see
Sec.  10.107), so its posting would not satisfy 46 U.S.C. 7110. The
Coast Guard is unable to change this requirement without a revision of
the statute.
36. Basic Training
    Two commenters state that, in current Sec. Sec.  11.301(b) and
11.301(c)(3), the onboard assessments for STCW elementary first aid are
not equal for officers and ratings.
    The Coast Guard did not propose onboard assessments for elementary
first aid. The Coast Guard agrees that the requirements for officers
and ratings should be the same and has revised those requirements
accordingly. The requirements for BT, including elementary first aid,
have been broken out into separate sections in Sec. Sec.  11.302

and 12.602. The Coast Guard has changed the term ``basic safety
training'' to ``basic training'' to be consistent with the STCW
Convention.
    One commenter expresses concern over the provision in Sec.
11.201(h)(1) allowing mariners to demonstrate having maintained the
standard of competence in basic and/or advanced firefighting and felt
this posed an additional burden to inland mariners. The commenter
recommends leaving in place acceptance of 1 year of sea service in the
last 5 years as meeting the requirements for demonstrating competence
in basic and advanced firefighting for domestic, inland credentials.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. There are no firefighting maintenance or
renewal requirements for national endorsements in Sec.  11.201(h). The
firefighting requirements in Sec.  11.201(h) apply to the original
issue of one of the specified officer endorsements. It does not apply
to the renewal of an endorsement, or to a raise of grade from one of
the enumerated endorsements. However, the Coast Guard has revised this
section to add new provisions specifically stating that the
firefighting requirement only applies to a raise of grade if the
applicant had not previously met the requirement.
    One commenter remarked that instructors in first aid and cardio-
pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) should be required to demonstrate their
familiarity with the most recent techniques through certification by
the American Heart Association and/or the American Red Cross.
    The Coast Guard agrees that instructors must be familiar with the
most current techniques, but does not feel a change is needed. When
courses are approved or renewed, the Coast Guard evaluates the
qualifications of instructors to ensure they are qualified to teach the
course. In addition, continued professional competence of instructors
should be addressed in the school's QSS, and will be subject to
periodic audit by the Coast Guard.
    Two commenters note that Sec.  11.301(b)(3) allows for certain
areas of basic safety training (BST) to be satisfied with onboard
experience. However, Sec.  12.601 does not list continued proficiency
being granted for the same areas through onboard experience and drills.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has relocated the requirements for STCW
ratings to accomplish BT to Sec.  12.602. The new section accepts sea
service as demonstrating continued proficiency in elementary first aid
and personal safety and social responsibilities.
    The same commenters state that first aid and CPR are dynamic, ever-
changing courses. They express concern about how maritime personnel
will be properly trained, while onboard ship, in the most current/
updated procedure and by whom.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Because STCW does not require proof of
continued competence in elementary first aid or personal safety and
social responsibilities, we will accept onboard training and
experience, through evidence of 1 year of sea service within the last 5
years as meeting the requirements for these portions of BT.
    Two commenters state that, with regard to BST and advanced
firefighting renewal requirements, it may be difficult to obtain
shoreside assessment/competency as there are very few facilities that
have the equipment for these training purposes.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. This final rule implements the 2010
amendments, which are very explicit about which areas of the standard
of competence can be accomplished onboard and which ones can be
accomplished ashore. Initial BT and advanced firefighting training is
accomplished ashore through Coast Guard approved courses that cover all
aspects of knowledge, understanding and proficiency for all the
competence areas. Consequently, we believe that there are sufficient
courses with the equipment and teaching resources necessary to cover
this training.
    One commenter recommends that BST standards and requirements be
expanded by the Coast Guard to include all fishing vessels, fish tender
vessels, and certain vessels operating inside the boundary line.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The STCW Convention applies to mariners
serving on seagoing vessels, except pleasure craft, fishing vessels,
and vessels entitled to sovereign immunity, such as warships. Article
II of the Convention defines a seagoing ship as a ship other than one
that ``navigates exclusively in inland waters or in waters within, or
closely adjacent to, sheltered waters or areas where port regulations
apply.'' The provisions in this final rule which would implement
amendments to the STCW Convention only apply to commercial vessels
operating seaward of the boundary line, as specified in 46 CFR part 7.
The Coast Guard does not intend, and is not required by STCW, to apply
international standards to our domestic mariners in this regard.
Furthermore, 46 U.S.C. 8105 prohibits the application of the STCW
Convention to fishing vessels.
    Two commenters ask what evidence must be produced by the vessel
master to verify compliance with Sec. Sec.  11.1105(c)(1) and
11.1105(c)(2), and whether all MMCs will now have an STCW endorsement
for BST.
    The proof of compliance will be on the MMC in the form of an
endorsement. The Coast Guard will place an endorsement for basic
training, formerly known as BST, on the MMC.
    One commenter challenges the concept, as outlined in Sec. Sec.
11.301(b)(3) and 12.601(b)(3), that time served aboard a vessel can in
and of itself constitute an ongoing demonstration of competency with
regard to the emergency response skills required by Table A-VI/1 of the
STCW Code.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The 2010 amendments to the STCW
Convention, specifically Section A-VI/1, paragraph 4, are very explicit
about which areas of the standard of competence can be accomplished
through training and experience onboard and which ones must be
accomplished ashore. The allowance in the Convention to demonstrate
competence onboard a vessel does not exempt mariners with vessel
service from the requirement to demonstrate that they have maintained
the standards of competency through onboard training and drills.
    The same commenter adds that, depending on their muster-list
assignments, many mariners on vessels that are running realistic drills
may never have the opportunity to perform certain emergency duties or
demonstrate competence performing them, such as boarding a survival
craft from the ship while wearing a lifejacket. If a mariner's sea time
is served wholly aboard a vessel whose survival craft are inflatable
liferafts, and the vessel does not launch and inflate a liferaft, how
can it be said that individual has demonstrated the ability to board
their survival craft from the ship?
    The Coast Guard has addressed this issue in Sec.  12.615. Seafarers
holding an STCW endorsements for OICNW, OICEW, and able seafarer-deck
are required to meet the requirements for proficiency in survival craft
and rescue boats other than fast rescue boats, or proficiency in
survival craft and rescue boats other than lifeboats and fast rescue
boats. These requirements are consistent with the STCW 2010 amendments.
    Five commenters state that the proposed regulations pertaining to
requirements for STCW officer and STCW rating endorsements in
Sec. Sec.  11.301, 12.601, 12.615, and 12.617, respectively, are a
change from current Coast Guard policy that recognizes at least 1 year
of sea service in the last 5 years as meeting the BST, advanced
firefighting, survival craft and fast rescue boat proficiency

standards. The commenter believes that this is an unnecessary and
unwieldy change to the policy, and will significantly impact mariners
who will be required to attend a shore-side school to complete these
assessments when no other shore side assessment option is available.
The STCW Convention does not allow all assessments to be conducted
onboard. Therefore, the administration can only choose to accept
onboard assessment for those permitted by the Convention.