The Coast Guard disagrees. We have not changed the requirement for
mariners to provide evidence of continued professional competence in
BT, advanced firefighting, survival craft, and fast rescue boat through
1 year of sea service within the last 5 years. Further, the 2010
amendments to the STCW Convention require that seafarers provide
evidence of continued professional competence in those areas every 5
years. However, the new amendments also identify those areas from the
standard of competence that must be assessed ashore. Implementation of
shore-based training and assessment is required by the 2010 amendments
and is not discretionary.
    One commenter believes that Sec.  11.301 is confusing as written
because the commenter is unable to determine if mariners are required
to retake the advanced firefighting and personal survival courses every
5 years, or if shipboard drills, training and sea service will be
sufficient to establish continued professional competence. In the
commenter's view, the proficiency in these two areas can be maintained
on the vessel through specific drills, training and testing aboard
vessels.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The 2010 amendments to the STCW
Convention require that seafarers provide evidence of continued
professional competence in BT every 5 years. Continued professional
competence may be achieved through a combination of ashore assessments,
and onboard drills and training. Furthermore, the new amendments
identify those areas from the standard of competence that can be
maintained while sailing onboard vessels through drills and onboard
training, and those areas that must be assessed ashore. If a mariner
cannot complete competencies onboard, then he or she will have to re-
take the original courses, or refresher courses, as applicable. The
Coast Guard has added new sections on this subject in Sec. Sec.
11.302(e), 11.303(e), and 12.602(e). As the same issue would also apply
to proficiency in survival craft and fast rescue boats, we have also
added new Sec. Sec.  12.613(b)(4), 12.615(b)(4), and 12.617(b)(4).
    Three commenters expressed concern that the Coast Guard will be
unable to track sea service dates that have a bearing on whether a
mariner will meet certain re-qualifying requirements. More
specifically, the commenters point out that Sec.  12.601(c) states that
mariners may provide evidence of 1 year of sea service within the last
5 years, as meeting the requirement for BT. The commenters feel that
implementation of the new regulations will put a huge burden on the NMC
that will require rigorous evaluator training and strict oversight.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard will track BT and will
keep course completion certificates and sea service records needed to
support issuance of the endorsement. A BT endorsement will be issued
where the expiration will coincide with the expiration date of the MMC.
The Coast Guard intends to implement the BT continued professional
competence requirements by: (1) requiring the course completion
certificate as proof that the mariner demonstrated the areas that must
be refreshed ashore; and (2) requiring 1 year of sea service in the
last 5 years as proof that the seafarer demonstrated the topics that
can be demonstrated onboard the vessel.
37. MMC return
    Three commenters question the requirement in Sec.  10.209(g) that
mariners must return all previously issued MMCs when a new MMC is
issued.
    This is an existing requirement in Sec.  10.227(d)(4). The MMC is
used as a mariner identification document and a previously issued MMC
will need to be returned if it is still valid when a new MMC is issued.
Computer verification is not always used and the potential misuse for
the credential warrants returning valid credentials to the Coast Guard.
We agree, however, that there is no need to return an expired
credential and the text has been changed to reflect that.
38. Renewal requirements
    Two commenters recommend that the term ``Qualified Instructor,'' as
defined in Sec.  10.107, be included in Sec. Sec.  10.227(e)(1)(iv) and
10.232(f) to ensure that maritime academy instructors will be
considered as meeting the ``closely related service'' professional
standard for renewal of an MMC.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec. Sec.  10.227(e)(1)(iv)
and 10.232(g) to include qualified instructors.
    One commenter states that the required 360 days of sea service in
the last 5 years to renew/upgrade a license is excessive.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. With regard to STCW endorsements, the
service requirements are as specified in the STCW Convention and the
Coast Guard does not have discretion to modify them.
39. Safety and Suitability
    One commenter recommends that Coast Guard consider amending
Sec. Sec.  10.225 and 11.201 to permit maritime academies or other
institutions that submit applications on behalf of a cadet or mariner,
to inform the Coast Guard, when necessary, of an applicant's
``character and habits of life'', which may not be revealed by Coast
Guard or Transportation Security Administration (TSA) background checks
alone. Another commenter recommends that the Coast Guard add text
allowing authorized vessel officers and company representatives to
submit applications on behalf of applicants and be allowed to inform
the Coast Guard, when necessary, of an applicant's ``character and
habits of life'' that may not be revealed by Coast Guard or TSA
background checks.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The focus on criminal convictions in
Sec. Sec.  10.225 and 11.201 is important because the mariner has been
provided significant constitutional protections in criminal trials, the
facts of a particular incident have been fully investigated, and
matters of contention have been fully adjudicated. Input from the
mariner's educational institution or mariner's employers, while
potentially valuable, may be problematic. The Coast Guard does not have
the resources or the authority to investigate and adjudicate contested
matters that occur at an Academy. The benefit of this information is
outweighed by the possibility of abuse and privacy concerns.
Information on convictions is readily available and already fully
documented.
    Academies are free to report violations of law of which they are
aware to the appropriate enforcement authorities at the time of the
offense. Furthermore, matters that are significant enough to warrant
denying a credential also probably involve violations of institutional
codes of conduct, which are probably more properly dealt with by the
institution's disciplinary system.
    Additionally, marine employers are required to report violations of
law of which they are aware to the appropriate enforcement authorities
at the time of the offense. For certain vessels, the

official logbook would provide sufficient documentation and a legal
method for reporting the items in 46 U.S.C. 11301. Matters significant
enough to prevent issuance of a credential probably warrant referral to
the Coast Guard for action under 46 CFR part 5.
40. Sea Service
    Two commenters thanked the Coast Guard for reconsidering the issue
of Great Lakes and inland sea service credit.
    One commenter wants to confirm the change in Sec.  11.402(a)(1)
from the previous requirement that all service be on vessels of more
than 200 GRT (Sec.  11.402(a)) to all service must be on vessels of 100
GRT or more.
    Yes, the Coast Guard has made this change, accepting that many
vessels of 100 GRT have characteristics that can be applied towards the
unlimited tonnage vessel without endangering safety. Additionally, the
requirement that half of the experience be gained on vessels of 1,600
GRT or more ensures that mariners will have sufficient experience for
these credentials.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard amend Sec.  10.232(f)
to allow closely related service to be applied to the raise-of-grade to
original management-level endorsements in the manner of the existing
rule. In addition, this closely related service should be accepted as
meeting the requirements for ``recency'' when applying for renewal or
raise-of-grade.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The regulations already allow using this
credit toward raise-of-grade. Such service would be inappropriate to
grant an original management-level endorsement. Closely related service
does not adequately prepare mariners to demonstrate the competencies
required for a management level endorsement. Additionally, Sec.
11.201(c) requires recent qualifying service on vessels.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard amend Sec.
10.232(a)(1) by adding ``pilot association letter of attestation'' to
the list of acceptable forms to document sea service. In addition, the
commenter suggests Sec.  10.232(a)(2) be amended by inserting ``, as
practicable,'' between the words ``must'' and ``contain.'' This latter
change will allow for the reality that for full-time independent
professional compulsory pilots, it is not necessary or practicable to
include the precise number of vessels piloted and the specific vessel
information for the hundreds of ships that may have been piloted during
a particular reporting period.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. We recognize the burden placed on
pilots and pilot associations to document pilotage sea service pursuant
to Sec.  10.232. The Coast Guard has amended Sec.  10.232 to accept
pilot association letters of attestation for renewals. However, the
Coast Guard is unable to accept the same letter for original officer
endorsements or raises in grade as there is not sufficient information
with regard to the vessel tonnage, horsepower or propulsion mode.
Without the specific vessel information, it is difficult to determine
whether a pilot meets the specific requirements for credential
transactions other than renewal.
    Two commenters request that instructors who teach Coast Guard-
approved courses be able to self-certify on those courses that they
teach when those courses are required for license renewal.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has added Sec.  10.227(e)(1)(v) to
recognize that qualified instructors who have taught a course, accepted
or approved by the Coast Guard, at least twice within the past 5 years
have met the standards needed to receive a course completion
certificate for that course.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard delete Sec.
11.407(b). The Great Lakes Maritime Academy intends to request a change
to their approval letter to request their training programs be approved
for oceans and/or near-coastal licenses based on sea service obtained
on the Great Lakes.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The Coast Guard has amended Sec.
11.407(b) to provide for an endorsement to be issued depending on the
program completed. The distinction between the near-coastal and oceans
programs at the Great Lakes Maritime Academy is based on several
differences in route, assessment, and examination. The change is
consistent with the revisions in Sec.  11.401 for oceans and near-
coastal endorsements.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard amend Sec.  10.232(g)
by adding a paragraph (5) that says: ``On academy training ships where
sea service is part of an approved training program, a day may be
creditable as 1\1/2\ days of service.'' The commenter believes this is
in keeping with the Coast Guard's existing practice of crediting
academy training ship sea service as reported to IMO.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has revised this section accordingly.
We have also made a similar revision to the definition of ``day'' in
Sec.  10.107.
    Fourteen commenters recommend that Sec.  11.211 have language that
allows service on inspected Ro/Ro passenger vessels to be credited day-
for-day for STCW endorsement, regardless of route. This is justified,
the commenters believe, by the fact that Sec.  11.1005 requires that
masters, chief engineers, mates, and engineers are required to have
STCW endorsements. If required to carry the endorsement, the commenters
believe credit should be given to those officers and ratings who work
on inspected Ro/Ro passenger vessels.
    The Coast Guard agrees. Persons serving on vessels to which STCW
applies will be credited day for day sea service credit, and Sec.
10.232 has been amended accordingly.
    One commenter notes that Sec.  11.412(a) requires any seafarer who
desires to upgrade to master 1,600 GRT to sail for 2 years aboard a
towing vessel. The commenter believes this is an unreasonable
requirement, since many seafarers will never sail aboard a towing
vessel. For those who will, the requirement elsewhere to gain a TOAR
will suffice to provide the necessary training and experience for
towing. A similar requirement is contained in Sec.  11.414 for those
desiring to get a mate 1,600 GRT endorsement (1 year on towing vessels
required).
    The Coast Guard agrees that towing vessels are not the only way to
earn sea service credit, and has amended Sec. Sec.  11.412 and 11.414.
Mariners may upgrade to master on vessels of less than 1,600 GRT with
service in a licensed position on any number of vessels, including, but
not limited to, towing vessels.
    One commenter notes that Sec.  11.412(a) requires 4 years total
service to upgrade from mate 1,600 GRT to master 1,600 GRT. The
commenter also notes that Sec.  11.418(a)(1) requires 3 years total
service to upgrade from mate 500 tons to master 500 tons. Over the past
year, the commenter notes, there have been several successful appeals
of this requirement, and several clarifying letters from the Coast that
have effectively changed this requirement. The commenter believes this
would seem to be the right time to correct this requirement in the CFR
so as to prevent further confusion on this issue for the future.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec. Sec.  11.412 and
11.418 accordingly.
    Two commenters recommend that the Coast Guard remove Sec. Sec.
10.232(b)(1) and 10.232(b)(2), which specify the credit allowed for
service on the Great Lakes and other inland navigable waters, as they
have no useful purpose whatsoever and only serve to make professional
advancement more difficult, thereby decreasing the availability of
mariners for service on ocean-going ships.

    The Coast Guard disagrees. Service on Great Lakes and inland waters
was not previously permitted to count toward an STCW endorsement.
Inclusion of these sections will actually increase the availability of
mariners for service on ocean-going vessels.
    One commenter states that, with regard to Sec.  12.605(a)(2)(i),
leaving the proposed section as ``six months of seagoing service'' is
overburdening the mariner for a simple bridge lookout/helmsman
position. The commenter believes a minimum number of watches should be
specified.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. This requirement is clearly specified in
Regulation II/<IP_ADDRESS> of the STCW Convention.
    One commenter suggests that the term ``full mission simulator'' be
deleted from the proposed regulations as there are other simulation
software that can be used that do not meet the requirements of a ``full
mission'' simulator.
    The Coast Guard agrees that a full mission simulator is not
required for all required training and assessment, but notes that we
did not use this term in the proposed rule, or in this final rule. As
used throughout this final rule, a simulator does not need be a full
mission simulator, it need only be capable of supporting the training
and assessment objectives for its proposed use.
    Two commenters do not support the proposal in Sec.  10.232, which
states that, ``service on inland waters, other than Great Lakes, that
are navigable waters of the United States, may be substituted for up to
50 percent of the total required service toward an oceans, near-
coastal, or STCW endorsement.'' The commenters believe there are
insufficient similarities in experience between inland and ocean
service to justify crediting inland time toward full ocean service
requirements. An exception, the commenter believes, should provide that
inland service be credited for a limited STCW endorsement for ``service
on vessels of any gross tons upon the sheltered waters of British
Columbia as defined in the treaty between the United States and Canada
signed 11 August 1934.''
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The STCW defines seagoing service as
``service onboard a ship relevant to the issue or revalidation of a
certificate or other qualification.'' The Coast Guard recognizes that
some ``relevant'' experience can be gained on inland vessels creditable
toward an STCW document. Accordingly, the Coast Guard is allowing day-
for-day credit for inland service for up to 50 percent of the total
required service. The credit of service is justified because many of
the inland navigable waters of the United States are of such length
and/or breadth that they have the characteristics of ocean or near-
coastal waters.
    One commenter requests that, with regard to Sec.  11.211(b)(2),
which sets out service requirements for national and STCW officer
endorsements, consideration be given for service on inland vessels of
1,600 GRT/3,000 GT and 4,000 HP that have equivalent equipment to ocean
vessels. The commenter recommends that credit be given on a day-by-day
basis for engine (OICEW) and engine ratings endorsements.
    Another commenter also requests the same change with regard to
Sec.  11.301(d)(3), which sets out requirements for STCW officer
endorsements. The commenter suggests consideration be given for service
on inland vessels of 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT and 4,000 HP that have
equivalent equipment to ocean vessels. The commenter requests that
credit be given on a day-by-day basis for engine (OICEW) and engine
ratings endorsements.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. Section 11.301(d)(3), which has
been re-numbered as Sec.  11.301(b)(3), has been revised to provide
day-for-day credit for service on inland waters. Although there are
sufficient common skills and experience to justify allowing credit for
service on inland waters, the differences between inland waters and
ocean service prevent allowing use of this credit to meet 100 percent
of the sea service requirement. Therefore, both Sec.  11.211(b)(2) and
Sec.  11.301(b)(3) allow credit for inland service to be credited on a
day-for-day basis for up to 50 percent of the total required service.
    One commenter recommends that, with regard to Sec.  11.329, the
proposed reduction in the requirements to obtain endorsement as an
OICEW be eliminated. Reducing the requirement to a mere 12 months of a
combination of sea service and approved training program, the commenter
believes, will not produce the quality of marine engineer that the U.S.
is accustomed to.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The requirement is that the applicant
must complete an approved training program. That program must include a
combination of workshop skills and seagoing service of not less than 12
months. Furthermore, the training program must satisfy the standards of
competence in Section A-III/1 of the STCW Code, which typically takes 3
years. The requirements mirror those for the officer endorsement of
third assistant engineer which requires either 3 years of service, or
completion of an approved program.
    Three commenters state that historically, almost all sea service
has been creditable on a day-for-day basis for upgrading a mariner's
credentials. In recent years, the commenters believe licensing for
chief engineers became subject to geographic restrictions, although no
reason was provided for this. Even once this practice was in place,
however, most sea time was still creditable on a day-for-day basis for
100 percent of the required time. The commenters believe the proposed
language in Sec.  10.232(b) would reduce the creditable sea service to
50 percent of what's actually earned and then limit it to a maximum of
50 percent of the required time. The commenters believe the existing
sea-service applicability should remain as it currently stands.
    The Coast Guard partially agrees. Section 10.232(b) allows mariners
serving onboard vessels operating on inland waters or the Great Lakes
to receive credit towards an oceans or STCW endorsement. It was not the
Coast Guard's intent to reduce the creditable sea service for national
credentials. In fact, this provision permits broader application of
Great Lakes and Inland service towards both STCW and national ocean
endorsements than is allowed under current regulations. To avoid
confusion, the Coast Guard has also added a new paragraph Sec.
10.232(c) that would ensure day-for-day credit for 100 percent of the
required time when applying for Great Lakes or inland credentials. We
have also re-designated existing paragraphs (c) through (h) as new
paragraphs (d) through (i).
    Eighteen commenters support proposed section Sec.  11.211
``Creditable service and equivalents for domestic and STCW officer
endorsements'' as it will recognize time served on inland voyages for
the issuance of STCW officer endorsements. However, the commenters are
disappointed that inland service is to be substituted for only up to 50
percent of the total required service. They recommend that the proposed
language be amended so that inland time is credited on a day-for-day
basis, as is service on the Great Lakes.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Although there are sufficient common
skills and experience involved in service on inland waters and oceans
to justify allowing credit for service on inland waters, the
differences between inland waters and ocean service prevent allowing
use of this credit to meet 100 percent of the service requirement for

near-coastal, oceans, or STCW endorsements.
    One commenter believes that the military/government service option
is a step in the right direction to encourage an experienced but un-
certificated mariner to bring their experience to the merchant fleet.
However, without a specific statement granting STCW support-level
service credit for watchstanding petty officers, operational-level
service credit for service as an underway officer on duty or engineer
on watch, and management-level service credit for service as commanding
officer/executive officer/engine officer, the intended benefit will be
minimized or non-existent. The commenters also believe it is likely
Sec. Sec.  11.301(f) and 11.305(a)(1) would block any applicant from
getting an STCW endorsement at the management level directly following
service in a management-level billet on a military/government vessel,
despite table 11.305(d) creating this path. Perhaps additional
elaboration in the final regulation on the intended interaction of
Sec. Sec.  11.301 and 11.305 for military/government mariners would be
helpful to allow and clarify the full benefit intended.
    The Coast Guard will provide additional guidance in the future to
address how to implement assessments for STCW endorsements, including
guidance for those in military or government service. Such guidance
will address the methods by which a military/government seafarer may
demonstrate satisfaction of service requirements, as well as the
military/government assessments and training that may be accepted
towards the credentials being sought.
    One commenter believes that Sec.  10.232(d) is a large step
backward and will discourage mariners from beginning service or
remaining on military or public vessels, and that the section is even
more restrictive and inequitable than the current NMC Policy Letter 09-
01 addressing these atypical vessels. The proposed regulations, the
commenter believes, treat mariners on a MODU, on a liftboat, or a
shoreside port captain significantly differently, while all are
``atypical'' service. The commenter recommends that Sec.  10.232(d)
specifically state that it does not apply to liftboats when operating
in the elevated mode. If this proposal is not acceptable, the commenter
thinks at least the 180-day service cap should be removed.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. This requirement is not a change
from current requirements and sea service limits. The Coast Guard will
conduct an evaluation of vessel operations and determine whether
additional credit should be allowed; however, the Coast Guard still
firmly believes that a mariner must have experience operating a vessel
in order to obtain an original endorsement or a raise in grade.
    One commenter is concerned with the provisions of Sec.  10.232
regarding the crediting of sea service on vessels that may spend a
significant amount of their time moored. Oil Spill Response Vessels
(OSRVs) and their crews are in a constant state of readiness to
respond. The commenter recommends that NMC Policy Letter 09-01 be
reviewed with a view towards enhancement and then adopted in this final
rule for sea time credit for personnel serving aboard OSRVs to
recognize the important service of these mariners.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. This requirement is not a change
from Sec.  10.232 and current sea service limits. The Coast Guard will
conduct an evaluation of vessel operations and determine whether
additional credit should be allowed; however, the Coast Guard still
firmly believes that a mariner must have experience operating a vessel
in order to obtain an original endorsement or a raise in grade. Where
the Coast Guard conducts an evaluation of vessel operations and
determines a need for change, NMC Policy Letter 09-01, or its
successor, will be revised.
    Six commenters, with regard to Sec.  10.232, believe that mariners
on vessels of less than 100 GRT should be credited 1\1/2\ days if
working a 12-hour watch schedule. The size of the vessel does not
reduce the experience gained. Although they appreciate the Coast Guard
acknowledging and crediting the experience gained for service on the
Great Lakes, they still feel service on inland waters should count day-
for-day as well. Navigating on inland waters requires just as much and
in some instances much more navigating, piloting, training and drilling
than service on oceans and the Great Lakes.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The definition of ``day'' provides that
vessels allowed to work 12-hour days, as defined in the U.S. Code, will
receive 1\1/2\ days sea service credit. However, changes to regulations
on this subject are limited by statutory restrictions on the type and
tonnage of vessels and the number of watches that may be run. Further,
although there are sufficient common skills and experience to justify
allowing credit for service on inland waters, the differences between
inland waters and ocean service prevent allowing use of this credit to
meet 100 percent of the service requirements for near-coastal, oceans,
or STCW endorsements.
    One commenter notes that under domestic regulations, the time
required to obtain a near-coastal mate on vessels of less than 200 GRT/
500 GT is and has always been 1 year. No change is proposed to this
requirement. Under STCW, however, the same license for international
voyages would require an endorsement as OICNW, which would require 3
years of total time, and a further 2 years to obtain the endorsement.
These voyages have been made safely and successfully for many years.
Quintupling the time required to obtain a small-tonnage near-coastal
mate's license will effectively eliminate foreign voyages of any kind
for our vessels, resulting in substantial restraint of trade.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The time required to obtain a small-
tonnage near-coastal mate's license has not increased by 4 years. The
minimum service required to qualify an applicant for an endorsement as
mate of ocean self-propelled vessels of less than 200 GRT (Sec.
11.427) is 12 months of total service in the deck department of ocean
or near-coastal self-propelled, sail, or auxiliary sail vessels. The
minimum service required to qualify an applicant for an endorsement as
mate of near-coastal self-propelled vessels of less than 500 GRT (Sec.
11.421) is 2 years of total service in the deck department of ocean or
near-coastal self-propelled, sail, or auxiliary sail vessels. A mariner
holding an oceans or near-coastal mate less than 200 GRT would need to
complete the following additional service to obtain an appropriate STCW
endorsement: (1) Twelve months under the authority of the endorsement,
in order to obtain an OICNW endorsement for vessels less than 200 GRT/
500 GT; and (2) six months under the authority of the endorsement, in
order to obtain an OICNW endorsement for vessels less than 200 GRT/500
GT limited to near-coastal waters. These entry paths from mate of
oceans or near-coastal to STCW endorsements as OICNW of vessels less
than 200 GRT/500 GT are provided in table 1 of 11.319(d) for ocean
waters and table 1 of 11.321(d) for near-coastal waters.
    Five commenters object to the Coast Guard proposing to grant 3-for-
1 sea service credit for liftboats when they are elevated, but the
mariner on a supply boat gets 1-for-1 while the boat is dockside, at
anchor or moored to a structure. The commenters note that mariners work
under our COIs at all times, when elevated or not, and recommends day-
for-day credit at all times on a liftboat.

    The Coast Guard agrees in part. This requirement is not a change
from current requirements in Sec.  10.232 and sea service limits. The
Coast Guard will conduct an evaluation of vessel operations and
determine whether additional credit should be allowed or sea service
limits should be reduced. However, the Coast Guard still firmly
believes that a mariner must have experience operating a vessel in
order to obtain an original endorsement or a raise in grade.
    One commenter is concerned that, with the proposal to grant 3-for-1
sea service credit for liftboats when they are elevated, mariners will
not be able to renew their 1,600 GRT oceans license.
    The Coast Guard appreciates the commenter's concerns, and notes
that Sec.  10.227(e)(1) of this final rule provides alternatives for
mariners without sufficient or recent sea service to renew their
credentials.
    One commenter notes that Sec.  12.403 for A/B-unlimited requires
that all sea service be obtained on ocean waters. The commenter
recommends that this should be modified to allow ocean or near-coastal
service to be acceptable.
    The Coast Guard agrees, but a change is unnecessary. The definition
for ``ocean'' in Sec.  10.107 includes near-coastal waters, so this
service would be acceptable towards an A/B endorsement.
    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard move the boundary line
closer to the coast of portions of Alaska and Washington state to
enable mariners to earn sea service creditable towards an STCW
endorsement on voyages seaward of the new boundary line.
    The Coast Guard cannot include such a provision in this final rule
because moving boundary lines is not within the scope of this
rulemaking, and changes in this area would require a separate
rulemaking. Additionally, boundary lines affect the application of
several statutes and regulations beyond those in this final rule,
including those governing the inspection of seagoing barges and
vessels. However, the Coast Guard has amended Sec.  10.232 so that
persons serving on vessels to which STCW applies will be credited day-
for-day sea service credit.
41. STCW Officer Endorsements
    One commenter notes that Sec.  11.301 does not clearly state that a
mariner cannot apply for any STCW officer endorsement without holding a
``domestic'' endorsement. The commenter recommends that the requirement
be included, possibly as a blanket statement in this section or within
each of the sections for STCW endorsements.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec.  11.201 to require
that a national endorsement must be held that corresponds to the STCW
endorsement being sought.
42. Tankerman
    Six commenters state that mariners who hold an endorsement as
tankerman-PIC (barge) should be allowed to qualify for an STCW
endorsement for advanced oil and/or chemical tanker operations.
    Additionally, four commenters noted that Sec.  15.860 should be
revised to allow mariners who hold domestic tankerman-PIC (barge)
endorsements to serve on tank barges.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has revised Sec.  15.860 accordingly.
Personnel on non-tank vessels towing a barge will be required to meet
the STCW requirements. For this reason, we provided a means in
Sec. Sec.  13.603, 13.605, and 13.607 for mariners serving on tank
barges to qualify for an STCW endorsement with a limitation to non-
self-propelled vessels.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard amend Sec.  13.107(d)
by removing ``including the loading of fuel oil'' because, as the
section currently reads, it implies that a tankerman-engineer
endorsement is needed for bunkering.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the comment and has amended Sec.
13.107(d) to ensure that it is not read to apply to the transfer of
anything other than bulk liquid cargoes and that a tankerman
endorsement is not needed for bunkering.
    One commenter notes that the STCW treats advanced oil and chemical
tanker operations as separate endorsements, and recommended that the
Coast Guard do the same, while another commenter recommended that these
should be combined into a single endorsement for both cargoes.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the first commenter, and has separated
qualification requirements for oil tankers and for chemical tankers
into two sections, Sec. Sec.  13.603 and 13.605, consistent with the
STCW. Nevertheless, it is possible for a single ``cargo course'' to be
acceptable for both endorsements, and if the vessel the mariner serves
on is certified to carry both oil and chemical cargoes, the mariner
will be permitted under this final rule to use the same service to
qualify for both endorsements.
    One commenter notes that it should be possible to renew tankerman
endorsements via in-service experience.
    The Coast Guard agrees. Section 13.120 allows for the renewal of
national tankerman endorsements with in-service experience and cargo
transfers, or completion of an approved course. In addition, for STCW
tankerman endorsements, the STCW Code allows for the use of in-service
experience to renew the credential.
    Two commenters state that the service requirements for STCW
endorsements for advanced oil and/or chemical tanker operations should
be specifically stated.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has added the specific service
requirements for these endorsements in Sec. Sec.  13.603 and 13.605.
    One commenter states that there should be reduced requirements for
mariners who hold STCW tanker operations endorsements for one cargo
(oil, chemical, or liquefied gases) to ``crossover'' to an endorsement
for another cargo.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. Therefore, we are retaining the
existing regulations in part 13, subpart F for a ``crossover'' for a
national tankerman endorsement. The STCW does not provide for such a
crossover, and mariners must meet the full service requirements
applicable to each cargo.
    The same commenter recommends that a mariner should be able to
qualify for an STCW endorsement for advanced oil and/or chemical tanker
operations via a 28-day approved training program.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. Because the STCW Code allows for
the use of a 30-day training program, we amended Sec. Sec.  13.603 and
13.605 of this final rule to permit an approved training program as an
alternative means to qualify for these endorsements. However, to be
consistent with the requirements of STCW and the definition of
``month'' in Sec.  10.107, the approved program must be at least 30
days. A similar provision applicable to liquefied gas tankers has been
added to Sec.  13.607.
    Two commenters note that engineers serving on tank vessels who hold
or qualify for a tankerman-engineer endorsement should be allowed to
qualify for an STCW endorsement for advanced oil and/or chemical tanker
operations without having to meet the requirements for tankerman-PIC.
    The Coast Guard agrees. The STCW Convention requires that engineers
onboard tank vessels to which STCW applies hold a tankerman
endorsement. Therefore, part 13, subpart F of this final rule has
provided a means for engineers to qualify for an STCW endorsement with
a limitation to maintenance and repair of cargo equipment.

    Two commenters note that mariners should qualify for tankerman
endorsements with a combination of sea service, shipboard experience,
and classroom training.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has provided, in part 13, for
qualification for endorsements with a combination of training, sea
service, and practical experience aboard tank vessels.
43. Tonnage Limitations
    Two commenters do not agree with the placement of a tonnage
limitation in Sec.  11.437(a)(3). If the Coast Guard closes this
avenue, towing vessel operators can never reach the unlimited tonnage
licenses without leaving the pilothouse and working as an A/B.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Mariners must have appropriate
experience on vessels of appropriate tonnage for the credential being
sought, including those for vessels of more than 1,600 GRT. The tonnage
provisions in Sec.  11.437 have existed for many years, and the Coast
Guard has not proposed to change them. The regulations also provide a
path for a mariner receiving a tonnage limitation to remove such a
limitation.
    One commenter asks the Coast Guard to address what tonnage
limitations will be placed on officers with domestic credentials
limited to vessels of not more than 500 GRT or 1,600 GRT when they use
the paths enabling them to cross over to STCW endorsements. The
crossover tables link the national endorsements with the STCW
endorsements. Therefore, the commenter believes, any limitation for
national should correspond to the appropriate STCW limitation.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and limitations on the national endorsement
correspond to the appropriate STCW limitation, as shown in the
crossover tables.
    Two commenters note that a domestic 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT master
(Sec.  11.412) is not listed as qualifying for OICNW on vessels of less
than 200 GRT/500 GT. Implicit in STCW is the recognition that you are
qualified to serve both in your highest rated capacity and in lower-
level positions. The commenters believe this must be reflected in the
domestic rules and that requiring time above 200 GRT/500 GT for STCW
advancement for master and chief mate more than 200 GRT/500 GT and less
than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT is incongruent with the recognition elsewhere
in the SNPRM that tonnage should be relative to the size of license
being sought. The commenters believe that this tonnage requirement
should be reduced to more than 50 GRT.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The Coast Guard has removed the
specific tonnage requirement from Sec. Sec.  11.311 and 11.313, and
added the requirement for an applicant to hold an appropriate national
officer endorsement. As a result, the service requirements for master
1,600 GRT should be adequate to obtain the STCW endorsement as master
less than 3,000 GT. The Coast Guard did not include the master
endorsement in table 1 of 11.321(d) because that endorsement is
associated with the corresponding STCW endorsement for master on
vessels of 500 GT or more and less than 3,000 GT instead of the STCW
endorsement for OICNW on vessels of less than 500 GT.
    The same commenters believe that tonnage requirements for
respective licenses should also be brought into parity such that
someone who has acquired all of their time on a vessel of more than 100
GRT for a domestic unlimited ocean license according to proposed Sec.
11.402(a)(1) is not rejected because they do not have time on vessels
of more than 200 GRT/500 GT required for the STCW endorsement under
Sec.  11.305.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. Service acquired to obtain the
national endorsement will be credited towards the STCW endorsement. If
specific service is required, it will be specified in the associated
transition tables found in part 11, subpart C. Should a mariner fail to
have sufficient tonnage and receive a tonnage limitation on their
domestic endorsement, that same limitation will be placed on the STCW
endorsement.
    One commenter notes that, in the past, Coast Guard licenses have
been designated as ``not more than.'' For example, a mariner currently
holds a master on steam or motor vessels of not more than 1,600 GRT.
However, the STCW and domestic endorsements will now describe the
tonnages on the approximate credentials as master on vessels of 1,600
GRT/3,000 GT or more (STCW) and master of ocean or near-coastal vessels
of less than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT (domestic). Where does the current
master 1,600 oceans near-coastal fit? Given the floating one ton, is
this mariner considered to hold both the STCW for vessels 1,600 GRT or
more and the domestic for vessels 1,600 GRT or more, one but not the
other, or neither?
    The Coast Guard changed domestic endorsements from ``not more
than'' to ``less than'' to better align the national endorsements with
the STCW endorsements. This will reduce the likelihood that a mariner
could hold a national endorsement and an STCW endorsement and still not
be able to operate the vessel due to the `floating ton'. In addition,
we have included manning requirements to show both national and STCW
provisions required to sail onboard.
    The same commenter notes that Sec.  11.414(a)(2) requires 3 years
of service in the deck department on ocean or near-coastal voyages on
vessels greater than 200 GRT/500 GT. This was modified from the
original NPRM, which changed the requirement to service on vessels
greater than 100 GRT. The commenter recommends that the Coast Guard
revert back to what was in the NPRM and this service should be required
only on vessels greater than 100 GRT.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec.  11.414 (a)(2) to use
the current 100 GRT tonnage limit, which is consistent with Sec.
11.402.
44. Fees
    Twenty-seven mariners object to the proposed requirement in Sec.
10.219(d) that fee payments for MMCs and associated endorsements must
be made by credit card or by electronic payment. They claim that it
would be a hardship on mariners as they do not always have these means
of payment available to them.
    The Coast Guard agrees and is withdrawing this proposed revision.
The verbiage in the current section will be retained allowing for
multiple forms of payment.
45. Post-Dating MMCs
    Eighteen commenters support the proposal in Sec.  10.205 to allow
the post-dating of MMCs. The commenters add that this is a much-needed
step in ensuring that a mariner receives the full 5 years on an MMC for
which the mariner has paid. Fourteen of these commenters requested that
the Coast Guard go further and adjust the proposed language to ensure
that the post-dating is automatically completed by the Coast Guard for
every renewal.
    The Coast Guard agrees with post-dating credential renewals with
the option for a mariner to choose immediate issuance. The credentials
will be post-dated to align with the expiration of the existing
credential. The Coast Guard has amended Sec.  10.205(a) to require
automatic post-dating with the option for immediate issuance.
46. Wages
    Two commenters object to the proposed language in Sec.
14.309(a)(4), which would allow the master or individual responsible
for paying the

mariner his wages at the conclusion of a voyage to forego the payment
of wages due and instead issue a statement of when the wages due will
be paid or deposited. The commenters continue by stating that the
requirement for payment of wages due at the end of a voyage upon which
shipping articles are required has been in place for many years. It
recognizes the fact that the voyage may have been of significant
duration and ensures that the interests of the mariner are represented
in the area of timely compensation for work already provided.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and the current Sec.  14.309(a)(4) and (b)
remain unchanged.
47. Advanced Firefighting
    One commenter objects to the Coast Guard's requirement in proposed
Sec.  11.201(c)(4) that a mariner must show evidence of maintaining the
standard of competence in advanced firefighting by completing certain
assessments ashore.
    The Coast Guard disagrees that all knowledge, understanding, and
proficiency under the competence ``control firefighting operations
aboard ships'' should be done onboard vessels. The 2010 amendments are
very explicit on the areas of the standard of competence that can be
accomplished onboard and those that can be accomplished ashore.
    One commenter asks the Coast Guard to clarify the nature of the
``evidence'' mariners are required to provide in proposed Sec.
11.201(h)(1).
    Mariners will be required to provide a sea service letter and
course completion certificate, as appropriate. This section remains
unchanged from that proposed in the SNPRM.
    Two commenters state that, with reference to Sec. Sec.  11.301(c),
12.613, and 12.617, there are no provisions containing specific
statements as to how to re-qualify if unable to meet the continued
professional competence in these areas.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and amended Sec. Sec.  11.301(c), 12.613,
and 12.617 by adding a new paragraph clearly providing that a mariner
who cannot demonstrate the required continued competency by sea service
will need to do so in training ashore. This training may be the entire
course, or an approved refresher course. If needed, the Coast Guard may
issue additional guidance in the form of a NVIC on how this requirement
may be met.
48. NMC Web Site
    Two commenters believe that the absence of information on the NMC
Web site detailing the endorsement requirements satisfied by approved
courses violates proposed Sec.  10.406. The commenters recommend the
approvals information be returned to the Web site.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Section 10.406 requires the NMC to
maintain on its Web site a list of training organizations and the
approved courses they offer, and the NMC does so. Due to the sheer
volume of approved courses and limited manpower assets at the NMC, the
Coast Guard has not provided the information requested by the
commenters on the NMC Web site since 2009. The public can use the
search function on the NMC Web site for provider and course
information. For more information, the public can communicate with the
individual course providers. The NMC Web site contains links to
provider's Web sites, which normally provide additional up-to-date
information about specific approved training.
49. Offshore Supply Vessels
    Three commenters note that qualifications for the new OSV
endorsements reflect the applicable requirements of the STCW Convention
and Code. The commenters are of the view that certain deck and
engineering equipment needed for crew to demonstrate competencies
required by the STCW assessment tables are not always installed on
OSVs. Similarly, it is impossible to get service as an OICEW to qualify
as chief engineer when an OSV is not required to carry, and normally
has no position for, an OICEW. Thus, it is impossible to comply with
the deep-draft ship-oriented assessments and service requirements of
the STCW without reasonable and realistic accommodations for OSVs and
other small work boats, such as towing vessels and geophysical vessels,
among others. Similarly, it is unclear why an OSV-limited endorsement
that has the identical service and STCW assessment and training
requirements as a deep-draft vessel crewmember endorsement was
proposed. The general requirements for OSV endorsements, and
particularly domestically limited OSV endorsements, should ``take
account of the special characteristics, methods of operation, and
nature of service of OSVs'' versus mandating the deep-draft STCW
standards currently proposed.
    Additionally, two commenters note that the domestic license and
STCW requirements are not separate, despite the preamble statements in
the SNPRM to the contrary (see Sec. Sec.  11.493, 11.495, 11.497,
11.553, and 11.555). The commenters recommend that the Coast Guard
retain part of the existing regulatory language, which says, ``The
Coast Guard may exempt an applicant from meeting any requirement under
STCW that the Coast Guard determines to be inappropriate or unnecessary
for service on an OSV, or that the applicant meets under the
equivalency provisions of Article IX of STCW.'' The same commenters
recommend placing such regulatory language in an appropriate location,
such as Sec.  11.201, and amending Sec. Sec.  11.493, 11.495, 11.497,
11.553 and 11.555.
    The Coast Guard has changed the OSV endorsements for both deck and
engineer officers by separating the national and STCW endorsements to
ensure consistency with other requirements. The exemption from meeting
the STCW requirements included in existing Sec. Sec.  11.493, 11.495,
11.497, 11.553, and 11.555 remains unchanged. The Coast Guard made
additional changes to the OSV endorsements for both deck and engineer
officers to include: (1) Sea service requirements comparable to other
credentials; (2) the option to complete an approved course for a mate
or assistant engineer to meet the sea service requirements; and (3) the
progression from vessels of less than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT to more than
1,600 GRT/3,000 GT for chief mate and master. These changes also comply
with Sec.  617 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, which
removed the 500 GRT tonnage limits on OSVs. These amendments will
ensure that mariners with existing licenses or MMCs can progress to
higher credentials.
    Because of the separation of national and STCW requirements, the
Coast Guard amended the crossover requirements from OSV mate (Sec.
11.497) to OICNW (Sec.  11.309(e)) to give credit for the approved
training program. The Coast Guard envisions that the approved training
program in Sec. Sec.  11.497(a)(2) and 11.555(a)(2) will meet the
requirements for the STCW approved training program in Sec. Sec.
11.309(a)(1) and 11.329(a)(1).
    The same commenters recommend that the 200 GRT/500 GT criteria for
an RFPNW or able seafarer, inter-alia, should be changed to read ``over
200 GRT/500 GT on an international voyage or over 500 GRT on a domestic
voyage. . . .''
    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 and
able seafarer-deck. The STCW is a binding agreement with foreign
countries, and these tonnage cutoffs are required by STCW.

50. Proficiency in Survival Craft
    One commenter recommends that, in Sec.  12.613(b)(2), the Coast
Guard add to the list of STCW competencies that it will accept as
onboard training the STCW competency ``Operate Survival Craft Engine''.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended both Sec. Sec.  12.615 and
12.617 to include starting the lifeboat engine as part of the
assessments done onboard the vessel.
51. Bridge Resource Management (BRM)
    One commenter supports the BRM, leadership and teamworking skills,
and leadership and managerial skills proposal as written with a
comment. BRM is the basis for mitigating marine casualties, breaking
the error chain and conditioning the human element, and the commenter
believes it is paramount that more emphasis is put towards building
that team and getting participants out of the classrooms. The commenter
believes a ``team'' must be built using skills gained through
situational awareness and emergency situations while underway or at a
training facility utilizing a full mission bridge simulator.
    The Coast Guard agrees. The requirements for BRM, engineroom
resource management (ERM), leadership and teamworking skills, and
leadership and managerial skills were included in the STCW Convention
in response to a request from the United States maritime industry
through MERPAC task statement 64. The required training and
demonstrations of competence taken together should provide the
following three skills commensurate with an officer's responsibilities:
teamwork, leadership, and management. The Coast Guard would prefer that
emergency situations for training purposes not be staged while
underway, and that training for such emergencies be accomplished
through simulator or other training while not underway.
    One commenter suggests that the benefits of BRM training should not
be limited to international operators, and urges the Coast Guard to
adopt similar rules for domestic operators as well.
    The Coast Guard does not possess sufficient casualty or other data
to support expansion of STCW requirements for BRM/ERM, leadership and
teamworking skills, and leadership and managerial skills to inland
vessels in this rulemaking. 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 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 to apply strict international standards
to our domestic mariners in this regard.
    One commenter notes that his or her company has worked extensively
to develop the skill sets of all of its mariners and particularly
senior officers with regard to their leadership and management skills.
The commenter believes these are vital skills that are not easy to
learn and have a serious impact on the safe and efficient operation of
any vessel. The commenter suggests that mariners who have participated
in company training be allowed to present it for renewal/upgrade, even
if the class was taken prior to the implementation of this rulemaking.
Companies that can successfully demonstrate they have trained their
senior officers on similar principles, the commenter states, should be
allowed to renew/upgrade in the same fashion.
    The Coast Guard agrees, but a regulatory change is not required.
The Coast Guard will evaluate training given prior to the effective
date of this final rule, and will grant credit for training that meets
the requirements of this final rule.
52. Engineroom Resource Management
    One commenter objects to the requirement in Sec. Sec.  11.305,
11.307, and 11.325(b)(1) that applicants provide evidence of leadership
and managerial skills. The commenter states that evidence of this is
provided by completion of an approved bridge and engineroom resource
management course. The commenter notes that most companies already
evaluate their officers' leadership and management skills during a
promotion and the assignment process. The commenter recommends that
this requirement be accomplished by alternate means or be removed.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. In this final rule, we implement
the proposals in the SNPRM that allow mariners to demonstrate meeting
the applicable standards for leadership and managerial skills by
alternative methods that include, but are not limited to, completing
approved training.
53. Incorporation by Reference (IBR)
    Five commenters request that the Coast Guard either publish the
pertinent text of the STCW Code and Convention in the CFR or provide
the Code and Convention to the public online rather than incorporate
them by reference.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. As background, IBR allows Federal
agencies to comply with the requirement to publish rules in the Federal
Register and the CFR by referring to materials already published
elsewhere. The legal effect of IBR is that the material is treated as
if it were published in the Federal Register and CFR. This material,
like any other properly issued rule, has the force and effect of law.
Congress authorized IBR in the Freedom of Information Act to reduce the
volume of material published in the Federal Register and CFR. (5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51).
    While the Coast Guard endeavors to promulgate references needed to
implement these regulations, reproducing all of the relevant STCW text
in this final rule would be impracticable because doing so would
significantly increase the volume of the regulation. Instead, the Coast
Guard has incorporated the Convention and Code by reference, and
intends to publish NVICs with the relevant tables of competency from
part A of the Code. These NVICs will be made available to the public
online, which will enable the public to view relevant parts of the STCW
Convention and Code as needed.
54. Identification Cards
    One commenter notes that a mariner who holds a resident alien card
issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or a work
authorization card issued by DHS, may use that card as valid
identification to obtain a TWIC. The commenter, therefore, requests
that the DHS work authorization card be accepted as valid proof of
identification to obtain an MMC.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Application for an MMC with an officer
endorsement requires that an applicant be a U.S. citizen (46 U.S.C.
7102). Applications for all other MMCs require that an applicant be
either a United States citizen or a resident alien, lawfully admitted
into the United States for permanent residency (46 CFR 10.221(a)(2)).
Because a DHS work authorization card may be obtained by someone who is
neither a U.S. citizen nor a resident alien, lawfully admitted into the
United States for permanent residency, it is an unacceptable form of
identification for application for an

MMC. Changing this requirement is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
55. Economic Comments
    One commenter states that, with regard to Regulatory Analyses,
Section B. Small Entities of the SNPRM preamble, the Coast Guard's
discussion of the proposed rule includes audit and quality systems
requirements for training providers. The commenter states the cost
analysis that has been conducted by the Coast Guard is only for the
costs to training providers to implement and maintain a QSS. What the
analysis of this SNPRM does not include, the commenter notes, is the
economic impact on many training providers via lost revenue if the
SNPRM becomes regulation, but also from the impact of CG-CVC Policy
Letter 11-07 of July 1, 2011. Both the SNPRM and CG-CVC Policy Letter
11-07, the commenter believes, rescind the required approved training
courses for an OICNW at the operational level on vessels of more than
500 GT (ITC). The commenter believes the SNPRM also rescinds the chief
mate and master (management level) approved training presently required
by NMC Policy Letter 04-02. Numerous training providers have spent
years engaged in curriculum and training course development to be able
to provide Coast Guard approved STCW deck officer training courses at
the operational and management levels. It should be obvious, the
commenter believes, that training providers make substantial financial
investment to be in the position to provide the myriad of required
training courses to our mariners.
    This final rule does not rescind the STCW deck officer training
courses at the operational and management levels. In fact, it will
require mariners to complete the following STCW courses: BST refresher,
advanced firefighting refresher, PSC refresher, fast rescue boat
refresher, medical care provider, ERM, ECDIS, leadership and managerial
skills, and IMO SMCP. In addition, the number of mariners who will need
to complete some of these courses will significantly increase and
should generate additional revenue to training facilities. The Coast
Guard does not believe there would be revenue loss because this final
rule requires STCW deck officer training courses at the operational and
management levels that the commenter mentions.
    The Coast Guard has included some additional training in this final
rule to address some of the concerns raised during the public comment
period. The Coast Guard reviewed the tables of competences and
identified the training topics that must be accomplished as part of
structured training. These topics were part of the NPRM published in
2010. Parts 11 and 12 of this final rule are amended to include a
combination of training and service requirements (through assessments)
to ensure that seafarers achieve the necessary level of competence.
    One commenter believes the costs to maintain a QSS as described in
Sec.  10.410, to maintain training programs and courses in accordance
with Sec.  10.402, and to maintain records for 5 years in accordance
with Sec.  10.403 are significantly underestimated. Internal costs, the
commenter notes, are not necessarily cheaper and the assumption that
these costs will not be passed on is inaccurate. The analysis also does
not take into account the annual costs to maintain these new
requirements.
    Additionally, two other commenters believe that the Coast Guard has
underestimated the burden of implementing a QSS, at least with regard
to providers of maritime security training, many of which are small
businesses that do not offer other types of maritime training.
    The commenters do not provide any specific data or estimates of
their own regarding the QSS costs other than mentioning the QSS costs
incurred by another training provider who already implemented QSS as
part of ISO certification. The Coast Guard conducted a review of
available data that support the estimated costs of QSS requirements,
and disagrees with the commenters. As addressed in the SNPRM, the Coast
Guard included a range of cost estimates to develop a QSS program
between $4,320 and $12,240. This range of options includes the use of a
professional outside consultant, a non-governmental entity QSS
organization, or internal human resources to develop a QSS. Also,
training providers have all the elements and procedures in place that
are necessary to develop and write a QSS manual on their own without
hiring a third-party company, which would potentially minimize their
QSS costs.
    Six commenters state that it is crucial that Coast Guard take into
account the cost and cumulative impact of this regulation on small
business. The commenters note that small companies are doing everything
they can to survive in this volatile economy, and are greatly concerned
about the economic burdens imposed by the cumulative impact of numerous
Federal laws and regulations including the SNPRM. In recent years, the
commenters note, passenger vessel operators have had to absorb costs
associated with Coast Guard maritime security mandates, higher
assumptions about average passenger weight for purposes of calculating
vessel stability, new rules for serving customers with disabilities and
EPA permit requirements for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel.
    Another commenter states that federal regulators must also take
into account that many passenger vessel association operators have
seasonal businesses, and that they frequently compete with land-based
venues. Since the potential customer can often find similar services or
attractions ashore, more burdensome rules placed on the vessel operator
(such as hiring mariners with burdensome credentialing requirements)
create a financial disadvantage, since the land-based competitor does
not have to shoulder a similar regulatory burden.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges that Executive Order 13563 of January
2011 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') asks Federal
regulatory agencies to ``tailor regulations to impose the least burden
on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking
into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the
costs of cumulative regulations''. Therefore, the Coast Guard sought to
minimize the cumulative impacts on industry by allowing alternative
methods of proving competence that would be potentially less costly to
the mariners and their employers.
    Please see Appendix D (Cumulative Programmatic Costs) of the
Regulatory Analysis of this final rule for a detailed discussion of the
cumulative impacts of STCW rulemakings since the 1997 interim rule. We
estimate the cumulative annualized costs of STCW regulations to be
about $37.2 million. This includes $32.6 million from this final rule
and $4.6 million from the 1997 interim rule (estimates discounted at 7
percent). As previously discussed, these estimates may overestimate
costs due to unquantified cost savings from alternative methods of
proving competence that the final rule allows.
56. Grandfathering
    One commenter notes that the SNPRM preamble on page 45912 states
that the cutoff for grandfathering for domestic credentials is January
1, 2012, which is significantly different from the grandfathering
provisions for STCW endorsements and, in the commenter's view,
highlights the vague and sometimes strained relationship between the
two forms of authority. If a domestic endorsement is needed to get the
STCW authority attached to it, the commenter states, the grandfathering
provisions for both should be the same.

    The Coast Guard agrees. Domestic requirements provided in this
final rule will be transitioned during a 5-year-period after the
effective date of this final rule to coincide with the renewal of
existing national endorsements. Individuals seeking an original
credential or raise of grade to an existing credential during this
period, and who begin training or service before the effective date of
this final rule, need only meet the requirements in place before that
date. Those individuals who start training or service on or after the
effective date of this final rule, will be required to meet all
provisions described in this final rule.
    Another commenter recommends combining the two different sections
governing grandfathering (one for domestic and one for STCW) into one
section.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The domestic grandfathering process and
STCW grandfathering processes will need to be handled differently to
avoid confusion and ensure public awareness, because of the mandatory
compliance dates within the STCW Convention and Code. The
grandfathering provisions are specific to the individual endorsement
requirements. To avoid confusion, the Coast Guard included
grandfathering provisions within the STCW requirements.
    One commenter states that Sec.  13.603(b), concerning
grandfathering, is not clear and requests clarification.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the applicable sections in
part 13 (Sec. Sec.  13.603(e) and 13.605(e)) to make it clear that
seafarers applying for an original endorsement after March 24, 2014
must meet the new requirements, which will ensure that all seafarers
meet the STCW compliance date of January 1, 2017.
    One commenter asks if the grandfathering of approved courses will
include applicable maritime security courses approved by Coast Guard
QSS organizations.
    Any security course or program that is approved or accepted by the
Coast Guard on the effective date of this final rule will be
grandfathered for the term of its current approval or no later than
January 1, 2017, whichever is sooner. After that date, all security
courses or programs must meet the requirements of STCW. The course or
program must include any additional, relevant competencies or KUPs that
have been added by the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention and Code
before the student completes that course or program.
    One commenter recommends that mariners holding a DDE-unlimited
license should be given an STCW endorsement as OICEW meeting the
requirements of STCW III/1.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the suggested language that mariners
holding certain national endorsements be ``given'' an STCW endorsement.
Most national credential holders qualify in some way for an STCW
endorsement, but there are sea service requirements, training, and/or
assessments attached. These mariners are able to apply for a particular
STCW endorsement outlined in the relevant crossover table in the STCW
sections of this final rule (part 11, subpart C, and part 12, subpart
F).
    The same commenter recommends that mariners holding a DDE-unlimited
license should qualify as a chief engineer (limited) to vessels less
than 1,200 GT (III/2). In order to obtain an unlimited STCW endorsement
as chief engineer, they would require evidence of meeting the
additional sea service and training requirements.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. Because there is no basis for the
500 GRT/1,200 GT equivalency, it has not been added in this final rule.
However, upon satisfying the requirements for chief engineer set forth
in Sec.  11.325 and Table 1 of 11.325(d), a DDE-unlimited will qualify
for an STCW chief engineer endorsement limited to 500 GRT.
    Two commenters state that all grandfathering provisions should be
in effect for any original application submitted prior to January 1,
2013, and for any renewal prior to January 1, 2017.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Unless specified otherwise, STCW
provisions in this final rule will be phased in beginning March 24,
2014 with full compliance required by January 1, 2017. This is
consistent with the STCW Convention transitional provisions.
    Two commenters state that mariners who hold an endorsement as
tankerman-PIC (barge) should be ``grandfathered'' in Sec.  13.603 for
an STCW endorsement for advanced oil and/or chemical tanker operations.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. In this final rule, we allow for
grandfathering to an STCW endorsement, but do not agree to extend
grandfathering to self-propelled vessels because the requirements for
tankerman-PIC are different than the requirements for tankerman-PIC
(barge).
    Three commenters state that there must be provisions to accommodate
mariners who are using the current system to advance in their careers.
The SNPRM preamble implies a domestic credential phase-in period but
the actual regulations are silent on this point and must clarify the
phase-in scheme. Additionally the phase-in should allow a mariner the
option to apply under either the existing system requirements or the
new requirements.
    The Coast Guard agrees that the grandfathering provisions are an
important part of this final rule. The grandfathering provisions in
Sec.  11.301(g)(3) permit mariners who commenced service or training
before March 24, 2014, to use the existing requirements until January
1, 2017. The changes to the national credentials will be phased in over
a 5-year period starting with the effective date of this final rule,
consistent with the Coast Guard's normal approach to implementing
credentialing rules.
    Four commenters note that Sec. Sec.  11.301(f)(2) and (3) require
applicants for management-level STCW endorsements who hold domestic
management-level endorsements to provide evidence of operational-level
training and assessments. In the past, the Coast Guard considered that
holding a qualifying endorsement was evidence that the individual had
experience and competence equivalent or superior to that required at
the operational level. Also, this would negate the grandfather
provisions in both the 1995 and 2010 STCW amendments, as those mariners
cannot show this evidence. Moreover, the crossover tables (Table 1 to
11.305(e), Table 1 to 11.307(e), etc.) require only management-level
assessments and training. The commenters recommend continuing the
previous grandfathering policy and following the crossover tables as
written. To avoid confusion, the reference to operational-level
training and assessment should be dropped or specifically excluded for
applicants using the crossover tables.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has added a new paragraph Sec.
11.301(g)(4) so that persons who hold or have held an STCW operational-
level endorsement issued prior to the effective date of this final
rule, and are seeking to upgrade to an STCW management-level
endorsement, will not be required to do the assessments for STCW
operational-level endorsements as required in paragraph (f)(2) of that
section.
    Three commenters note that Sec.  11.301(i)(3) states that mariners
with service prior to July 1, 2013, ``will be required to comply with
the requirements of this part existing before the publication of these
regulations . . . .'' Although it is laudable to allow mariners to
follow the rules on which they based decisions relating to their
careers, these commenters say, it would also be unfair to deny them the
improved provisions the Coast Guard has worked so hard to implement.
They

recommend changing ``will be required'' to ``may qualify under the
requirements existing either before or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
RULE] at the applicants choice . . . .''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  11.301(g)(3) to
provide the mariner with the opportunity to use the new requirements
when applying for credentials. Some of the new requirements provide
additional flexibilities that were not available to mariners before.
Taking this into account, the Coast Guard is also adding a new
paragraph Sec.  11.301(g)(4) in order to extend the grandfathering
provisions to persons with an operational-level endorsement upgrading
to a management-level endorsement, who should not be required to do
assessments for STCW operational-level endorsements, as they would be
deemed to have completed them.
    One commenter notes that, in Table 11.465(a), there is new language
which ``requires completion of a TOAR within 5 years.'' The commenter
is concerned about current mariners who have been sailing on an
inspected license and a TOAR that was completed more than 5 years ago,
because they're not required to put that on their license endorsement
at this time. Therefore, the commenter recommends that it be made clear
in policy or CFR language that mariners be allowed to obtain the mate
towing endorsement at their next renewal over the next 5 years
regardless of when they completed their TOAR.
    The Coast Guard agrees. The proposed 5-year time limit has been
removed from this final rule. It is the Coast Guard's intent to allow
mariners to attain these competencies as they are able and as they have
time in their current position. Furthermore, the Coast Guard, when
initially implementing the rules for licensing and manning for officers
of towing vessels, did not require that mariners add these
endorsements. For this reason, we will allow the addition of these
towing endorsements for those who currently hold master or mate of
inspected self-propelled vessels greater than 200 GRT with evidence
that the mariner has completed the TOAR, regardless of the length of
time since they achieved it.
    One commenter notes that Sec.  12.603(c)(2) requires a higher level
of Proficiency in Survival Craft for those being grandfathered than is
required for an original able seafarer-deck endorsement. Section
12.603(a)(5) allows for providing evidence of completing either a PSC
or PSC-limited training, while Sec.  12.603(c)(2) only allows
grandfathering for those with a full PSC. The commenter recommends that
Sec.  12.603(c)(2) be modified to contain the same language as Sec.
12.603(a)(5).
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  12.603(c)(2) as
recommended.
    One commenter notes that the SNPRM requires any seafarer who holds
an STCW endorsement prior to January 1, 2012, to provide evidence of
meeting the appropriate standard of competence for the applicable STCW
endorsement by January 1, 2017. The commenter asks if he is correct to
interpret this as meaning that a seafarer seeking to renew their MMC
prior to July 1, 2013, will be bound by the present rules, whereas a
seafarer seeking to renew their MMC after that time will be bound by
the new rules.
    Mariners who hold an STCW endorsement issued prior to March 24,
2014, seeking to renew their endorsements prior to July 1, 2017, will
be governed by existing regulations. However, in order for them to sail
on or after January 1, 2017, mariners with certain endorsements must
meet some additional requirements as specified in individual provisions
for endorsements found in parts 11 and 12.
    Mariners seeking an STCW endorsement who start service or training
after March 24, 2014 will be required to meet the requirements in this
final rule.
57. Miscellaneous Comments
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard take full advantage
of the flexibilities incorporated into the STCW Convention and of the
robustness of an existing licensing scheme, without compromising
safety, security and protection of mariners or of the marine
environment. The commenter also recommends that the Coast Guard
interpret the STCW Convention in a manner which will not compromise the
ability of the U.S. flag merchant fleet to compete in the international
trades.
    The Coast Guard agrees. The regulatory text in this final rule
incorporates some of the flexibilities provided by the STCW Convention
with regard to sea service, training, and assessment. However, in some
instances, the U.S. system provides a higher standard than the STCW
Convention.
    The same commenter recommends that the Coast Guard adopt guiding
principles for the interpretation of the STCW Convention/Code that will
ensure consistency in its interpretation as Coast Guard administrations
change and future comprehensive reviews occur. In the commenter's view,
such interpretations should be preserved in a manner consistent with
international and national laws, regulations, and policies.
    The Coast Guard agrees that guiding principles can be helpful.
Accordingly, we followed the principles below in the development of
this final rule, and will continue to do so during implementation:
    (1) The Coast Guard will implement the STCW Convention and Code
within its constraints, taking advantage of its flexibilities to the
extent possible without compromising safety, security, and protection
of the marine environment;
    (2) Requirements should not place any unnecessary burdens on the
industry and the mariners;
    (3) Because the STCW Convention is competence-based and not
training-based, training will only be required if it is specifically
required by the Convention or if it is demonstrated that the competence
can only be obtained via structured training; and
    (4) Assessments will be required for all STCW standards of
competence.
    It is worth noting that these guiding principles were also followed
during the development of the 1997 IR.
    One commenter asks the Coast Guard to provide the analysis used to
determine that Regulations I/6, I/8, II/1, II/2, and II/3 do not apply
to the table of competencies listed in Chapter II, Part A of the STCW
Code.
    Because the Coast Guard has determined that those regulations apply
to all tables of competencies throughout the STCW Convention, no such
analysis exists. The Tables in part A of the STCW Code establish the
standards of competence, which provide ways and means to demonstrate
the knowledge, understanding, and proficiencies needed to meet each
standard. The Convention is very specific about which standards of
competence require training. Basic training, Electronic Chart Display
and Information System, and Automatic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA) are
examples of such required training.
    In most instances, however, the STCW Convention does not specify
whether structured training is required to meet the standards of
competence. It is up to each administration to establish the training
and experience necessary to achieve the level of competence, and when
structured training should be obtained.
    Regulations II/1, II/2, II/3, III/1, III/2, III/3, and III/6
require that candidates complete education and training and meet the
standard of competence specified in the appropriate sections of the
STCW Code. Regulation I/6 requires that the training and assessment

specified under the STCW Convention be administered and supervised by
the administration in accordance with Section A-I/6 of the STCW Code
for certification. The administration must also ensure that all
instructors and assessors are appropriately qualified for the types and
levels of training or assessment of competence of seafarers, either
onboard a vessel, at shore-side facilities, or by use of simulators.
Those involved in training and/or assessment must be qualified for the
competence for which the training/assessment is being conducted, and
must also have the required training in instructional techniques and
assessment methods, as appropriate.
    In accordance with Regulation I/8, all training and assessment of
competence, certification, endorsement and revalidation activities
should be continuously monitored by a quality standards system.
    One commenter notes that Sec.  10.225(a)(2) states that an
applicant must apply as an original if the MMC sought is the first
credential issued to applicants after their previous credential has
expired and they do not hold a Document of Continuity under Sec.
10.227(g) of this part or an equivalent unexpired continuity
endorsement on their license. The commenter believes that this section
conflicts with Sec. Sec.  10.227 (b) and 10.227(i).
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec.  10.225(a)(2) to
include the words ``beyond the grace period'' after the words ``after
their previous credential has expired.'' That section is no longer in
conflict with Sec.  10.227(b) and (i).
    One commenter recommended that the rule clarify the roles of Coast
Guard offices to better facilitate a smooth transition to
implementation of the new requirements.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec. Sec.  1.01-
10(b)(ii)(A), 1.01-10(b)(ii)(D), and 1.01-15(d) of this final rule to
clarify the roles of the Director of Prevention Policy (CG-5P), the
Office of Vessel Activities (CG-CVC), and the National Maritime Center.
58. Administrative
    One commenter disagrees with the last paragraph of Section V of the
SNPRM preamble, which states that if U.S. regulations are non-compliant
with the STCW Convention and Code, there is a risk that U.S. ships will
be detained in foreign ports by member nations and that U.S. mariners
would not be able to seek employment on foreign flag vessels. The
commenter states that the threat of detention is overstated in the
SNPRM, and that a proposed rulemaking based on such a threat due to
some minor non-conformity with the STCW Code or Convention is
inappropriate.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The 2010 amendments to the STCW
Convention, specifically Regulation I/7 and Section A-I/7, require that
the Parties submit a report on the steps taken to implement the 2010
amendments as part of the independent evaluation report (I/8 report).
Furthermore, Section A-I/8 requires that the 5-year independent
evaluation includes all applicable provisions of the STCW Convention
and Code, including the amendments. The independent evaluation report
is subject to review by a panel of competent persons. Failure to report
implementation of the changes could potentially result in the removal
from the ``List of Parties giving the Convention full and complete
effect'' (the so-called ``White List''). In turn, removal from the so-
called ``White List'' could result in potential detentions and delays.
59. Editorial
    One commenter states that Sec.  10.209(d) lists eight items of
application paperwork that can be supplied by fax or electronic means,
but item four says that the applicants for a radar observer endorsement
must submit either the certificate or a certified copy, making it sound
like a paper document is required. The commenter recommends allowing
electronic versions of that document as well. Given the fact that a
``certificate of training'' is acceptable documentation under Sec.
15.815, the commenter also recommends using the phrase ``certificate of
training required by Sec.  15.815'' in place of ``radar-observer
certificate.''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  10.209(d)(4) to
clarify that copies of all course-completion certificates, including
those for radar, are accepted. The Coast Guard also has amended Sec.
11.480(d) to maintain consistency with Sec.  15.815.
    The same commenter recommends that, in Sec.  10.402(a)(1), ``sea
service'' might be better than ``service experience'' for consistency.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec.  10.402(a)(1) to read
``sea service'' for consistency.
    The same commenter notes that Sec.  11.201(b) provides an exception
in Sec.  11.467(h), which should be (i).
    The Coast Guard agrees and has made this change in Sec.  11.201(b).
    The same commenter notes that Sec.  11.301(b) says that mariners
qualified under paragraph (e) of this section must document continued
competence. It appears the management level, (f), is not included in
the requirement. The commenter recommends including the management
level.
    The Coast Guard agrees. Basic training has been re-located to Sec.
11.302, and the recommended changes have been made there.
    The same commenter believes that, in both Sec. Sec.  11.426 and
11.427, the correct section to cite in paragraph (a) should be Sec.
15.105.
    The Coast Guard agrees that the citation should have been to Sec.
15.105. The citation has been removed from Sec. Sec.  11.426, 11.427,
11.428, and 11.429, and has been corrected in Sec.  11.323.
    The same commenter notes that, in Sec.  11.1003, the citation of
Sec.  11.1105 in paragraph (d) should be Sec.  11.1005.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the cited reference in Sec.
11.1003(d) to Sec.  11.1005.
    The same commenter recommends that, in Sec.  12.409(b)(3), the word
``lifeboatman'' should be ``lifeboatman-limited.''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has made the suggested change in Sec.
12.409(b)(3).The same commenter notes that, in Sec.  12.621, the
terminology for the approved course should be consistent with the
requirements for training in ``management of medical care'' found in
deck management-level qualification standards. The commenter recommends
using that phrase in Sec.  12.621(a)(1).
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  12.621(a)(1) to
include the appropriate course name.
    One commenter notes that an error in the change list on page 45916
should be corrected--the reference to Sec.  10.205(h) should be Sec.
10.205(i).
    The Coast Guard agrees. Although the comment relates to the
preamble of the SNPRM, it is in the Table of Changes, parts of which
have been carried over to this final rule. We have amended Sec.
10.205(h) to read Sec.  10.205(i).
    The same commenter notes that, in table 10.302(a), the able
seafarer-engine vision test reference should be Sec.  10.305(b), not
Sec.  10.305(a).
    The Coast Guard agrees. We have changed the reference in table 1 to
10.302(a) to Sec.  10.305(b).
    Two commenters suggest that Sec.  11.317(a) should read ``to
qualify for an STCW endorsement as master.''
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec.  11.317 as suggested.
    One commenter believes that in Sec.  15.610(a), the last sentence
was superseded by the recent change to 46 U.S.C. 8905 and should be
deleted.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has deleted the last sentence of Sec.
15.610(a).

This is a housekeeping issue to address a change in statute and does
not pose a burden to the public. The deletion is consistent with the
change in 46 U.S.C. 8905 exempting vessels of less than 200 gross tons
engaged in the offshore mineral and oil industry if the vessel has
offshore mineral and oil industry sites or equipment as its ultimate
destination or place of departure, from the requirement that the vessel
must be operated by an individual licensed by the DHS Secretary.
    Two commenters note that to receive an STCW endorsement as master
of vessels less than 200 GRT/500 GT (Sec.  11.315), service of 36
months is required as OICNW with no tonnage requirement. It goes on to
state that this period of service may be reduced to 24 months if 12
months are served as OICNW.
    The Coast Guard agrees that, under STCW, the 12 months should be
served as chief mate, and has amended Sec.  11.315(a)(1) accordingly.
    The same commenters note that, in Sec.  11.317, the requirements
listed for qualification as master less than 200 GRT/500 GT near-
coastal are those for chief mate 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT or more.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  11.317(a). One
commenter recommends that the Coast Guard move Sec.  11.811,
requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as VSO, to subpart C.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has transferred the requirements for
VSO, currently in Sec.  11.811 to Sec.  11.337. The appropriate
sections in 33 CFR 104.215 will be amended accordingly.
    One commenter notes that Sec.  11.903(a) does not contain all of
the MODU officer endorsements.
    The Coast Guard agrees. Offshore Installation Manager, barge
supervisor, and ballast control operator examination subjects are
described in Sec.  11.920-2. However, these endorsements should be
listed in Sec.  11.903, and the Coast Guard has amended it to do so.
    Three commenters state that, in proposed Sec.  11.201(h)(1), the
Coast Guard mistakenly said that ``mariners who completed a
firefighting course within the previous 5 years . . .'' but that this
was a typographical error that should read, ``mariners who completed a
firefighting course more than 5 years ago . . .''
    The Coast Guard agrees and has revised this section as recommended.
60. Comments Outside the Scope of This Rulemaking
    This section describes comments requesting changes that are outside
the scope of this rulemaking. Although the Coast Guard is unable to
include these suggested changes in this final rule, the Coast Guard may
consider them if and when the Coast Guard conducts an additional
rulemaking on these subjects.
    One commenter claims that, with regard to proposed Sec.  11.910 and
table 11.910-2, the public has a right to free access to the latest
version of every question and answer, and the Coast Guard must keep
that database up-to-date.
    The commenter's suggestion is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The Coast Guard did not propose any regulatory changes concerning
access to examination questions and answers.
    One commenter states that, given the already complex STCW
requirements and regulations, plain-language guidance is critical for
mariners.
    The issuance of guidance is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
However, the Coast Guard will consider issuing guidance in the future.
    One commenter recommends that the Coast Guard work with MERPAC and
other industry stakeholders to develop a plain-language guidance
document that will help mariners subject to STCW to understand readily
which STCW endorsement they require and what they must do to obtain it.
This is outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, the Coast will
consider issuing plain-language guidance.
    One commenter noted that he or she submitted correspondence to the
Coast Guard several months ago concerning NVIC 11-07.
    This is outside the scope of this rulemaking. NVIC 11-07 is not
part of this rulemaking.
61. MERPAC Comments
    Below, the Coast Guard responds to comments received from MERPAC.
Several of MERPAC's comments noted non-substantive, editorial errors in
the SNPRM. The Coast Guard has incorporated these comments where
appropriate, without further discussion.
    MERPAC believes that any persons serving as an assessor need to be
qualified with training in the skills required to assess competency and
approved by the Coast Guard, whether as a QA or as a DE. Therefore, a
definition of Qualified Assessor should be added as follows:
``Qualified assessor or QA means a person who is qualified to evaluate,
for STCW endorsements, whether an applicant has demonstrated the level
of competence in the task for which the assessment is being made. This
person must be approved by the Coast Guard or successfully complete a
CG approved or accepted program of training.''
    As previously discussed, the Coast Guard has amended the definition
of ``Qualified Assessor'' in Sec.  10.107 to require Coast Guard
approval and to clarify this person's role and professional
development.
    MERPAC recommends that Coast Guard work with MERPAC to develop the
standards for a QA, including developing an approval process and an
auditing and oversight program. A task statement should be developed
for MERPAC.
    The Coast Guard agrees. Section 10.405 includes requirements for
qualified assessors. The Coast Guard will consider developing a task
statement for MERPAC to address in the future.
    MERPAC recommends that a definition for ``Certificate of Registry''
be added.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Certificate of Registry is included
under the MMC definition in 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II, Part E, with the
definitions of the other credentialing documentation that the MMC
replaced.
    MERPAC says that the definition of a ``domestic'' officer
endorsement is confusing, and recommends striking ``domestic'' and
replacing with ``National'' globally.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has changed ``domestic endorsement'' to
``national endorsement'' to eliminate confusion.
    MERPAC recommends the Coast Guard change the definition of
``disabled vessel'' by removing the last sentence of the proposed
definition, and revert to the original definition. As proposed, MERPAC
believes this definition would mean that any time a vessel maneuvers to
and from the dock with an assist tug, or a vessel takes an assist/
escort tug, that vessel would be deemed to be a disabled vessel, which
would be incorrect in many instances.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has deleted the sentence. The intent was
not to change the definition, and the Coast Guard is only making
editorial changes to the original definition of ``disabled vessel'' in
Sec.  10.107.
    MERPAC notes the absence of a definition for ``direct supervision''
and recommends that one be added.
    The Coast Guard agrees and is using the definition of ``directly
supervised'' to also address ``direct supervision''.
    MERPAC recommends that the definition of ``drug test'' be amended
to broaden the testing procedure to be in line with 49 CFR 40.195.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. MERPAC's recommended change to the
definition of ``drug test'' is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The Coast

Guard did not propose any changes to the definition of ``drug test''.
    MERPAC recommends that the term ``STCW endorsement'' include
additional language clarifying that the underlying domestic endorsement
must be held by the applicant for an STCW endorsement.
    The Coast Guard agrees because the requested change clarifies the
requirement for mariners to hold national endorsements as a
prerequisite to an applicable STCW endorsement unless otherwise
specified. The Coast Guard has amended Sec. Sec.  11.201 and 12.601
accordingly.
    MERPAC recommends that a definition for ``medical certificate'' be
added.
    The Coast Guard agrees. To ensure consistency with other terms, a
definition for ``medical certificate'' has been added to Sec.  10.107.
    MERPAC recommends that the ``coastwise voyage'' definition
encompass voyages to nations in which we have a treaty or other
arrangements between nations that allow coastwise transit. Furthermore,
MERPAC recommends that the definition of ``domestic voyage'' should not
include the phrase ``without entering waters under the jurisdiction of
another country.''
    The Coast Guard partially agrees. This definition is consistent
with STCW, which requires that each Administration ensure that all
mariners serving on foreign vessels working in their waters meet the
full STCW requirements or the near coastal provisions in the Convention
as implemented by the Administration. The Convention allows for the
entry into informal agreements between countries. Section 10.107 was
amended so that the definition for ``domestic voyage'' includes voyages
beginning and ending at a U.S. port and passing through the waters of
another country if the U.S. has entered into a treaty or agreement with
that country.
    MERPAC recommends adding the definition of ``ILO'', because the
term is used in part 14.
    The Coast Guard agrees. The ILO is referenced within Subchapter B
and should be defined. Section 10.107 has been amended accordingly.
    MERPAC recommends that the definition of ``limited'' include
horsepower.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. For purposes of this final rule, the
term ``limited'' is intended to be given its normal meaning, and the
definition has been removed from Sec.  10.107.
    Where used, it is explained within the regulation how it will be
applied. For example, Sec.  11.463(c) explains that for national
endorsement as master, mate (pilot) and apprentice mate (steersman) of
towing vessels, ``limited'' means an endorsement to operate a towing
vessel of less than 200 GRT only within a local area within the Great
Lakes, inland waters, or Western Rivers designated by the OCMI.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard review the definitions of a
``self propelled tank vessel'' and ``tankship'' to ensure inclusion of
all vessels.
    The Coast Guard has reviewed these definitions for consistency and
the inclusion of all vessels. It has been determined that the current
definitions do not need revision. To address new requirements for STCW
endorsements on tank vessels, we have added definitions for ``oil
tanker,'' ``chemical tanker'' and ``liquefied gas tanker.''
    MERPAC recommends correction of the definition of ``utility
towing.'' MERPAC believes it conflicts with the proposed definition for
``disabled vessel.''
    Because the Coast Guard is not including the requirements for
utility towing credentials in this final rule, we have deleted the
definition of ``utility towing'' from Sec.  10.107.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard amend the definition of
``restricted'' to read ``. . . endorsement, for example, specific.''
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. The Coast Guard recognizes that the
terms ``restricted'' and ``limited'' have been used interchangeably in
the past and that there is no consistency in the use of the terms in
relation to the title of the credential. The Coast Guard is of the
opinion that all limited endorsements or credentials have inherent in
their qualifications some sort of constraint that reduces the authority
of the credential. Therefore, to avoid confusion, the Coast Guard
deleted the two definitions because the terms have the same meaning in
standard English language usage.
    MERPAC recommends that the definition of ``safe and suitable
person'' needs to include ``safety and security of life or property.''
    The Coast Guard agrees that this addition will clarify the
definition and has amended Sec.  10.107 as suggested.
    MERPAC recommends that the definition of ``support level'' should
coincide with STCW Code (A-I/1)--management level and operational
level.
    The Coast Guard agrees that the definition should be consistent
with the STCW definition and has amended Sec.  10.107 accordingly.
    MERPAC recommends that the definition ``vessel personnel with
security duties'' be revised. Currently, it does not accurately capture
security duties and it should be changed to harmonize with text from B-
VI/6 in STCW.
    The Coast Guard agrees. As previously discussed, the Coast Guard
has revised 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.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  10.225 be amended to allow postdating
of endorsements for up to 12 months unless the applicant makes a
written request to the contrary.
    The Coast Guard agrees. As previously discussed, the Coast Guard
has amended Sec.  10.205 to allow for the post-dating of credentials
for up to 8 months with the option for a mariner to choose immediate
issuance.
    MERPAC recommends that a copy of a radar course certificate should
not have to be certified, as proposed in Sec.  10.209(d)(4).
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  11.480 to maintain
consistency with Sec.  15.815. Section 10.209(d)(4) was amended in
response to another comment and no longer specifically applies to radar
course certificates.
    MERPAC recommends that all references linking the TWIC to the MMC
be modified to reflect changes in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2010.
    The Coast Guard agrees. However, as discussed previously, this
issue is being addressed in a separate rulemaking.
    MERPAC does not support limiting payment of fees to only electronic
means. Mariners should not be forced to pay via credit card, because
not all mariners have a credit card. The Coast Guard should allow for
payments to be accepted in cash, certified/cashier's check, or money
order.
    The Coast Guard agrees and will continue to accept cash, checks,
and money orders, as well as credit cards and electronic payments for
MMCs and associated endorsements. Section 10.219 has been amended
accordingly.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard add a new paragraph to Sec.
10.221 to address means of proving citizenship since a TWIC is no
longer required for all MMCs.
    The Coast Guard agrees. However, as discussed previously, TWIC-
related changes from the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 are
being addressed separately.
    MERPAC recommends that, if there is going to be a national medical
certificate, the Coast Guard de-link the

medical certificate from the MMC and issue a separate medical
certificate. Coast Guard needs to check for consistency with other
regulations (e.g., Sec.  10.302) and consider a Legislative Change
Proposal if necessary to assure that credentials are issued after
evaluating a mariner's professional qualifications alone.
    The Coast Guard agrees. As previously discussed, under Sec.  10.301
of this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will issue a separate medical
certificate through the NMC.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard insert a new paragraph in
Sec.  10.232(b) that would allow the issuance of an STCW restricted
certificate based on seagoing service on the waters of British Columbia
and the inland passage (as day-for-day service on inland waters) to
ensure continued service credit for seafarers working in this area.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  10.232(b) to: (1)
Allow day-for-day STCW sea service credit on Great Lakes vessels and
aboard inland vessels that maintain STCW standards, especially those
inland vessels, that by the nature of their service must occasionally
go outside the boundary line; and (2) allow day-for-day service on
vessels to which STCW applies, whether inland or coastwise. Service on
the waters of the Inside Passage between Puget Sound and Cape Spencer,
Alaska, will be credited toward near-coastal and STCW endorsements.
    MERPAC is concerned that the change to the medical review process
requiring the implied issuance of a medical certificate will exceed the
capabilities of the NMC because of the increase in the number of
reviews necessitated by the proposed 1- and 2-year cycle of
certificates, and an unacceptable backlog will be created. Therefore,
mariner's jobs would be jeopardized. MERPAC suggests the Coast Guard
replace Sec.  10.301(a) ``operational limitations'' with ``limitations
and/or other conditions'' (to assure consistency with NVIC).
    As previously discussed, the Coast Guard has no discretion over the
issuance of 2-year medical certificates in compliance with the STCW
Convention. However, the Coast Guard is taking actions in this final
rule to minimize the numbers of mariners who will require more frequent
medical evaluation, including the removal of the 1-year certificate for
pilots. This change should decrease the workload on the medical
evaluation staff and help to reduce the possibility of unreasonable
time delays. Additionally, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010
provides the Coast Guard with authority to grant limited extensions for
national endorsements when the Coast Guard experiences a backlog.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard will be working to develop the DME program
to reduce workload issues.
    MERPAC recommends that every person holding a license or MMC
endorsement as first-class pilot must have a thorough physical
examination each year, to be completed by the first day of the month
following the anniversary of the individual's most recently completed
Coast Guard required physical examination. Every fifth year, in
accordance with the medical certificate/endorsement requirements in
Sec.  10.301(b), the results of the physical examination must be
recorded on a CG-719K form and submitted to the Coast Guard no later
than 30 calendar days after completion of the physical examination.
MERPAC strongly prefers the above recommendation. However, as a ``Plan
B'' in the event the Coast Guard does not accept MERPAC's
recommendations that first-class pilots and mariners merely ``serving
as'' a pilot be required to have 5-year medical certificates, MERPAC
recommends that first-class pilots and ``serving as'' pilots be
required to have 2-year medical certificates. Under ``Plan B'',
Sec. Sec.  11.709(b) and (d) should be amended as follows: Every person
holding a license or MMC endorsement as first-class pilot must have a
thorough physical examination each year, to be completed by the first
day of the month following the anniversary of the individual's most
recently completed Coast Guard required physical examination. Every
other year, in accordance with the medical certificate/endorsement
requirements in Sec.  10.301(b), the results of the physical
examination must be recorded on a CG-719K form and submitted to the
Coast Guard no later than thirty (30) calendar days after completion of
the physical examination. Finally, if the Coast Guard moves forward
with a certificate for National mariners, pilots should be included in
Sec.  10.301(b)(3).
    The Coast Guard agrees with MERPAC's plan B and has amended
Sec. Sec.  10.301(b)(2), 10.709(b) and 10.709(d) so that first-class
pilots will continue to be subject to annual physical examinations, but
will only be issued the biennial medical certificate. Annual physicals
for first-class pilots are required by 46 U.S.C. 7101. The 2-year
medical certificate requirement is consistent with the STCW Convention
requirement for oceangoing mariners, and strikes an appropriate balance
between maritime safety and the administrative processing burden.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard define communicable disease
and define exactly what the concerns are. Mariners who have only a
food-handler credential are receiving extensive, potentially
unnecessary medical testing. Clarification needs to be provided in
guidance as there currently is no standard for ``communicable.''
    The Coast Guard agrees and amended Sec.  10.107 to provide a
definition of ``communicable disease.'' The Coast Guard will clarify
these requirements in future guidance in an effort to balance the
impact on the individual mariner and the potential risks to public
safety and health.
    MERPAC recommends that the demonstration of physical ability in
Sec.  10.304(d)(2) remain in guidance and be struck from the text.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. There is a need to provide minimum
requirements and standards for a medical examination.
    MERPAC recommended amending Sec.  10.403(a)(7) by adding the word
``significant'' before ``change'', to reduce the load on course
providers and the NMC by not requiring that every minor change be
handled as an original submission for course approval.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec.  10.403(a)(7) as
recommended. Additionally, the Coast Guard will issue guidance in the
future because any changes to a finite or time-based curriculum will
have an effect on the delivery of the entire curriculum and, hence,
require approval.
    MERPAC recommends amending Sec.  10.404(a)(3) by adding
``substitution of required service as a result of . . .'' to avoid
requiring individuals to take the same class twice to maintain an
endorsement when upgrading.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. This is an existing requirement
that applies to national endorsements where the training is used in
``lieu'' of ``service'' or ``exam.'' This requirement is normally not
applicable to STCW provisions, since the Convention allows for the
attainment of training and assessment for management level at the
operational level. In some specific instances, however, it is
applicable to STCW, as it is in the case for tanker refresher training.
The Coast Guard has amended Sec.  10.404(a)(3) so that an applicant who
has taken a required course prior to upgrading from a lower level, can
retain the credit for that course when upgrading to the level for which
the course was intended.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard amend Sec.  10.410 to
include a

requirement that if company training is included under the ISM, Coast
Guard should accept ISM to the extent that it meets the QSS
requirements.
    The Coast Guard agrees. This section of the SNPRM was broad and did
not apply only to training institutions and schools. 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 amended Sec.  10.410 by adding a new paragraph (g) to include ISM
as an alternate means of compliance for the QSS provision.
    MERPAC is concerned that the incorporation by reference provision
in Sec.  11.102(a) is not helpful and recommends that the Coast Guard
somehow make STCW available to the general public. It is not sufficient
to incorporate by reference, since the document is only available by
purchase.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part and will be making relevant portions
of STCW available to the public. Please see the incorporation by
reference section in the discussion of comments above.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  11.201(j)(1)(iii) be amended to allow
applicants attending approved programs to test up to 6 months prior to
graduation.
    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. If an applicant completes all parts of a
comprehensive program that pertain to maritime credentialing
requirements, including all sea service and required courses and
assessments of competency, a maximum of 6 months prior to completion of
the program, an examination will be authorized. This provision is
necessary to facilitate the examination process while ensuring that new
officers have the required knowledge prior to receipt of their officer
endorsement.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard should extend grandfathering
provisions found in Sec.  11.301(i) so that persons with an operational
level endorsement upgrading to management level should not be required
to do the assessments for operational level, because they were already
completed.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has added a new paragraph Sec.
11.301(i)(4) so that persons who hold or have held an STCW operational
level endorsement issued prior to the effective date of this rulemaking
and are seeking to upgrade to an STCW management level will not be
required to complete the assessments for STCW operational level
endorsements as required in subparagraph (f)(2) of that section.
    MERPAC recommends in Sec.  11.307(b)(1), but also globally, that
the Coast Guard define leadership competency and how is it achieved by
amending regulations or policy concerning what kind of evidence will be
used.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  11.307(b) and other
regulations to require leadership training. This change is necessary to
implement requirements in the STCW Code for mariners to demonstrate
leadership competence at both the management and operational levels. In
addition, the Coast Guard is developing guidance with sample
assessments to be used by QAs in their development of assessments to be
used onboard vessels.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  11.325(c) be amended so an applicant
who holds an STCW endorsement as OICEW, second engineer officer, or
chief engineer officer will be allowed to receive the ETO endorsements
upon completion of the requirements in Section A-III/6 of the STCW
Code.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has corrected Sec.  11.335(c)
accordingly. The STCW Convention provides for the issuance of ETO
endorsements to OICEW, second engineer officer, or chief engineer
officer.
    MERPAC is concerned that, based upon Sec.  11.404 (et seq.), Great
Lakes time is linked with inland time and needs to be broken out, 12
months for Great Lakes and 24 months for inland all the way through,
even in uninspected fishing vessels and towing vessels. The new policy
recognizing Great Lakes time as equivalent to ocean is not carried
through part 11.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Inland and Great Lakes service time for
the advancement of inland and Great Lakes endorsements continues to be
on a 1-for-1 basis. Therefore, the Great Lakes and inland service time
does not need to be separated. However, they have been separated when
this service time is being used for oceans and STCW endorsements in
this rulemaking. This was done so mariners can use Great Lakes service
time on a 1-for-1 basis, up to 100 percent of the required sea service,
and inland service time on a 1-for-1 basis, up to 50 percent of the
required sea service. The Coast Guard has also reviewed and amended
Sec.  11.404 to clarify this.
    MERPAC recommends using the following table to replace or modify
Table 11.505(a). The effect is to eliminate the chief engineer,
limited-near coastal endorsement. Taking into account that STCW applies
to all vessels operating outside of the boundary line, there is a need
to provide crossovers between national and STCW endorsements. MERPAC
recommends that the regulations need to better explain the crossover
from unlimited DDE to OICEW. Furthermore, MERPAC recommends that the
Coast Guard negotiate the development of assessments for chief engineer
(limited) at the 43rd session of the IMO subcommittee on standards of
training and watchkeeping.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24DE13.000

    The Coast Guard partially agrees. We have amended Figure 11.505(a)
as suggested, except chief engineer (limited) remains at 5 years sea
service, and crossovers to STCW endorsements are not part of the figure
due to space limitations but are contained in separate tables in part
11, subpart C.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  11.516(a)(3) be amended by replacing
``graduation from'' with ``completion of an Engineering Officer
Qualification Course.'' An engineering officer of the watch (EOOW)
letter from the Army, Coast Guard, or Navy should be prima facie
evidence of competence.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Section 11.516(a)(3) provides for
specific 4-year academic programs which require graduation in order to
receive credit for the training and experience requirements for an STCW
and national endorsement. The completion of an EOOW course does not
meet all of the STCW competency requirements.
    MERPAC recommends that a different term than ``invalid'' be used in
Sec.  11.709(d) and Sec.  11.713(a).
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The term is appropriate and is further
supported by the last sentence in the same paragraph, which states
``the individual may not operate under the authority of that
endorsement until a physical examination has been satisfactorily
completed.''
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  11.821 be amended. This standard was
extracted from a different HSC code and is confusing and inappropriate.
At a minimum, add clarification about the HSC code (reference the code)
and to what vessels it applies.
    The Coast Guard agrees, and has amended Sec.  11.821 to ensure that
it is only applicable to seafarers operating vessels to which the HSC
code applies.
    MERPAC is concerned that tables 11.910-2 and 11.950-2 are pre-STCW
95. MERPAC recommends that the tables be separated by operational and
management levels. A small working group should be formed to discuss
and locate any differences between national and STCW endorsements that
occur in this table. As far as this rulemaking is concerned, the
following should be considered: (1) Completely remove tables 11.910-2
and 11.950-2 from the SNPRM; (2) in lieu of the table, the Coast Guard
should issue documentation with considerable detail as to what is
contained in each exam for each license level; (3) MERPAC should assist
in the development of this documentation, which might take the form of
a module description as has been used in the past; and (4) MERPAC Task
71 regarding license exam questions cannot logically proceed until

implementation of recommendations 1-3 are well underway.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The tables need to remain in the
regulations until 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
statement to MERPAC to develop suitable information about endorsement
examination topics.
    MERPAC recommends that a footnote be added to Table 12.603(e) to
allow for the reduction of the 6-month sea service requirement by
taking an approved course for able-seafarer-deck.
    The Coast Guard agrees that completion of an approved course for
able seafarer-deck justifies the requested reduction in sea service,
and has amended Table 1 to 12.603(e).
    MERPAC recommends that a footnote be added to Table 12.605(c) to
allow for the reduction of sea service (4 months) by taking an approved
course for RFPNW.
    The Coast Guard agrees that completion of an approved course for
RFPNW justifies the requested reduction in sea service, and has amended
Table 1 to 12.605(c).
    MERPAC recommends that Sec. Sec.  12.625 and 12.627 be amended to
ensure that it provides all of the transitional provisions from STCW
and to check Sec.  15.1113 for consistency.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec. Sec.  12.625, 12.627,
and 15.1113 by adding implementation deadlines for security training
requirements. These changes are required by the STCW Convention.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  13.107(d) be amended as follows: (1)
Remove ``and for maintaining and operating the bunker systems including
the fuel oil'' (tankerman engineer is specifically for cargo
operations. Delete everything after the semicolon.); and (2) add
``liquid cargo in bulk.'' MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard ensure
that text does not apply to the transfer of other than bulk liquid
cargoes and a tankerman endorsement is not needed.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec.  13.107(d) to ensure it
does not apply to the transfer of other than bulk liquid cargoes and a
tankerman endorsement is not needed.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  13.117 be revised to allow the
applicant to complete an approved course for renewal of a tankerman
endorsement that expired more than 12 months (see Sec.  13.120(a)(3)).
Many mariners are not aware that taking a course counts toward renewal
of tankerman endorsements. This would allow mariners the ability to
maintain their tankerman endorsement following expiration of greater
than 12 months. Furthermore, MERPAC recommends changing the reference
from ``tankerman rating'' to ``tankerman endorsement''.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the recommendation to amend Sec.
13.117. The requirement in that section is consistent with situations
where a credential has expired beyond the grace period.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the recommendation to change the
reference from ``tankerman rating'' to ``tankerman endorsement.'' This
change is consistent with the classification of endorsements in Sec.
10.109.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  13.120(a)(1) be amended by inserting
''including service aboard a barge, as appropriate'' after the words
``tank vessel.'' This is to enable mariners serving on towing vessels,
with tankerman credentials, the ability to renew those credentials.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. We agree that certain service on
tank barges should receive credit. However, we do not believe a change
to the regulations is required because the term ``tank vessel''
includes tank ships and tank barges.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  13.203 be amended to give mariners
serving on ATBs full credit for sea time and experience (loads/
discharges) towards full tankerman-PIC endorsement. Many new ATBs have
identical cargo-handling equipment as tankships.
    The Coast Guard agrees. The Coast Guard has amended Sec.  13.127 to
accept service onboard some ATBs toward the national and STCW tankerman
endorsements (including tankerman-PIC), provided the ATB equipment is
equivalent to comparable tankship equipment. This change is necessary
to ensure career paths and to facilitate the use of new ATBs as
qualifying platforms for tankerman endorsements. In addition, the Coast
Guard has provided a means for mariners serving on tank barges to
qualify for an STCW endorsement with a limitation to non-self-propelled
vessels.
    MERPAC recommends that the regulations include a crossover program
from different types of tankers. Seafarers would already have tanker
experience. A shorter course consistent with the STCW could be
appropriate.
    The Coast Guard agrees in part. We are retaining the existing
provisions for a ``crossover'' for a domestic tankerman endorsement.
The STCW does not provide for such a crossover, and mariners must meet
the full service requirements applicable to each cargo.
    MERPAC recommends that the regulations split oil and chemical
tanker requirements into separate sections and incorporate the STCW
code properly and include fast track language in Regulation V/I-1.
Seafarers serving onboard tankers certified to carry both oil and
chemicals should receive sea credit for both oil and chemicals.
    The Coast Guard agrees that the STCW has separate qualification
requirements for oil tankers and for chemical tankers, and has
separated these two endorsements into their own sections, Sec. Sec.
13.603 and 13.605. Nevertheless, it is possible for a single ``cargo
course'' to be acceptable for both endorsements, and if the vessel the
mariner serves on is certified to carry both oil and chemical cargoes,
to use the same service to qualify for both endorsements.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec.  13.603 be amended to allow tankerman-
engineers to obtain an STCW endorsement for advanced oil tanker cargo
operations and advanced chemical tanker cargo operations so chief
engineers and first assistant engineers don't have to get tankerman-PIC
endorsements. Under this proposed text, chief engineers and first
assistant engineers will be unable to do the loading and discharges.
This section should include language that allows mariners with STCW
management-level engine endorsements and tankerman-engineer national
endorsement to receive an STCW advanced tanker cargo operations
endorsement if they complete the STCW assessments. Changes may be
accomplished by amending the domestic requirements (in Sec.  13.201)
and the STCW requirements.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has added Sec.  13.603(c) as a means for
engineers to qualify for an STCW endorsement as the appropriate
advanced tanker cargo operations with a limitation to maintenance and
repair of cargo equipment.
    MERPAC recommends that Sec. Sec.  13.603 and 13.605 be amended to
include an STCW endorsement for appropriate advanced tanker cargo
operations with a limitation to non-self-propelled vessels.
    The Coast Guard agrees. As previously discussed, personnel on non-
tank vessels towing a barge outside the boundary line will be required
to meet the STCW requirements. Consequently, we provided a means in
Sec.  13.603(b) and 13.605(b) for mariners serving on tank barges to
qualify for an STCW endorsement with a limitation to non-self-propelled
vessels.

    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard amend part 15 by adding a
section about manning documents and COIs that separately specify the
STCW endorsements that must be carried onboard for international
voyages.
    COIs will list both national and STCW endorsements. The Coast Guard
will be revising safe manning documents to be consistent with the
changes in this final rule.
    MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard issue a notice to all ship
owners explaining the implementation of the U.S. medical certificate to
facilitate port state control inspections.
    The Coast Guard agrees and will be issuing a notice to IMO and all
port state control organizations worldwide. The Coast Guard will
publish this notice on the NMC Web site.
    MERPAC recommends that part 15 be amended. The text should honor
the original agreement with DOT that the STCW application in domestic
trade would start at 500 GRT. MERPAC recommends the Coast Guard amend
part 15 as follows: (1) Global change in part 15--add ``or 500 GRT on a
domestic voyage'' wherever 200/500 tonnages are used. This is pursuant
to the DOT agreement to use 500 GRT on the application of the STCW; (2)
Global change- add ``seagoing vessel'' wherever horsepower is
mentioned. The tonnage should be also mentioned (200 GRT/500 GT). For
example, ``seagoing vessel of 200 GRT/500 GT or more driven by main
propulsion machinery of 1,000 HP/750 kW propulsion power or more . .
.''
    The Coast Guard recognizes that the regulations and policies
implementing the STCW requirements have been the subject of different