Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW)

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising the current domestic rules on

licensing and documentation of personnel serving on U.S. seagoing

vessels. This interim rule implements the 1978 International Convention

on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,

as amended in 1995. Issuing a rule at this time is necessary because

the 1995 Amendments to STCW came into force on February 1, 1997. The

Coast Guard is inviting public comments on this rule because the ones

it got on its proposed rule earlier this year were so useful that this

rule differs appreciably from that rule.

DATES: This interim rule is effective on July 28, 1997. Comments must

be received on or before December 23, 1997. The Director of the Federal

Register approves the incorporation by reference of certain

publications listed in this rule as of July 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine

Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) [CGD 95-062], U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may

be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3

p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone

number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection-of-information

requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street

NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

A copy of the material listed in Incorporation by Reference of this

preamble is available for inspection at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters.

A copy of the 1995 Amendments to STCW may be obtained by writing

Commandant (G-MSO), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20593-0001, or by calling (202) 267-0229, between 8 a.m.

and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Requests may

also be submitted by facsimile at (202) 267-4570. The 1995 STCW

amendments are published by the International Maritime Organization

(IMO) in ``STCW Convention 1995'' (IMO publication No. IMO-938E. This

publication is available from the International Maritime Organization,

Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, England,

telephone 011-44-171-735-7611.

Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars (NVICs) are available by

subscription from the Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402,

telephone (202) 512-1800. Previously issued NVICs available in paper or

CDROM may be purchased from National Technical Information Services,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650.

NVICs are located on the World Wide Web at: http://www.dot.gov/dotinfo/

uscg/hq/g-m/gmhome.htm (Go to ``Publications, Reports, and Forms'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christopher Young, Project

Manager, Operating and Environmental Standards (G-MSO), U.S. Coast

Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001,

telephone (202) 267-0216.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.

Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses,

identify this rulemaking [CGD 95-062] and the specific section of this

interim rule to which each comment applies, and give the reason for

each comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments

in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for

copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of

receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or

envelopes.

The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the

comment period. It may change this rule in view of the comments.

The Coast Guard plans no additional public hearings. Persons may

request a public hearing by writing to the Marine Safety Council at the

address under ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why a

hearing would be beneficial. If it determines that the opportunity for

oral presentations will aid in this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will

hold another public hearing at a time and place announced by a later

notice in the Federal Register.

Regulatory History

On July 7, 1995, a Conference of Parties to the International

Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers, 1978 (STCW), meeting at the Headquarters of the

International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London, adopted a package

of amendments to STCW. The amendments enter into force on February 1,

1997. In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March

26, 1996 (61 FR 13284), the Coast Guard proposed a number of changes it

considered necessary to implement the revised requirements to ensure

that U.S. documents and licenses are issued in compliance with the 1995

Amendments to STCW (1995 Amendments).

STCW sets qualifications for masters, officers, and watchkeeping

personnel on seagoing merchant ships. It was originally adopted in 1978

by a conference at IMO Headquarters and it entered into force in 1984.

Currently, there are 119 Parties to STCW representing almost 95 percent

of the world's merchant-ship tons. The United States became a Party in

1991.

Over 90 percent of ships visiting U.S. waters are foreign-flag.

Approximately 350 large U.S. merchant ships that routinely visit

foreign ports, as well as thousands of smaller U.S.-documented

commercial vessels that operate on ocean or near-coastal voyages, are

subject to the provisions of STCW.

In 1993, IMO embarked on a comprehensive revision of STCW to

establish the highest practicable standards of competence and to

address human error as a major cause of maritime casualties. By 1993,

significant limitations to STCW had become apparent. They included

requirements that were too vague and left too much to the discretion of

the Parties; the absence of clear, uniform standards of competence;

ineffective international oversight to verify that the Parties were in

fact complying with the requirements of STCW; limited provisions for

port-state control; and outdated technical references that failed to

address modern shipboard systems, job descriptions, and

[[Page 34507]]

approaches to maritime training, such as the use of simulation

technology.

The amendments adopted in July 1995 are comprehensive and detailed.

They concern port-state control, communication of information to IMO to

allow for mutual oversight, and responsibilities of all Parties to

ensure that seafarers meet objective standards of competence. They also

require candidates for certificates (licenses and document

endorsements) to establish competence through both subject-area

examinations and practical demonstrations of skills. Training,

assessment, and certification of competence are all to be managed

within a quality standards system (QSS) to ensure that stated

objectives are being achieved.

The Coast Guard held seven public meetings in the months leading up

to the conference on STCW to determine what positions U.S. delegations

should advocate at preparatory meetings held by IMO, and to exchange

views about amendments to STCW that were under discussion.

The Coast Guard also took advantage of advisory panels' meetings,

particularly those of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee

(MERPAC), the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC), and the

Navigational Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC), to discuss developments

relating to the amendments to STCW and the domestic implementation of

these amendments.

Again, the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal Register on

March 26, 1996 (61 FR 13284). That NPRM described the 1995 Amendments,

and proposed changes to implement them in existing domestic rules on

licensing (46 CFR part 10), documentation (46 CFR part 12), and manning

(46 CFR part 15). It also invited comments on the proposed rule. Over

500 letters were submitted to the public docket. Additionally, a number

of comments, received by voice mail or in telephone conversations, were

summarized for the docket. These letters and comments are addressed in

the ``Discussion of Comments and Changes'' section of this preamble.

Three public meetings were held to receive comments on the proposed

rule. These meetings were announced in the Federal Register notice on

April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15438). Fifty-seven persons attended the meeting

in New Orleans on May 8, 1996; thirteen persons presented oral comments

during the meeting. Sixty-four persons attended the meeting in Seattle

on May 14, 1996; twenty-two persons presented oral comments during that

meeting. Thirty-four persons attended the meeting in Washington, DC, on

May 23, 1996; twelve persons presented oral comments during that

meeting. Comments received during the three meetings are discussed in

the ``Discussion of Comments and Changes'' section of this preamble.

Before publication of the NPRM, the Coast Guard held a public

meeting on August 31, 1995, to discuss the amendments that had been

adopted by an international conference in July 1995. It invited public

comments at that time on how the 1995 Amendments should be implemented

by the United States. Subsequently, it published a Notice of Inquiry

(NOI) in the Federal Register (60 FR 56970; November 13, 1995) to

solicit information on the costs that may be associated with

implementing the 1995 Amendments.

The comments submitted at the August 1995, public meeting, and in

response to the Notice of Inquiry, were taken into account in preparing

the NPRM and the preliminary regulatory analysis.

The Coast Guard is now seeking comments on this Interim Rule,

because it has made a number of important changes, particularly as they

relate to small vessels on domestic voyages, as a result of comments

received in the docket or at the public meetings. It will take into

account any comments received in response to this Rule before it

publishes a final rule.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard received over 500 comments responding to the NPRM

published on March 29, 1996. These comments consisted of both letters

to the docket and remarks at the public meetings in New Orleans,

Seattle, and Washington, DC. The following paragraphs contain an

analysis of comments received and an explanation of any changes made in

the rule as proposed.

Several comments noted editorial errors in the NPRM. The Coast

Guard has incorporated these comments where appropriate, without

further discussion. In addition, a few comments addressed subjects

beyond the scope of the revisions proposed in the NPRM. The Coast Guard

does not discuss these comments in detail.

General Comments

Many of the comments found parts of the NPRM too vague to determine

the precise requirements that they would have to meet, or for them to

estimate the cost of compliance. The Coast Guard has tried to clarify

the requirements, either by providing examples in the preamble when a

requirement is under discussion or by adding specificity to the Interim

Rule. However, in some instances, a degree of generality is needed to

allow the rules to apply to a wide variety of conditions, and to

prevent the rules for U.S. merchant mariners and U.S. vessels from

being unfairly more restrictive than those applying to non-U.S.

seafarers and non-U.S. ships under the international rules.

Several comments requested an extension of the comment period

announced in the NPRM. One comment recommended use of an Interim Rule.

The 1995 Amendments come into force on February 1, 1997. Therefore, the

Coast Guard should publish and implement a rule without delay. To

accommodate requests for an additional comment opportunity, the Coast

Guard has decided to issue an Interim Rule with a 180-day comment

period.

A few comments asserted that domestic operations should not be

regulated through an international treaty. The application of STCW to

ships on domestic voyages is not a result of the 1995 Amendments. STCW,

as adopted in 1978 and as ratified by the United States in 1991,

applied to personnel serving on ``seagoing ships,'' not only ships on

international voyages. This scope of application was not modified under

the 1995 Amendments. Consequently, the Coast Guard is not able to

provide a general exemption for seagoing vessels on domestic-only

voyages. Where flexibility is available under STCW for modifying rules

to be more suitable for smaller vessels on near-coastal voyages, this

Interim Rule introduces appropriate adjustments.

Several comments suggested that the new requirements not be imposed

for at least 2 to 5 years to allow for compliance. There is a 5-year

transitional period provided under the 1995 Amendments that is intended

to avoid disruption in the industry by allowing current license holders

to have their licenses renewed under the prior rules until 2002. The

Coast Guard has redrafted the rule as proposed to allow for the phasing

in of new requirements in accordance with the guidance developed by the

Subcommittee of IMO on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW) at

its 28th session in September 1996. This guidance was issued in the

form of an STCW circular (STWC-7/Circ.1; September 24, 1996), which is

available on request from the Commandant (G-MSO) at the address given

under ADDRESSES. Where appropriate, the circular is quoted in the

following discussion.

Many comments offered observations on the potential impacts of the

proposed rule. The Coast Guard has taken these

[[Page 34508]]

observations into account in preparing a final regulatory-impact

assessment. This assessment is discussed under the section entitled

``Cost-Benefit Evaluation.''

One comment said the Coast Guard should avoid incorporation by

reference and should publish all applicable STCW requirements in the

actual rule. While in specific instances wording from STCW and the STCW

Code are employed in this Interim Rule, the voluminous nature of the

materials make this request impracticable. However, STCW and its Code

are available from the Coast Guard on request, and are readily

available for purchase from IMO and distributors of maritime

publications in the U.S.

Comments concerning specific new requirements or other aspects of

the NRPM are discussed in the following paragraphs:

Scope of Application

1. General

The majority of comments expressed a view on the scope of

application of the proposed rule. A few recommended that the scope be

expanded to include vessels navigating on inland waters. Most, however,

sought to restrict the scope by exempting vessels at certain tonnage

limits engaged in domestic-only voyages, or by exempting vessels

engaged in a specific type of activity. These comments are summarized

and discussed in the following paragraphs:

2. International Voyages

The Coast Guard received twenty-five comments suggesting that STCW

apply only to ships on international voyages. The Coast Guard does not

agree. With certain narrow exceptions, STCW applies to all seagoing

vessels, and the United States, as a Party to STCW, is not able to

exempt seagoing vessels on the grounds that they operate only to and

from U.S. ports.

3. Inland Waters and Great Lakes

Five comments suggested that the rule be expanded to include

vessels operating on inland waters and on the Great Lakes. The Coast

Guard does not agree. The rule was and is intended only to implement

the 1995 Amendments. The 1995 Amendments do not apply to vessels

operating solely on inland waters, which includes the Great Lakes. To

apply STCW to such vessels would exceed the scope of this rulemaking.

In discussions with the Coast Guard, Canadian officials have agreed

that vessels navigating exclusively within the Great Lakes are outside

the scope of STCW. However, in issuing certificates to its own

mariners, Canada does not plan to distinguish the Great lakes from

other waters.

One comment expressed concern about the application of STCW to

vessels navigating between Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British

Columbia, which is an international voyage on waters that require only

an inland license. Canada has indicated that it expects mariners on

these vessels to hold the appropriate STCW endorsement. The Coast

Guard, however, considers vessels operating on the ``inside passage,''

between Seattle and Vancouver, to be on inland waters, and therefore,

outside the scope of STCW.

The Coast Guard will issue STCW endorsements on request to licensed

merchant mariners who may be required to display such documents when

operating within Canadian jurisdiction. The endorsements will be

limited to service on the ``Inside Passage.''

4. Short Voyages

Five comments suggested that the Coast Guard exempt vessels that

operate beyond the Boundary Line but within a short distance of a U.S.

port (i.e., 20 miles), or on short international voyages. The Coast

Guard cannot agree with this suggestion because the Convention does not

provide authority for granting such a broad exemption. STCW, however,

provides administrative flexibility to allow for exemptions from

unreasonable or impracticable requirements when personnel are serving

on vessels engaged in near-coastal voyages. This Interim Rule is

drafted in a way that allows for the full use of this flexibility, and

a broad exemption based on length of voyage or distance offshore would

not be appropriate.

5. Lower-Level Licenses

One comment stated that the Coast Guard was not taking into account

the impacts of the STCW requirements on lower-level licenses, and on

small companies that operate small commercial vessels, such as in the

charter-boat industry. As explained in this preamble, the Coast Guard

is taking steps to mitigate any unreasonable or adverse impact the new

requirements might otherwise have on small vessels and on their

operations and personnel.

6. Fish-Tender Vessels

The Coast Guard received 443 comments suggesting that fish-tender

vessels be classed as fishing vessels, and, so be covered by the

exemption applying to fishing vessels. These comments explained that

fish-tender vessels in the Pacific Northwest and in Alaska work hand in

hand with fishing vessels and even are occassionally used for catching

fish. After publication of the NPRM, the fishing tenders received this

exemption under the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 (the Act).

Section 1146 of the Act states that STCW will not apply to ``a fishing

vessel, including a fishing vessel used as a fish tender vessel.'' The

Coast Guard understands the terms ``fishing vessels.'' and ``fish

tender vessels'' according to their definition in 46 U.S.C. 2101.

Because of this exemption, the Coast Guard will not discuss in detail

the range of impacts identified by those in the fish-tender industry

who commented to the docket expressing concern about the costs of

complying with the NPRM.

7. Fish-Processing Vessels

While many comments called for a broad exemption for all fishing-

industry vessels, four comments specifically recommend that the

exemption for fishing vessels also apply to fish-processing vessels.

STCW does not provide authority for granting the suggested exemption.

However, for fish-processing vessels of 200 gross register tons (GRT)

and over, the Coast Guard can accept compliance with the requirements

in 46 CFR part 28 (Requirements for Commercial Fishing Industry

Vessels) as an equivalency for the requirements of basic safety-

training under STCW. Watchkeeping personnel on fish-processing vessels

will still be subject to the rest-hour rules; but these should not be a

problem, because most operate on a two-watch system. Licensed and

unlicensed personnel would be subject to the new requirements for

receiving and renewing licenses and documents (e.g., medical fitness

standards; training on automatic radar-plotting aids (ARPA), if the

ship is fitted with ARPA; and an understanding of bridge teamwork

procedures).

For fish-processing vessels less than 200 GRT, the Coast Guard will

accept compliance with existing laws (statutes and rules), policies,

and industry standards as an equivalency for the purposes of meeting

the requirements of STCW.

8. Small Passenger Vessels

The Coast Guard received twenty-six comments suggesting that STCW

and the implementing rules not apply to small passenger vessels on

domestic voyages. STCW does not provide authority for a general

exemption for these vessels. As previously noted, STCW applies to

seagoing commercial vessels (except fishing vessels).

[[Page 34509]]

However, special provisions allow for exempting smaller vessels on

near-coastal voyages from unreasonable or impracticable requirements.

Two comments suggested that the Coast Guard use equivalences to

relieve small passenger vessels of unreasonable impacts that are

perceived to exist if the requirements of the 1995 Amendments are

imposed. One comment noted that training currently being provided is

tailored to equipment the carriage of which is required on these

vessels. A second provided a copy of the deckhand training manual

currently being used in the small passenger vessel industry to indicate

how seriously safety is taken. The Passenger Vessel Association (PVA)

submitted to the docket a video tape as an example of materials being

used as training aids.

The Coast Guard has determined that an equivalency between STCW

requirements and current U.S. laws and industry practice is justified.

The revisions to the rules on inspection and certification of small

passenger vessels (subchapters T and K) of Title 46 CFR in CGD 85-080,

as well as the fact that the Coast Guard has opportunity to perform

direct oversight over the operational aspects of these vessels,

supports such an equivalency. Therefore, this Interim Rule imposes no

new requirements either on personnel serving on these vessels or on

their owners or operators.

9. Uninspected Passenger Vessels

While the docket contains only a few comments from the uninspected-

passenger-vessel industry, a couple of charter-boat operations

commented on the negative impact the proposed rule could have on their

industry. Although STCW technically encompasses such vessels, domestic

law generally excludes them. The Coast Guard is exempting personnel

serving on these vessels from the application of STCW and this Interim

Rule on the grounds that application of STCW would constitute excessive

and inappropriate regulation of an activity that has traditionally

undergone a minimum of Federal scrutiny. The Coast Guard sees no need

to alter that long-standing condition.

10. Towing Vessels

While one comment supported application of ``some of the new terms

and concepts of the 1995 Amendments to the towing industry,'' another

stated that the rule implementing STCW should be fully consistent with

the proposals in CGD 94-055, ``Licensing and Manning for Officers of

Towing Vessels.'' To avoid confusion and possible inconsistencies,

rules on licenses and documents for towing-vessel personnel will be

promulgated primarily under CGD 94-055. Only matters directly related

to implementation of the 1995 Amendments and requirements for holding

an STCW certificate or endorsement are covered under this Interim Rule.

In general, the principle of equivalency applies broadly to vessels

of less than 200 GRT that are not subject to 46 U.S.C. 8304 (i.e., are

outside the scope of the Officers' Competency Certificates Convention).

The equivalency will be based, at least in part, on voluntary

activities taking place within the towing-vessel industry to improve

safety programs, such as the Responsible Carrier Program of the

American Waterway Operators (AWO).

Those interested in issues of towing vessel licensing, however,

should be aware that STCW endorsements are required for those serving

on towing vessels operating beyond the Boundary Line.

11. Mobile Offshore-Drilling Units (MODUs)

Although one comment recommended that the new STCW requirements be

applied to all MODU personnel, two comments stated that MODUs should

not be subject to the rules that implement the 1995 Amendments.

According to the comment, when a MODU is on location off the coast of a

foreign country, the coastal state can impose its own personnel

requirements, and neither the U.S., nor the company, has control over

the training and assessment taking place in that country.

In domestic law, MODU is the term most commonly used, but IMO

terminology employs the broader term ``mobile offshore unit.'' This

term can include a construction barge used in constructing an offshore

platform. Since the NPRM was published, the Subcommittee of IMO on STW

has begun discussing the appropriate means of ensuring that maritime

safety training is provided to personnel on mobile offshore units. STW

has tentatively determined that only the traditional `maritime crew' on

a MOU should be subject to the requirements of STCW but that industrial

personnel (who are neither seafarers nor passengers) should have

separate and unique competency standards. These special standards for

industrial personnel cannot definitely be established until IMO has

completed work on consolidating existing resolutions concerning

training for personnel on mobile offshore units. Currently, this

subject is addressed in 46 CFR 10.468 through 10.474 and 10.920. These

sections are not affected by the Interim Rule.

For the purposes of implementing STCW under this interim rule, the

Coast Guard identifies the maritime crew on a self-propelled MODU as

the crew required by the Certificate of Inspection (COI) and does not

address other personnel. It will determine whether other implementing

rules are necessary once the outcome of the IMO deliberations is known.

12. Offshore Supply Vessels (OSVs)

One comment stated that it was necessary to use equivalences when

applying STCW to small-vessel operators in the OSV industry, given the

special characteristics, methods of operation, and nature of service of

these vessels. The Coast Guard agrees that OSVs require separate

consideration when determining the most effective way to introduce the

new STCW requirements. This interim rule takes account of, the special

characteristics, methods of operation, and nature of service of OSVs,

particularly in license structure and tonnage thresholds. This matter

is discussed in more detail under ``Licensing Structure.''

For OSVs of less than 200 GRT, the Coast Guard considered the size

and operating conditions of these vessels, in conjunction with the

existing laws, policies, and industry practices, and has determined

that such laws and practices serve as an equivalency for the purpose of

meeting the full requirements of STCW.

Licensing Structure

Six comments discussed possible revisions to align the U.S.

licensing structure more closely with the licensing structure in STCW.

One comment favored a ``dual system,'' under which current

licensing rules would apply to personnel on domestic service, while the

new STCW requirements could apply to personnel in international

service. As indicated under ``Scope of Application'', the Coast Guard

has determined that such a distinction is not necessary or appropriate.

One comment suggested that the Coast Guard move from the four-tier,

four-examination structure to the three-tier, two-examination system of

STCW. Another comment, however, said that the four-tier structure

should be retained but that simulator training should be used to reduce

the total sea-service requirements to upgrade a license.

Two comments recommended substantial changes in the engineering

[[Page 34510]]

department. Four expressed support for the introduction of some form of

alternative certification under the U.S. licensing system. One of these

four recommended consideration of an alternative for smaller ships.

Another said, ``We support the alternative certification system

envisioned in STCW and encourage the Coast Guard to work towards

implementation of this approach. The concept of allowing skills to be

mixed and matched will help broaden the experience and expertise of all

onboard.'' This comment, however, gave no details or examples of how an

alternative certification scheme should be introduced in the U.S.

licensing and documentation system under current statutory constraints

(such as the ``cross-over'' prohibition in 46 U.S.C. 8104(e)).

Two comments stated that the Coast Guard should not introduce

alternative certification. One of these said it had the potential to

cause unintended reductions in shipboard manning. The other said that

the provisions of Chapter VII in STCW were too vague and that

alternative certification should not be introduced in the U.S. until

impacts on the crew could be evaluated.

Because adoption of the Alternative Certification System under

Chapter VII of the 1995 Amendments involves consideration of how the

seven functional areas and three levels of responsibility in STCW are

to be integrated in a new licensing structure, the Coast Guard believes

that the implications of making changes should first be considered in

depth by MERPAC.

One comment expressed concern about meeting the Chief Mate's

requirements on a two-watch ship with one master and one mate. This

comment suggested that the mate meet the Chief Mate's requirements.

Another noted a similar situation in the engine department. When a

Designated Duty Engineer (DDE) is serving as the only licensed

engineer, the DDE is in effect the Chief Engineer. This comment stated

that using the same terminology for the license, the STCW endorsement,

and the manning section on the COI is of great importance.

While the above ideas and comments are relevant to a review of the

U.S. licensing structure (as well as of the review of the system of

ratings used for unlicensed personnel), the Coast Guard views the

specific proposals as outside the scope of this rulemaking or as not

necessary at this time to implement the requirements of the 1995

Amendments.

One comment stated that a more suitable license structure is needed

for the OSV industry. It recommended the following new categories of

license: (1) Master--OSV; (2) Chief Mate--OSV; (3) Chief Engineer--OSV.

It stated that introduction of these new license categories would

``necessitate an in-depth analysis of the functional skills required

for OSV operation.'' It also said the requirements for training and

sea-service associated with the new classes of `Chief Engineer--OSV'

licenses should be based on the current requirements for the

corresponding classes of DDE licenses: DDE 1000 HP (750 KW), DDE 4000

HP (3000 kW), and DDE--unlimited.

The Coast Guard agrees that creating new categories of licenses for

the OSV industry would be appropriate, particularly in light of the

development of larger OSVs, and the publication of an interpretive rule

on alternative tonnage in the Federal Register on December 18, 1996 (61

FR 66613). Therefore, this Interim Rule provides for the proposed

categories in part 10. These new categories will have to meet new STCW

standards, except where the Coast Guard determines that certain STCW

requirements are inappropriate or unnecessary for service on an OSV, or

where equivalencies are established under Article IX of STCW. Comments

submitted to the docket on this approach will be taken into account

when the Final Rule is prepared.

License Issuance and Renewal

One comment stated that the new requirements for approved training

and practical demonstration of competency should apply only to

seafarers who commence training or sea service on or after August 1,

1998. The Coast Guard agrees that those new requirements (other than

basic safety-training and training for Ro-Ro passenger ships) should

apply only to those seafarers and only on or after that date. But it

notes that seafarers renewing their licenses for any service that will

take place on or after February 1, 2002, will have to meet requirements

for approved training and demonstration of skills to qualify for an

STCW endorsement which will be valid for such service.

After publication of the NPRM, the IMO Subcommittee on STW

developed guidance on the revalidation of certificates after February

1, 1997, for service on seagoing ships after February 1, 2002.

Essentially, the STW guidance (as contained in STCW.-7/circ.1;

September 24, 1996) provides that certificates (i.e., licenses) should

not be revalidated (or endorsed) for service after February 1, 2002,

and so makes the certificate holder meet the standards of competence

required by the 1995 Amendments. However, where the holder does not

meet specific standards (such as ARPA), the shortfall can be expressed

as a limitation on the endorsement, which, otherwise is valid for

service beyond February 1, 2002.

When renewing U.S. licenses and documents after February 1, 1997,

the Coast Guard will issue the renewal for 5 years; but the associated

STCW endorsement will be valid only through January 31, 2002, unless

the candidate can provide sufficient evidence of having met the

appropriate new requirements imposed by STCW (i.e., medical fitness;

thorough understanding of bridge teamwork procedures; assessment of

continued competency in basic safety within the previous 5 years;

training with an ARPA simulator, if the ship is fitted with ARPA;

approved training or assessment of competency as a GMDSS radio operator

for service on ships with GMDSS; and assessment of continue proficiency

in Survival Craft within the previous 5 years); and can otherwise meet

the continued proficiency and recency requirements as set out under the

current rules on renewal (46 CFR 10.209 and 46 CFR subpart 12.02).

Where the candidate does not meet the ARPA or GMDSS requirements, an

appropriate limitation will be placed on the STCW endorsement.

One comment stated that ARPA and GMDSS certification should be

required for renewal of all unlimited-tonnage ocean deck licenses,

regardless of the employment status of the deck officer. Another

comment recommend that all mates be required to have ARPA training.

This Interim Rule implements the requirements of the 1995 Amendments

that require ARPA training only for masters and mates serving on ships

fitted with ARPA, though it retains the option for limiting a license

to service on ships not fitted with ARPA or ships outside GMDSS.

Two comments expressed concern about the impact of the 1995

Amendments on the pool of mariners available when needed on ships of

the Ready Reserve Fleet (RRF). One of these comments recommended that

those seeking renewals of licenses for continuity purposes only have to

meet the new requirements. The Coast Guard does not agree with this

suggestion. The ``continuity only'' endorsement is issued when the

candidate is unwilling or unable to meet the professional or physical

requirements set out in Sec. 10.209. To make a candidate meet either

kind of requirement would be inconsistent with the purposes stated in

Sec. 10.209(g).

In addition, the Coast Guard will work with the Maritime

Administration (MARAD) and the Military Sealift

[[Page 34511]]

Command (MSC) to identify whether any new STCW requirement creates a

problem for manning of ships of the RRF and will use existing authority

to make any necessary adjustments on the COI if the need arises.

One comment said State pilots applying for renewal of Federal

licenses should have to be trained in ARPA, bridge teamwork procedures,

and personal survival. This comment recommended a special endorsement

for pilots: ``Non-sailing license valid for pilotage only.'' The Coast

Guard does not agree there is a need for the recommended endorsement.

Anyone who applies for a license or renewal under 46 CFR part 10, even

a State pilot, must meet the requirements for that license. Where

limitations are available (as they are for ARPA and GMDSS) the

applicant can receive a license with the appropriate restricted

endorsement. The section on GMDSS contains further discussion of pilot

requirements.

Documentation

Two comments recommended that the Coast Guard take steps to combine

the U.S. license and the STCW endorsement into a single,

internationally acceptable document, as permitted under the 1995

Amendments. For now, the Coast Guard will issue two separate documents

in most cases; the STCW endorsement will be valid only when accompanied

by the valid license of a holder. In the near future, the Coast Guard

will begin issuing a combined document to licensed personnel serving on

some classes of small vessels on domestic voyages. The possible

combination of the STCW endorsement with all licenses and documents for

seagoing service will be reviewed at a later date, since this

combination does not appear feasible during the transitional period

(1997 to 2002) when the 1978 STCW endorsements are phased out and the

1995 STCW endorsements are phased in.

Tonnage

Tonnage is a parameter used in the shipping laws to regulate a

vessel according to its size. The traditional system used in the United

States for measuring a vessel to determine its tonnage (called the

``regulatory measurement system or Gross Register Tonnage (GRT)'')

consists of the standard, dual, and simplified measurement systems

promulgated under 46 CFR part 69, subparts C, D, and E, respectively.

The regulatory measurement system (with the exception of the simplified

system used primarily for smaller vessels) is authorized under 46

U.S.C. chapter 145 and provides for a complex series of internal

measurements and exemptions to arrive at gross tonnage. Over time, this

system has become increasingly susceptible to manipulation because the

system allows vessel designers to use features, such as excessive

framing and tonnage openings, solely to reduce the gross tonnage of the

vessel artificially. In this manner, increasingly larger vessels can be

designed to fall within the tonnage bounds of their class.

In response to this development, the United States ratified the

International Convention on the Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969,

which establishes a worldwide system of measurement that provides a

genuine representation of a vessel's size. Convention measurement is

authorized under 46 U.S.C. chapter 143 and is implemented in 46 CFR

part 69, subpart B. Under the convention measurement system, gross

tonnage (GT) is based on a logarithmic function of the total enclosed

volume of the vessel and is not subject to manipulation by the use of

tonnage reduction techniques. Because convention measurement does not

allow for artificial tonnage reduction techniques, vessels measured

using this system often are greater in tonnage than vessels measured

using regulatory measurement.

Six comments discussed the introduction of the tonnage thresholds

in the 1995 Amendments (i.e., 500 and 3,000 gross tons (GT)) into the

U.S. licensing regulations (46 CFR part 10). MERPAC recommended that a

threshold of 3,000 GT be added as a new category of license without

deleting any existing category. MERPAC also suggested that the

requirements for the 3,000-GT license be identical to the requirements

for a 1,600-GRT license. Therefore, anyone holding a 1,600-GRT license

for a service on a ship on near-coastal or ocean service should be

entitled to hold an STCW endorsement for service on seagoing ships of

3,000 GT.

Furthermore, MERPAC recommended that a merchant mariner holding a

200-GRT license for service on a ship on near-coastal or ocean service

be entitled to hold an STCW endorsement for service on seagoing ships

of 500 GT. This is explicitly permitted by STCW Regulation I/15.

One comment suggested that the Coast Guard make use of equivalents

to align domestic and international tonnage on U.S. licenses and STCW

endorsements. Another comment stated that it had no preference on how

tonnage thresholds were introduced, as long as license holders were not

penalized or precluded from serving on vessels for which they are

presently qualified. A third comment said that the 1600-ton Master

license should be retained, because its removal could have many

implications.

Two comments recommended that the threshold for an unlimited U.S.

deck license be raised to 3000 GT, but one comment stated that

retaining parallel tonnage (i.e., both GRT and GT) would be confusing.

One comment supported the idea of adjusting 1600 GRT to 3000 GT, but

said there needed to be a clear path for advancement from unlicensed

rating to licensed officer when service has been on a vessel with a low

GRT (e.g., 97) but a high GT (e.g., 1671).

After publication of the NPRM, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of

1996 (the Act) opened up a new possibility for addressing the

difference between tonnage thresholds employed in U.S. licensing rules

(GRT) and those employed in international conventions, such as STCW,

and based on the international tonnage-measurement system (GT). A

special mechanism (interpretive rule) will enable the Coast Guard to

align the tonnage thresholds used in domestic statutes and rules with

the appropriate ones used in international conventions. Additionally,

the Act allows for the issuance of licenses and documents on the basis

of the international tonnage. In light of these new statutory

provisions, the Coast Guard will defer deciding whether it is necessary

to include a new STCW tonnage threshold in the licensing rules.

In preparing a final rule and any policy guidance on issuance of

STCW endorsements, the Coast Guard will take into account developments

relating to the interpretation of tonnage equivalencies as authorized

by the Act. It also notes that STCW Regulation I/15, paragraphs (3),

explicitly allows an Administration to change 200 GRT (under the

national tonnage system) to 500 GT (under the international tonnage

system), and 1600 GRT to 3000 GT.

Meanwhile, the Coast Guard considers it appropriate to reconfirm an

understanding that was expressed at the time the Senate gave its

consent to ratification of STCW in 1991. The Coast Guard will apply the

domestic tonnage-measurement system in determining the application of

STCW to vessels of less than 1600 GRT that operate exclusively to and

from U.S. ports. (See letter from Secretary Skinner to Chairman Pell of

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee dated January 29, 1991, and

printed in S. Hrg. 102-106).

Seagoing Service

One comment noted that the sea-service requirements in the existing

rules for licenses for service on small

[[Page 34512]]

ships were not fully consistent with those in STCW. This comment,

however, did not recommend any specific changes to the existing rules.

The sea-service requirements in 46 CFR part 10 are linked to size of

vessel, area of operation (ocean or near-coastal), and category of

license. Since no changes were proposed in the NPRM, and none have been

proposed to the docket, the Coast Guard is retaining the current sea

service requirements under the Interim Rule.

Medical Fitness

Four comments made recommendations for addressing standards of

medical fitness for U.S. merchant mariners in this interim rule. One

comment said the industry would benefit from Coast Guard guidance on

``performance requirements,'' (such as lift and carry so many pounds,

and flexibility) in a revision of NVIC 6-89, Physical Evaluation

Guidelines for Merchant Mariner's Documents and Licenses. Another

comment suggested a revision of this NVIC to address several factors in

determining fitness, including diagnosis, specific physical or mental

impairment, job description, likelihood of recurrence, and feasibility

of obtaining effective medical treatment offshore.

MERPAC suggested that the standards used by the Coast Guard for

issuance of an original license (as set out in NVIC 6-89) be applied to

all applicants for merchant mariners' documents (MMDs). Two comments

suggested that the Coast Guard regard the Seafarers Health Improvement

Program (SHIP) as the guidelines to be used by medical practitioners

conducting physical examinations of merchant mariners. (SHIP is a

MARAD-sponsored program that has developed guidance on physical

standards for ``Original Entry of Seafarers into the U.S. Merchant

Marine'' and for ``Retention of Seafarers in the U.S. Merchant

Marine.'' The guidance was adopted by a joint committee of government

and industry in 1985, and is currently being revised). One comment

stated that this would assist in compliance with the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA). Another comment said medical standards should

apply equally to all crew members on board: they all must be equally

fit.

Taking into account the above suggestions, as well as ongoing

efforts by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the World

Health Organization (WHO) to define international standards of medical

fitness for seafarers, the Coast Guard, in consultation with MERPAC,

plans to revise NVIC 6-89 to reflect the appropriate material in SHIP.

Under this Interim Rule, the NVIC in its current or revised form will

apply as of August 1, 1998, to candidates for NMDs), licenses, and

renewals for service on seagoing ships (except those ships explicitly

exempted from this rule and those for which current rules are used as

an equivalency for meeting STCW requirements.

One comment said that this rule should require mariners to report

any taking of prescribed medicine. The Coast Guard agrees that this is

important information, particularly in the case of watchkeeping

personnel; however, no such requirement was proposed in the NPRM and

none is mandatory for implementing the 1995 Amendments. Therefore, this

interim rule is not calling for it. The Coast Guard will taken into

consideration any comments submitted to the docket in this matter in

determining whether to make a change in the final rule.

With respect to the qualifications of any person professionally

competent to serve as a ``medical practitioner'' when evaluating the

medical fitness of a merchant mariner, three comments said a certified

physician should perform this function. One comment suggested that a

licensed nurse practitioner be allowed to certify medical fitness;

otherwise, some mariners would have difficulty locating a qualified

medical practitioner.

The Coast Guard is not convinced that a licensed or certified

physician is necessary in all cases to determine whether a seafarer is

medically fit for duty. Certainly, in circumstances where a medical

condition suggests unfitness, a physician should be consulted. However,

current policy is to permit licensed medical doctors, licensed nurse

practitioners, and licensed physicians' assistants to certify medical

fitness. Appeals in all cases reach a licensed physician with special

knowledge of maritime work. The Coast Guard will continue this policy

for the time being. Comments identifying special concern with this

approach must be submitted to the docket during the comment period.

According to comments received, the Coast Guard will dispose of this

matter in preparing the Final Rule.

Approved Training

One comment said allowing training programs to be ``self-

certified'' as meeting Coast Guard standards could unfairly place

mariners at risk. This comment suggested that training be certified

ahead of time by an independent third party. The Coast Guard agrees

that either the Coast Guard or the entity performing monitoring under a

QSS must certify that the training meets certain standards before it is

offered to students. This Interim Rule requires provisional

certification, based on an initial evaluation under a Coast Guard-

accepted QSS, that the training is capable of meeting its stated

objectives. Comments on this approach will be taken into account in the

Final Rule.

One comment suggested that the proposed process for removing

training from the Coast Guard's list of approved training be applied to

all Coast Guard-approved courses. The Coast Guard is not convinced that

this would be appropriate at this time. The higher degree of direct

Coast Guard oversight involved in Coast Guard-approved courses allows

for immediate action if the conditions for approval are not being met.

One comment stated that the Coast Guard should accept

responsibility for approving and monitoring training provided on board

ships. The Coast Guard agrees that the standards for approval fall

within its responsibility, but insists that its ongoing oversight would

be impracticable unless third parties were available to help administer

the QSSs.

One comment stated that the Coast Guard places too much emphasis on

classroom hours in its course approvals. This can inhibit innovative

approaches to training based on performance criteria and the use of

remote technology. The Coast Guard understands the number of classroom

hours to be one indication of how much time a course assigns to

theoretical material as opposed to practical instruction. This remains

an important, though not an exclusive, consideration in evaluating the

suitability of a particular course for approval. However, the Coast

Guard agrees that references in Sec. 10.309(a)(2)(ii) as proposed might

have been unduly restrictive. Therefore, it is replacing the phrase

``classroom hours in the presence of a qualified instructor'' with the

phrase ``number of hours devoted to instruction in relevant areas of

knowledge.''

Quality Standards System

One comment suggested that the requirements for QSSs be effective

by August 1, 1997, to ensure that the QSSs themselves are fully in

place by August 1, 1998. This Interim Rule puts a QSS in place for any

training that implements a requirement of the 1995 Amendments to STCW.

For most training, this will begin with candidates entering the system

as of August 1, 1998. In the interim, when training is being modified

to satisfy STCW, the

[[Page 34513]]

Coast Guard course-approval process will be available to serve as

equivalent to or substitute for the QSS required by STCW.

Ten comments responded to possible methods for meeting the

requirement that elements of training and assessment be monitored by a

QSS. Two comments stressed the need for flexibility by the Coast Guard

in determining what qualifies as an acceptable QSS. Another comment

stated that effective QSSs require both a standard of quality and a

process for overseeing those who apply the standards.

One comment preferred the concept of the ``regional accrediting

body,'' under option (a) in the NPRM (61 FR 13288; March 26, 1996), for

overseeing maritime training institutions. This comment suggested that

``teams of visitors'' be coordinated by the Coast Guard, and that

rankings range from ``fully accredited'' through ``conditionally

accredited,'' to ``probationary status.'' While not opposed in

principle to degrees of accreditation, the Coast Guard has determined

that it would not need to be directly involved in assembling and

managing ``teams of visitors'' for there to be an effective

accreditation system.

One comment specifically suggested that the QSS option (d), under

the preamble to the NPRM, remain available to the industry for meeting

the QSS requirements. This option would let an organization or company

that has developed a QSS for maritime training be accepted or

authorized by the Coast Guard to perform the monitoring. Another

comment suggested this should be the only approach to meeting the QSS

requirements. The Coast Guard, however, has determined flexibility for

meeting QSS requirements should be retained in this Interim Rule.

Two comments expressed a preference for option (e), under the

preamble to the NPRM. This option requires a periodic evaluation by ``a

panel or team of maritime-education specialists, made up of

professional staff from the State or Federal maritime academies, or

from other recognized maritime-training institutions.'' One comment,

however, expressed concern that this option might not provide for

objective oversight since conflicts of interest could arise if

competitors were monitoring each other.

Another comment stated that the Coast Guard should consider forming

panels to evaluate training programs on a regional basis, because it

would be difficult to ensure national uniformity. This comment stated

that the current Coast Guard approval process is the best standard and

that the STCW requirements for QSS should be deemed met by this

process.

One comment stated that the Coast Guard needed to be concerned

about uniformity in the QSS. This comment suggested that the Coast

Guard periodically perform QSS evaluations before submitting its report

to IMO under STCW Regulation I/8. The Coast Guard agrees that

uniformity (common standards) must be maintained. As drafted, the

Interim Rule allows the Coast Guard to conduct its own evaluations

before submitting its report to IMO.

MERPAC supported the approach employing a panel of maritime-

education specialists, but suggested expanding the phrase ``maritime

training institutions'' to include maritime associations, maritime

trade organizations, and maritime training institutions, corporations,

or other organizations, providing these entities meet the requirements

of Sec. 10.309(a) (that section sets out three minimum requirements for

those conducting independent evaluation of training or assessment). The

Coast Guard agrees with this suggestion and will include it in the

policy guidance that it will issue by NVIC to provide a procedure for

application and acceptance for Coast Guard-accepted QSSs.

One comment stated that a combination of options (a) and (e)

(regional accreditation and a panel of experts) is needed to keep QSS

requirements from making procedures more important than results. This

combination is permitted under the Interim Rule.

Five comments suggested allowing an additional option for meeting

the QSS requirements. According to these comments, in-house training

and assessment conducted by a company should be recognized as approved

training, especially if that company holds a valid International Safety

Management (ISM) certificate. While the Coast Guard accepts that the

ISM certificate meets the overall intent of a QSS for training and

assessment, the holding of the certificate would not in itself satisfy

all of the reporting requirements associated with STCW Regulation I/8.

The Coast Guard concurs with one comment, which stated, ``Operators

who either voluntarily comply with the ISM Code or are required to be

ISM-certified by June 1, 1998, and who incorporate the training

requirements outlined in the 1995 Amendments to the STCW into their

training plan, should be recognized as meeting the intent of STCW

Regulation I/8[,] which requires Parties to ensure that all training

and assessments are `continuously monitored through a quality-standards

system' including the qualifications and experience of instructors and

assessors.'' [Emphasis added]

Taking the preceding into account, the Coast Guard plans to accept

the ISM Certificate of a company as sufficient evidence of a QSS for

in-house training and assessment, provided that the company

incorporates, in its ISM program, a commitment to comply with 46 CFR

10.309. This includes the obligation, when appropriate, to allow the

conducting of assessment only by qualified assessors and to notify the

National Maritime Center (NMC) of the Coast Guard advance of training

or assessment it will be conducting, as well as of the results of

independent monitoring (also in accordance with Sec. 10.309). The

stated aim must be to meet the relevant training objectives set out in

the 1995 Amendments to STCW.

In this regard, one comment suggested that the monitoring interval

be governed by ISM standards. The ISM Certificate is valid for 5 years,

a period consistent with the STCW requirement that independent

monitoring take place at intervals of not more than 5 years. However,

at least at the initial stages, Coast Guard course approvals are

renewed at shorter intervals. The interval will depend on the

complexity of the training and assessment, or on the frequency with

which important changes in them are likely to be introduced. This

Interim Rule does not fix a specific interval. The interval will be one

relevant factor when the Coast Guard determines that it will identify a

particular QSS as Coast Guard-accepted for purposes of Sec. 10.309.

Comments submitted to the docket on this matter will be taken into

account in preparing the Final Rule.

One comment stated that the Coast Guard should continue to offer

course approvals until August 1, 1998, but that, after that date, all

approved training should be conducted only under a QSS acceptable to

the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard partly agrees. However, at the present

time there is no guarantee that third-party options for QSS will be

available to allow the Coast Guard to withdraw from the course approval

process.

One comment expressed concern that small maritime training schools

would incur a new cost if they had to meet QSS requirements as well as

Coast Guard course-approval requirements. This interim rule will not

impose two sets of requirements. Schools that receive Coast Guard

course-approval will be deemed to be in compliance

[[Page 34514]]

with the QSS requirement under this rule.

One comment suggested a trial period to ensure that effective

oversight can be maintained over any third party playing a critical

role in QSS and in approved training. The Coast Guard agrees; it plans

to entertain proposals for QSSs on a provisional or trial basis but to

accept only those that can demonstrate the ability to maintain an

independent monitoring based on, or adapted from, the guidance QSS in

Section B-I/8 of the STCW Code.

Qualified Instructors and Assessors

One comment stated that the qualifications for instructors needed

to be clarified; it identified professional knowledge as a more

important factor than whether the merchant mariner held certain

endorsements. On the other hand, another comment suggested that every

instructor hold a license at least one level higher than that sought by

the student. The Coast Guard considers both professional knowledge and

professional qualifications to be important elements for instructors

and assessors.

MERPAC has recommended that the Coast Guard certify individual

Maritime Instructors, Maritime Practical Examiners, and Maritime

Simulator Examiners to ensure that instructors and assessors, as well

as the institutions who employ them, are accountable for training and

assessing the competency of mariners. Under this recommendation, the

Coast Guard would accept applications from individual applicants,

independent of course approvals, and issue certificates to qualified

applicants valid for 5 years.

A ``Certified Maritime Instructor'', according to MERPAC is someone

giving instruction as part of an approved course or approved training

program. This instructor would be competent in developing and

administering written or oral examinations as part of an approved

training program. To qualify for this designation, an applicant would

have to (a) possess a valid U.S. merchant mariner's license, or provide

documentation representing equivalent experience (i.e., merchant

marine, military, or other, comparable job experience); (b) have at

least one year of operational experience in a capacity corresponding to

the level of qualification for which he or she would instruct; and (c)

present any of four forms of evidence: of completion of a course of

instruction in education that conforms with the intent of IMO guidance

on training for instructors (IMO Model Course 6.09; of a current

teacher's certificate issued by a State, county, or city that

authorizes the holder to teach in a junior or senior high school or in

adult education; of employment as an instructor in an accredited

college, university, or post-secondary vocational-technical school; or

of service as a classroom instructor in a maritime-related course (even

if not Coast Guard-approved) for 2 years in the preceding 5 years.

MERPAC recognized that waivers from these minimum requirements may be

appropriate when they are consistent with guidelines established by the

Coast Guard.

A ``Certified Maritime Practical Examiner,'' according to MERPAC,

is someone observing and evaluating practical demonstrations for the

issuance of certificates of completion of approved courses or other

approved training that will be presented to the Coast Guard for

licenses, certificates, or documents. MERPAC recommended that this

examiner (a) have attained at least the level of qualification for

which the assessment is being conducted; (b) have accumulated at least

2 years of operational experience in a capacity corresponding to the

level of qualification concerned; and (c) understand and implement

assessment techniques and evaluation processes. Again, MERPAC

recognized that waivers may be appropriate when they are consistent

with guidelines established by the Coast Guard.

A ``Certified Maritime Simulator Examiner,'' according to MERPAC,

is someone conducting simulator-based assessments and corresponding

written examinations for the issuance of certificates of completion of

approved courses or other approved training that will be presented to

the Coast Guard for licenses, certificates, or documents. MERPAC

recommended that this examiner (a) have an appropriate level of

knowledge and understanding of the competence to be assessed; (b) be

qualified for the task being assessed; (c) be qualified as a

``Certified Maritime Instructor''; and (d) have practical experience of

assessment on the particular type of simulator while under the

supervision, and to the satisfaction, of an experienced assessor. Once

again, MERPAC recognized that waivers may be appropriate when they are

consistent with guidelines established by the Coast Guard.

One comment supported the proposal in Sec. 10.309(a)(4) in the NPRM

exempting certain instructors from holding Coast Guard licenses or

MMDs. This comment recommended that marine instructors currently

employed at maritime-training facilities be exempt from current

certification requirements and that only those hired after a certain

date be subject to new certification requirements.

One comment stated that faculty members at State and Federal

maritime academies should be presumed qualified as a consequence of the

thoroughness of the selection process. Fair enough, but the process

must accord with the provisions of 46 CFR part 310.

The Coast Guard agrees that policy guidance along the lines

developed by MERPAC is needed for those monitoring training and

assessment. This can best be provided through a NVIC. The Coast Guard

will issue a NVIC on QSSs that will take into account the

recommendations of MERPAC on the qualifications of qualified

instructors and designated assessors.

However, the Coast Guard does not agree that it is necessary to

issue an individual certificate to every person serving as a maritime

instructor, or conducting assessments and examinations. The guidelines

for qualifications as instructor and assessor should be sufficiently

clear to allow for qualifications to be established and verified in the

context of Coast Guard course approvals, or in the context of other

approved training subject to a QSS. Therefore, the options presented in

the NPRM will persist in this Interim Rule: the instructor or assessor

may be personally designated by Coast Guard letter or endorsement on

his or her license or document or may be designated in the context of

an approved program of training or assessment.

The Coast Guard agrees that faculty members at maritime academies

are presumptively qualified to be instructors and assessors while they

are so employed. Sections Secs. 10.103 and 12.01-6 of this interim rule

take this into account. Comments on this presumption, or equivalent

presumptions for other categories of instructors, should be submitted

to the docket; they will be taken into consideration when the Coast

Guard prepares the final rule.

Use of IMO Model Courses

One comment stated that, although a training provider might be able

to cover required material effectively in a certain number of days, the

Coast Guard might inadvertently cause the provider to ``pad'' the

material so it would occupy the number of days recommended in the

relevant IMO model course. The Coast Guard views IMO model courses as

good guidance, but does not enforce specific time periods if it is

clear that an equivalent level of training can be achieved in a shorter

period using a

[[Page 34515]]

different approach for effectively covering the same material.

The Subcommittee of IMO on STW in September 1996, validated the

GMDSS radio operator course as an IMB model course. It included a

footnote to emphasize achievement of learning objectives rather than

devotion to specified time periods to individual subjects. It expressed

this principle as follows: ``Providing that the learning objectives

contained in this course are fully achieved, the course timetable may

be adjusted to suit course entry requirements based on different

standards of prior knowledge in radiocommunications or seagoing

experience. In addition, any adjustment should take into account the

need to maintain en effective instructor to student ratio and adequate

access to equipment for practical training during the course.''

The Coast Guard views this principle as applicable to all IMO model

course used as guidance for course approval. In addition, the course

length must provide students with an adequate opportunity to achieve

the training objectives.

Simulators

Seven comments discussed the use of simulators and Personal

Computer-based (PC-based) training to comply with the requirements of

the 1995 Amendments. One comment submitted resolutions from the Fourth

U.S. Conference on Radar Simulation held in June 1996, at the Maritime

Institute of Technology and Graduated studies, Linthicum Heights,

Maryland. The resolutions recommended (1) use of IMO model-course

format for submission of all Radar and ARPA training-course approvals;

(2) use of IMO learning objectives from the relevant IMO model course;

(3) minimum number of hours of training; (4) maximum number of students

on each radar display for training evaluation; (5) recertification of

ARPA competency every 5 years; and (6) use of STCW performance

standards for radar and ARPA simulators used for testing, and allowance

for grandfathering of existing radar and ARPA simulators as proposed in

the NPRM.

One comment expressed concern that simulator-based training may be

too expensive to use as a standard for meeting STCW requirements. Three

comments suggested that technical-performance standards be determined

before considering simulators for use in training. One comment

recommended that technical definitions be established for ``simulator''

and ``simulation.'' Another comment recommended that MERPAC develop

definitions or performance standards that let PC-based training be

classified within the scope of simulator training.

One comment suggested that the Coast Guard allow for a wide range

of computer-based training to meet STCW requirements.

Two comments noted that simulators should be realistic for

practical training but that simulation should not be accepted as a

substitute for sea time. The Coast Guard disagrees that this interim

rule should prohibit simulation as a substitute for sea time, but

agrees that the degree of realism provided by the simulator is an

important factor when judging whether a particular simulator-based

training is suitable as a substitute for sea time.

One comment contended that the Coast Guard should focus on the

desired outcomes (i.e., skills to be acquired and assessed) rather than

on the technical performance standards, which may become obsolete.

One comment noted that flexibility is necessary, but held some

level of realism beyond that of a personal computer monitor is a

reasonable requirement. Two comments recommended that PC-based training

be limited to use as a diagnostic tool for instructors.

The Coast Guard's Research and Development (R&D) Center has

suggested that, ``at a time of rapid technological development, desk-

top simulators should be a part of the allowable variety,'' provided

that the minimum standards of performance can be identified.

This interim rule is placing no restrictions on the use of

computer-based training or assessment provided it serves the objectives

and meets the standards required for Coast Guard approval or under the

applicable QSS. Sections A-I/12 and B-I/12 of the STCW Code provide

technical specifications and operative guidance on the use of

simulation for training and assessment.

GMDSS

Five comments addressed the proposed requirement for masters and

mates serving on ships in the GMDSS to be qualified as GMDSS radio

operators under Regulation IV/2 of the 1995 Amendments.

MERPAC recommended that proposed 46 CFR 10.205(1) require

candidates for masters' and mates' licenses, for service on ships

participating in GMDSS, to obtain Federal Communications Commission

(FCC) licenses as GMDSS operators, and either to complete a course

approved by the Coast Guard or FCC on GMDSS, or otherwise to

demonstrate proficiency in training approved by either of those

agencies. Two comments suggested that the rule allow credit for courses

and company-sponsored training completed before the approval process

was put in place.

One comment noted that the FCC licensing program does not now

require either a course completion or a practical demonstration of

competency. Another comment suggested that the Coast Guard, rather than

the FCC, approve courses and training for GMDSS radio operators, and

that the FCC continue to act as the agency responsible for licensing

mariners as GMDSS radio operators and maintainers.

One comment urged that the course approval not require the use of a

simulator and not be linked too rigidly to a length criterion.

Discussion of time periods is discussed above in the section on ``Use

of IMO Model Courses.''

The National GMDSS Implementation Task Force (a panel comprising

government and industry under the sponsorship of the Coast Guard)

recommended that the Coast Guard issue a certificate for operators of

radios in the GMDSS upon presentation of a certificate of completion

from a Coast Guard-approved course. The Task Force further recommended

that the syllabus for an approved GMDSS course (a) be based on the IMO

model training course for GMDSS General Operator Certificates and (b)

require demonstration of practical ability to operate GMDSS equipment

in accordance with STCW requirements. And, for those persons who

already hold FCC certificates for GMDSS radio operator, the Task Force

recommended that all candidates for renewal of licenses after February

1, 1997, meet the requirements of STCW Regulation IV/2 (Mandatory

minimum requirements for certification of GMDSS radio personnel).

In general, the Coast Guard agrees with these recommendations and

here has revised Sec. 10.205 in substance as well as in form (proposed

Sec. 10.205(l) has become actual Sec. 10.205(m). The FCC, however, has

indicated to the Coast Guard that it does not plan to get involved in

course approvals. The Coast Guard is including in this Interim Rule a

requirement that candidates for masters' and mates' licenses, for

service on ships participating in GMDSS, present both FCC licenses as

GMDSS operators and certificates of completion from either (a) Coast

Guard-approved courses for GMDSS radio operators

[[Page 34516]]

(based on the IMO model course) or (b) approved training that includes

assessment of competence by qualified assessors. The Task Force is

developing a table of criteria and methods for assessment that should

serve as a convenient checklist for the assessment of competence. This

checklist will be useful for those who hold FCC certificates, and for

those who have experience with GMDSS equipment but need proof of

competence as required in Section A-IV/2 of STCW when applying for

endorsements as masters or mates for service on ships participating in

the GMDSS.

MERPAC recommended that, when renewing a Federal license, no

independent pilot have to hold GMDSS certification. A pilot seeking

renewal of a Federal license will receive a limitation on his or her

STCW endorsement if he or she cannot establish competence in GMDSS.

However, this limitation will not bar the pilot from performing

piloting duties, as long as he or she is not also performing

radiocommunication duties associated with GMDSS. Section 10.205(m) now

indicates that a person seeking a license to serve only as a pilot need

not meet requirements for GMDSS certification at the time the license

is issued or renewed.

Four comments, including one from MERPAC, suggested that the Coast

Guard state on the face of the STCW endorsement that a holder is

qualified as a GMDSS radio operator, rather than that another holder is

not qualified to serve on ships operating in GMDSS. The Coast Guard

obliged both and will indicate either the qualification, or the

limitation, on the face of the STCW endorsement as appropriate.

However, when the renewal cycle for the radio-operator certificate is

different from that for the deck license, the STCW endorsement will be

valid without restriction only for the period when both the certificate

and the license are valid.

One comment supported the proposed requirement of endorsement as a

GMDSS radio operator for masters and mates, but recommended that the

endorsement also be available to licensed engineers. The Coast Guard

does not consider a change necessary to enable an engineer to acquire

the endorsement.

Two comments suggested that the effective date of requiring GMDSS

for license renewals be changed from August 1, 1998, to February 1,

1999, when GMDSS becomes mandatory under SOLAS. The Coast Guard agrees

the compliance date can be deferred, and this Interim Rule will impose

the requirements for service on or after February 1, 2002. A sufficient

number of masters and mates must hold endorsements as GMDSS radio

operators to meet FCC requirements for primary and secondary radio

operators after February 1, 1999. However, under the 1995 Amendments,

the requirement for deck officers to hold GMDSS Certification will not

apply to current license holders until they receive STCW endorsements

for service beyond February 1, 2002.

Electronics Technician

Fourteen comments supported the concept of an electronics

technician, but five of these did not support it as proposed in the

NPRM. One argued that the concept should be expanded to cover

electronics equipment on the bridge, and should not be limited to GMDSS

installations.

One comment expressed the view that ``a modern ship, regardless of

GMDSS, will operate with an array of electronic equipment that will

call for much of the same knowledge required of those on vessels that

are GMDSS-equipped.''

Two comments argued that there should not be a separate rating for

electronics technician but that the necessary skills should be required

for a rating as a member of the engineering watch. Another comment

suggested that such skills be built into requirements for specific

ratings or licenses, to ensure that a wide range of expertise is

available and on board ship at all times.

One comment noted that the NPRM addressed endorsements only at the

support level of responsibility for electrical, electronic, and control

engineering. The comment recommended a new endorsement, at the operator

level, for the same engineering.

While a number of comments interpreted the proposal for a new

rating as an electronics technician (non-GMDSS) to be a proposal for

new manning (i.e., a dedicated position for maintaining and repairing

electronics equipment), new manning was not a necessary consequence of

the proposal. Other comments acknowledged the need for the Coast Guard

to address problems associated with the increasing use of shipboard

electronics and computers, but contended that this rulemaking is not

the forum to address these problems. They suggested that the matter be

addressed in a future revision of part 12. MERPAC, too, recommended

that the proposal for a new rating as electronics technician be

eliminated, but suggested that an endorsement as a GMDSS maintainer be

available to licensed and unlicensed personnel.

The Coast Guard agrees that on-board responsibility for maintenance

of electronic installations can most effectively be addressed in a

future revision of part 12, and it withdraws the proposal for a new

rating as electronics technician (non-GMDSS). It still provides,

however, for a ``GMDSS at-sea maintainer,'' which will be available to

licensed and unlicensed individuals.

Watchkeeping Ratings and Unlicensed Personnel

One comment noted that some unlicensed ratings on smaller ships

(i.e., 500 to 3,000 gross tons) are ordinary seamen, each expected to

serve as a member of the navigational watch from his or her first day

on the vessel. The comment also noted that, to meet service

requirements for a rating in the navigational watch, the ordinary

seaman must be in a training capacity, which affects the ship's

complement. The Coast Guard agrees with this interpretation. An

untrained, inexperienced ordinary seaman cannot be the only rating

serving as a member of the navigational watch.

One comment expressed concern about allowing an ordinary seaman or

wiper (i.e., an entry-level rating) to serve in a watchkeeping

capacity. The comment stated that the current practice of permitting a

specially trained ordinary seaman to hold an STCW endorsement as a

``rating forming part of a navigational watch'' should not be extended

to wiper in the engine department. The Coast Guard has no plans for

extending this practice.

Training-Record Books

One comment questioned why the NPRM referred to a training-record

book, when at that time the Coast Guard had not adopted a standard

model to be used in meeting the requirement. The Coast Guard is aware

that, at the time the NPRM was published, there was no model for the

book. However, after the NPRM was published, the Subcommittee of IMO on

STW did develop a model. The Coast Guard has chosen to adopt this model

as a benchmark for meeting the requirements of Sec. 10.304 of this

Interim Rule. The National Maritime Center (NMC) will soon issue a NVIC

containing this model, along with guidance for its use. Any training-

record book that closely follows this model will meet these

requirements. Additionally, training-record books using other formats

may be approved by the Coast Guard, if a specimen is submitted to the

NMC and is found to meet the requirements of Sec. 10.304.

[[Page 34517]]

One comment recommended that only licensed officers be permitted to

sign off on the assessment entries in the training-record book. This

practice may become commonplace, but the Coast Guard contends that

there are some skills that can be assessed by a designated examiner who

is not licensed (for further discussion see the section on ``Qualified

Instructors and Assessors'').

Another comment recommended that training-record books be required

for all mariners whose sea service commences on or after August 1,

1998, and that qualified instructors and assessors be required to

conduct on-board training and assessment subject to QSSs. The Coast

Guard agrees with this recommendation and has introduced it where

appropriate.

One comment requested clarification of where the training-record

book is to be submitted. The book is to be submitted to the Coast Guard

when a candidate applies for certificates and licenses. The Coast Guard

plans to use the book as evidence that the indicated training has been

completed and that the necessary assessments have been conducted. There

is no plan for the Coast Guard to retain or maintain the book or

supporting documents once the candidate's evaluation has been

completed.

Three comments suggested that the rule allow electronic maintenance

of training-record books, to mitigate the consequences of losing

originals. As drafted, the Interim Rule does not prohibit electronic

maintenance of the books. However, documentary versions of them, with

original entries by qualified instructors and assessors, as

appropriate, must be submitted to the Coast Guard as parts of

applications for original engineers' licenses, and for mates' licenses

when the candidates do not have 3 years of sea service. Electronic

submission of the books will be considered when issues of integrity,

reliability, protection, and accessibility can be resolved.

One comment argued that the training-record book should not be

required as a separate and distinct document when assessments of

competence are conducted as part of maintaining a QSS. The Coast Guard

recognizes there is an overlap in these procedures, but the 1995

Amendments explicitly require use of the book in some instances.

One comment suggested that the Coast Guard require use of an

approved training-record book for all unlicensed personnel, to ensure

that on-board training is documented. Since such use is not necessary

for the implementation of the 1995 Amendments, the Coast Guard has not

required it in this Interim Rule; neither, however, has the Coast Guard

forbidden it here. Most persons pursuing their first certification as

deck officers or engineer officers will be unlicensed while they are

completing their first training-record books.

One comment recommended that the training-record book contain

specific tasks and measurable criteria. The Coast Guard agrees that

these would make the book more precise; but, for the time being, under

this Interim Rule, the Coast Guard will rely on the IMO model as the

benchmark for meeting the requirements. Use of this model does not

preclude the introduction of additional elements to make the record

more suitable for various segments of the industry.

Rest Periods for Watchkeeping Personnel

Seven comments expressed views on the requirement for watchkeeping

personnel to receive a minimum rest period that would prevent fatigue.

One comment observed that the rest period governs ``each person

assigned as Officer in Charge of a navigational or engineering watch,

or duty as a rating forming part of a navigational or engineering

watch.'' The comment said that the phrase ``in Charge of'' should be

deleted so the rest period would govern all officers on a navigational

or engineering watch. The Coast Guard agrees in principle with this

recommendation; however, the change could result in a broader and

perhaps vaguer rule, and could extend beyond the precise requirements

of Section A-VIII/1, paragraph 1, of the STCW Code, and even beyond the

scope of the NPRM. The Coast Guard will, nevertheless, entertain

further discussion on this matter when preparing a final rule.

Similarly, the comment recommended that performing drills be

removed as a circumstance for deviation from, or interruption of, the

rest period. An exception based on drills is explicitly provided in

Section A-VIII/1, paragraph 3, of the STCW Code; the Coast Guard did

not propose removing this exception for U.S. ships in the NPRM, but

invites further comments on this issue.

The comment further recommended that ``any vessel, foreign or

domestic[,] that operates beyond the Boundary Line shall, while

operating in U.S. territorial waters'', comply with the rest-period

requirements in proposed 46 CFR 15.710, and the enforcement of this

standard using port-state inspections if necessary. The Coast Guard

expects all ships subject to STCW, including foreign ships, to comply

with these requirements. It will impose appropriate measures of port-

state control to verify compliance on foreign ships.

The comment also discussed allowing interruption of, and deviation

from, rest periods in ``overriding operational conditions'', including

ones ``not foreseeable at the commencement of the voyage'' (proposed 46

CFR 15.710(d)(2)). The comment noted that any such exemption should be

``interpreted very strictly'' and that guidance should be provided to

define conditions ``not foreseeable at the commencement of the

voyage.'' The Coast Guard agrees that guidance on this matter would be

helpful and could prevent problems from arising in the future. In the

NPRM, the Coast Guard specifically invited comments on the extent to

which the terms relative to rest hours should be clarified or

interpreted, either in the rule itself or in associated policy on its

enforcement (61 FR 13298, column 1). The comment has confirmed the need

for clarification, and the Coast Guard invites comments on this matter

that can be taken into account by the Coast Guard in preparing the

Final Rule.

One comment contended that rules governing deviation from rest

periods should not be for just ``any'' overriding operational

condition, but should be limited to ``such activities as unforeseen

shifting [of] berths that would require calling out the crew who would

normally be in a rest period.'' Another comment argued that those rules

should be flexible enough to let a vessel complete emergency

operations, critical cargo movements, ``over-the-side'' operations with

NOAA, and address weather changes. The Coast Guard agrees that the

exception in STCW does not apply to just ``any'' overriding operational

condition, and has accordingly modified this Interim Rule. However, the

Coast Guard contends that neither the shifting of berths nor cargo

movements are necessarily appropriate examples of conditions outside

the control of the owner or operator under which operational necessity

and urgency overrides the need to let watchkeeping personnel complete

their rest periods. Furthermore, the Coast Guard agrees that, while a

sudden change in the weather can impose an overriding operational

condition, proper voyage planning can avoid operating in extended

periods of severe weather. It expects companies to consider this issue

when striving to meet their responsibilities whether under a safety-

management system or under STCW Regulation I/14.

In the NPRM, proposed Sec. 15.710(d)(1) defined ``rest period'' as

a period during

[[Page 34518]]

which ``no tasks are assigned to the person concerned'' and ``the

person is not scheduled to perform any duty.'' One comment recommended

that guidance be provided to make sure that owners and operators

understand that assigned duties include collateral duties, generally

accepted as part of the job, that must be accomplished outside of

navigation or engineering watches. The comment offered examples, such

as correcting charts, publications, payrolls, accident reports, and

crew lists; preparing port-entry documents; checking hazardous-cargo

manifests and cargo inspections; and conducting tests and drills.

Subject to remarks made earlier on ``drills'' as a special situation,

the Coast Guard agrees that guidance along these lines is needed.

Accordingly, it has incorporated this suggestion into this Interim

Rule, and comments submitted on this matter will be considered in

preparing a Final Rule.

Two comments contended that the reference to ``sleep'' in the

proposed definition of ``rest period'' may be misconstrued to mean ``a

period of sleep'', instead of rest. The comment recommended that the

definition of ``rest period'' be changed to refer to ``sleep or other

personal pursuits.'' One of these comments stated that a seafarer

should be entitled to choose whether or not to work during normal rest

periods. In other words, according to this comment, ``the company may

not assign work; however, the seafarer may choose to work.'' The Coast

Guard does not agree with this interpretation or with the proposed

change to the definition of ``rest period.'' The definition as drafted

simply states that ``the person is allowed to sleep'' during this

period. This explanation does not prohibit the person from engaging in

``personal pursuits.'' However, if ``personal pursuits'' were

interpreted to include either voluntary work associated with the ship

or on-board training, then, the Coast Guard is concerned, outside

influences (such as overtime pay, performance evaluations, or other

incentives and pressures) might undermine the purpose of the rest

period, which is to promote rest and recuperation between periods of

watchkeeping. As one comment stated, training conducted on board

(including computer-based training) must be administered in a way that

maintains compliance with both the work-hour limitations established

under 46 U.S.C. 8104 and the 10-hour rest period prescribed by STCW.

Another comment expressed concern that companies may expect

watchkeeping officers to use, for performance of overtime

responsibilities, the periods not designed for continuous rest. The

comment also suggested that this rule restrict off-watch overtime to 4

hours in a 24-hour day. The Coast Guard is concerned about the

potential misuse of the intervals between periods of watchkeeping duty.

However, it does not agree that it should restrict overtime work under

this rule, unless difficulties arise in interpreting either the

definition of ``rest period'' or the conditions under which rest

periods apply. It is difficult to define the nature of all activities

that fall within prohibited overtime. Note that this Interim Rule

already modifies the proposed rule so as to include examples of work

that may not be performed during rest periods. Note further that the

Coast Guard has incorporated the principle expressed in Section B-VIII/

1 of the STCW Code, to the effect that the minimum specified rest

periods shall not be interpreted as implying that all other hours may

be devoted to watchkeeping or other duties.

This comment also expressed concern that the phrase ``overriding

operational conditions'' is open to abuse, particularly if a company

schedules port calls that leaves the master with insufficient

opportunities for rest. It also suggested that the rule require shore-

side support to relieve the master and chief mate of duties so they can

obtain rest. The Coast Guard recognizes the potential problem

associated with this issue, but the suggested solution does not appear

to be an appropriate matter for this interim rule. The Coast Guard

interprets the requirement of rest periods to apply to watchkeeping

personnel over any period of 24 hours, including time in port. If the

master is serving as the Officer in Charge of the navigational watch,

he or she must be provided the opportunity for rest in accordance with

STCW and this Interim Rule. This may require the company to arrange for

shore-side support, adjust the ship's schedule, or assign an additional

officer to take charge of the watch so the master can obtain rest.

This comment also stated that ``any posting of watch schedules must

take into consideration the port rotation, not only as planned at the

beginning of the voyage, but also when the itinerary is altered.'' The

Coast Guard agrees and has modified this interim rule where appropriate

(46 CFR 15.710(c) in the NPRM; Sec. 15.1111(g) in this Interim Rule).

One comment expressed support for the rule on rest periods, and

noted that requiring minimum and continuous rest periods may reduce

fatigue, and may lead to a decrease in the risk of marine accidents

caused by this significant problem. However, this comment posed a

number of questions.

First, it sought clarification on when the 24-hour cycle would

begin for determining compliance. Section A-VIII/1, paragraph 1, of the

STCW Code, and 46 CFR part 15, state that 10 hours of rest must be

provided ``in any 24-hour period.'' The Coast Guard understands this

phrase to indicate that 10 hours of rest must be included within any

given 24-hour period, whether the period is the 24 hours up to the

start of work or rest or those up to the start or from the end of the

watch. Determining compliance entails using a rolling 24-hour clock.

Second, this comment sought clarification of the relationship

between U.S. law and STCW, and asked which takes precedence where they

appear to be incompatible. Another comment raised a similar concern,

stating that the minimum rest period of 10 hours a day under STCW may

be viewed as promoting 14-hour workdays for lower-level mariners in

violation of domestic law. The Coast Guard contends that the treatment

of work hours in 46 U.S.C. 8104, and that of rest hours in STCW, enjoy

equal legal status: that neither takes precedence over the other as a

matter of law. As it noted in the preamble to the NPRM (61 FR 13297,

column 3, and 13298, column 1), the Coast Guard considers the two

provisions compatible. Both may be implemented without casing conflict

to the other. In any specific set of circumstances, the stricter rule

applies.

Two comments supported strict record-keeping to promote strict

compliance with minimum rest periods for watchkeeping personnel. One of

these comments recommended, along with strict record-keeping, a measure

of flexibility for the company or organization to incorporate

guidelines from the Coast Guard into their own systems. The Coast Guard

will further address comments from the public in response to this

Interim Rule, when preparing the final rule.

Bridge-Teamwork Procedures and Bridge-Resource Management

One comment suggested that training in bridge-teamwork procedures

include unlicensed personnel, and that competence in bridge-teamwork

procedures be reassessed every 5 years for all watchkeeping personnel.

Another comment stated that the requirement for bridge-teamwork

procedures should be met only if the candidate produces evidence of

completing an approved course within 5 years of the date on which he or

she applies for a new

[[Page 34519]]

license. The Coast Guard does not view these suggestions as necessary

for implementation of the 1995 Amendments to STCW and has therefore not

included them in this interim rule. Note, however, that the standards

of competence both for the officer of the navigational watch and for

the rating forming part of the navigational watch (Section A-II/1 and

A-II/4, respectively) contain elements that imply a necessity for

including unlicensed personnel in the exercises used for demonstrating

``a through knowledge of effective bridge teamwork procedures''.

Consequently, training in bridge teamwork procedures should routinely

take into account the role of unlicensed personnel; and such personnel,

forming part of the navigational watch, particularly as new crew

members should be familiarized with the bridge-teamwork procedures used

on the ship.

In Table A-II/1 of the STCW Code, the assessment of competence

confirming that a candidate has a thorough knowledge of bridge teamwork

procedures may rest on approved in-service experience. The Coast Guard

agrees that the factor of regency of training is important, even if

gained through courses; but consistent long term in-service experience

is also a suitable means of establishing competence in this area.

Therefore, the Coast Guard will not require completion of courses for

candidates who have evidence, based on such experience, that they meet

the applicable standard of competence.

The Coast Guard holds that an on-board assessment of a working

mate's competence in bridge-teamwork procedures should include

confirmation that the mate has a thorough knowledge of effective

procedures based on observation of exercises, or on circumstance in

which the mate has applied this knowledge. The assessment should

cover--

(1) Voyage planning, and evaluation of alternative routes,

schedules, and arrangements;

(2) Bridge procedures, checklists, and logs;

(3) Watch conditions, watch augmentation, watch change, and

management of work hours and rest periods for watchkeeping personnel;

(4) Effective communication, confirmation, and application of

information among bridge-teamwork members, and between the bridge and

the master;

(5) Situational awareness and error-trapping, based on a continuous

reassessment of priorities and resource allocation; and effective use

of bridge systems and equipment;

(6) Leadership in maintaining bridge discipline and vigilance; in

promoting teamwork and information exchange, taking into account the

skills and experience available; and in positioning and re-positioning

of watchkeeping personnel;

(7) Response to bridge emergencies, such as failure of a critical

component in an integrated navigational system, or sudden incapacity of

a bridge-teamwork member; and

These topics of assessment will be included in a NVIC on company

responsibilities.

(8) Integration of pilot into bridge team.

Two comments requested clarification of how the requirement on

bridge teamwork procedures would apply to persons serving on the bridge

of a small ship. One stated that special guidance should be developed

on how to apply principles of bridge-resource management to towing

vessels.

As stated earlier in this preamble, uninspected towing vessels and

smaller cargo vessels (such as under 200 GRT) are not being subjected

to this new requirement directly under this Interim Rule. Note also

that, on smaller vessels, bridge arrangements and access to personnel,

equipment, and essential information are not so cumbersome or complex

that special training is required beyond routine familiarization with

ship-specific conditions.

Company Responsibilities and ISM Code

Two comments sought clarification of the relationship between

company responsibilities under the 1995 Amendments and the ISM Code.

They also sought clarification about the requirement that new crew

members receive a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with ship-

specific procedures, equipment, and arrangements. Another comment

argued that 46 CFR 15.405 (``Familiarity with vessel

characteristics''), already covers the basic requirements of STCW

Regulation I/14 (``familiarization'') and that therefore, this interim

rule need not impose them.

The comment also suggested that the Coast Guard define ``company''

in 46 CFR part 15, as STCW Regulation I/1 defines it. The Coast Guard

disagrees that a definition for ``company'' is necessary or

appropriate, since, part 15 already bases references to owners and

operators on the relevant statutory provisions.

Another comment held the presumption that a company holding a valid

ISM certificate was fulfilling its obligations under STCW was

``flawed.'' But note that Regulation I/14 of the 1995 Amendments to

STCW was drafted to be fully consistent with the principles contained

in the ISM Code, particularly with the section of IMO Resolution

A.741(18) that discusses ``resources and personnel.'' Therefore, if a

company holds an ISM Certificate, it incurs no additional obligations

under that Regulation. (Even if it does not hold the Certificate, the

company should incur few, if any, new obligations under that

Regulation.) Most of what this Interim Rule calls for is already common

practice for U.S. companies, whether because vessels must be operated

in accordance with their COIs or because companies maintain certain

records on employees through routine business practice or because the

domestic law of tort imposes on the employer the risk of liability for

actions by an employee.

One comment argued that vessel operators have no means of

maintaining comprehensive, meaningful files on mariners who serve on

board ships. It suggested that the records be centralized, whether with

several mariners, with the appropriate unions, or with the Coast Guard.

Another comment stated that it is ``routine practice for U.S.

companies that employ seamen to maintain a personnel record for each

employee or to ensure that one is maintained by an agency acting on

behalf of the company.'' The comment also requested that this

alternative practice be allowed to continue. This Interim Rule allows

records to be maintained by an agency acting on behalf of the company.

Taking previously mentioned factors and comments into account, the

interim rule restructures and clarifies company responsibilities, and

includes a direct reference to meeting the requirements by virtue of

holding a valid ISM Certificate.

One comment requested clarification of the requirement of ship-

specific familiarization and proposed a particular list of equipment,

systems, procedures, and arrangements with which a newly hired deck

officer should be familiar in safety, navigation, communications, and

cargo. By way of guidance, the Coast Guard recommends that a checklist

comprise the following items, to ensure that newly employed, or newly

arrived, crew members get a reasonable opportunity to become familiar

with ship-specific equipment, systems, procedures, and arrangements;

(1) Visit spaces where primary duties will be performed.

(2) Locate muster stations, alarms, life-saving appliances, and

emergency

[[Page 34520]]

escape routes, as well as any fire-fighting equipment and pollution-

response equipment of which the crewmember concerned should be aware.

(3) Meet supervisor or other person who will be assigning duties.

(4) Locate equipment and systems necessary to perform duties and

learn the controls, displays, and alarms for that equipment and those

systems (and their critical components).

(5) Observe the equipment and systems in use by someone whose

duties already require their use, when the opportunity can be arranged.

(6) Activate the equipment, and perform functions using the

controls on the equipment, when conditions permit; locate operational

manuals or other documents that may be needed for performing duties.

(7) Locate any personal-protection gear that may be necessary when

performing duties, as well as first-aid and medical kits available at

the work site.

(8) Read and understand relevant standing orders, safety and

environmental-protection procedures, and company policies clarifying

any unclear or confusing material.

(9) If serving in a watchkeeping capacity, get acquainted with the

watch schedule and identify a personal work schedule that will comply

with work-hour limits and rest-period requirements.

The above guidance will appear in a NVIC on company

responsibilities. Companies holding ISM certificates are presumed to be

in compliance with this Interim Rule.

One comment requested clarification of information to be maintained

in the ``assessment of competency in performance of assigned shipboard

duties'' in Sec. 15.411(c) in the NPRM (Sec. 15.1107(c)) in this

interim rule. The comment expressed concern that the assessment appears

to be subjective. This information should correspond to the ``documents

and data'' whose maintenance by companies STCW Regulation I/14

requires.

The Coast Guard envisions no specific assessment under

Sec. 15.411(c) (re-numbered as Sec. 15.1107 in this interim rule). The

company's records must contain evidence that the seafarer holds the

proper documents and training for the assigned duties. To clarify this

requirement, the Coast Guard has removed the reference to

``assessment''.

Basic Safety Training

Five comments requested that the Coast Guard clarify the

requirements for basic safety training.

One comment contended that STCW does not impose basic safety

training as a prerequisite for certification. The Coast Guard agrees

with this observation to some extent, but there are specific cross-

references in the standards of competence in Chapters II (Master and

Deck Department) and III (Engine Department) and in the tables on basic

safety training in Section A-VI/1 of the STCW Code, as they relate to

fire-fighting and medical first aid. The elements of basic safety are

retained in this interim rule as requirements for the issuance of

licenses after August 1, 1998, and for the issuance of STCW

endorsements for service beyond February 1, 2002.

All masters, mates, watchkeeping ratings, and others with safety

and pollution-prevention duties (i.e., those listed on the COI or on

the muster list) are required by Section A-VI/1 of the STCW Code to

produce evidence of having achieved or maintained at 5-year intervals

the specified standard of competence in the four elements of basic

safety. This recurring requirement appears in this Interim Rule at 46

CFR part 15. Mariners who occupy positions listed on the COI, or on the

muster list, will be prohibited from being assigned or performing

duties unless they hold such evidence.

As a matter of convenience, a suitable endorsement will be placed

on the mariner's STCW certificate upon request, or at the time of

renewal, if the OCMI is satisfied that the evidence submitted is

sufficient. One comment noted that securing this endorsement may

facilitate mobility from one company to another, and should promote

compliance with the requirements by making enforcement easier.

Two comments recommended that under this Interim Rule the level of

basic safety training be adjusted to reflect the scope of equipment,

type of vessel, and geographic area of operation, and that in-house

training be acceptable. This Interim Rule lets in-house training or

instruction be limited to a specific vessel and route.

One comment suggested that the four elements of basic safety

training be consolidated into a single course. This Interim Rule allows

for such a consolidation.

One comment contended that hands-on training is essential in

personal survival, as reflected in IMO model course 1.19 (Personal

Survival). The Coast Guard agrees with this contention and recommends

course 1.19 as guidance for developing a program to meet the personal-

survival element of basic safety training.

One comment requested clarification on how often basic safety

training will have to occur under this Interim Rule. The Coast Guard

notes that STCW requires initial approved training or instruction, and

evidence of having achieved (or maintained) competency in basic safety

every 5 years. Formal shore-side basic safety training is not

necessary, if the mariner concerned holds evidence that he or she has

maintained competence in the four elements of basic safety while

serving on board ships. This evidence may reflect participation in a

well-organized program of drills and other structured training

exercises when the mariner's performance is evaluated against the

appropriate criteria.

Five comments requested clarification of the social-responsibility

elements of basic safety training. One comment recommended that

training not be required since it might become ``an irritant'' to the

marine community. Another contended that training should be tailored to

the mariner's level of organizational responsibility. A third contended

that some aspects of social responsibility, such as the dangers of drug

and alcohol abuse, were already addressed by other domestic rules.

Note that the full title of this element of basic safety training

is ``Personal Safety and Social Responsibility.'' This element

comprises five aspects: (1) Compliance with emergency procedures; (2)

precautions to prevent pollution of the marine environment; (3)

observance of safe working practices; (4) ability to understand orders

and to be understood; and (5) the need to contribute to effective human

relationships on board ship. The Coast Guard maintains that the

emphasis in training belongs on personal safety and safe working

practices.

Social responsibility and effective human relationships will

adequately be addressed if the training encompasses, and if the student

appreciates the following:

(1) The dangers posed to himself or herself, and to the safety of a

vessel and its crew, by drug and alcohol abuse.

(2) The importance of sanitation and personal hygiene for one

living on board a vessel.

(3) The risk posed to the safety of a vessel and its crew unless

good working relationships are maintained at all times, and disputes

are resolved promptly, respectfully, and amicably.

(4) The impossibility of maintaining good working relationships on

board a vessel when any crewmember behaves in a way that amounts to

harassment, abuse, discrimination, or other offense against the

personal dignity or

[[Page 34521]]

professional standing of another person on board the vessel.

(5) The adverse effects of fatigue, the need for rest to prevent

fatigue, and the importance of notifying a supervisor when symptoms of

fatigue are present.

(6) The procedures in place for calling attention (a) to unsafe or

unhealthy conditions on board a vessel; or (b) to offensive behavior by

another person on board the vessel.

The Coast Guard will include this guidance in a NVIC on company

responsibilities.

One comment stated that an ISM Certificate should satisfy the

requirements for approved on-the-job training in personal safety and

social responsibility. As it has indicated elsewhere throughout this

preamble (for instance, in the discussion on QSS), the Coast Guard will

accept an ISM Certificate (with certain augmentations) as evidence of a

satisfactory monitoring system. In any case, mariners provided training

should receive evidence of having achieved or maintained a level of

competence in basic safety, which evidence they can furnish to the

Coast Guard when necessary (as when seeking a license or document or

desiring an endorsement for basic safety training).

One comment argued that requirements for basic safety training

should not apply to new employees for 3 to 6 months, to allow an

evaluation before an investment is made in training them and that, even

then, only half of the crew should be subject to those requirements.

The Coast Guard does not consider these options to be available under

the 1995 STCW Amendments. Unless a person is required by the manning

section of the COI to be on board or is assigned duties on the muster

list, he or she need not receive basic safety training. The individual

must, however, receive familiarization instruction so he or she will

know what to do in an emergency.

Two comments requested clarification of when a seafarer is

``designated'' as having duties in safety or pollution-prevention. A

seafarer is so designated only if on board is part of the required

complement (i.e., that stated in the manning section of the COI) or

assigned to emergency duties on the muster list or station bill.

One comment expressed concern that the implementation date for

basic safety training, of February 1, 1997, might not be attained by

all mariners, and suggested that mariners already in service should be

given credit for their experience.

Since publication of the NPRM, the IMO has recognized there may be

practical difficulties in providing basic safety training to all

seafarers who commenced sea service before February 1, 1997. Therefore,

the Subcommittee recommended that administrations ``treat each case on

its merits.'' The Coast Guard understands this to mean that those

commencing sea service on or after February 1, 1997, must indeed

receive formal training or instruction based on the tables in Section

A-VI/1 of the STCW Code. But it also understands this to mean that

those already in service by that date can meet the requirement (until

more formal training or instruction can be arranged) with sufficient

evidence that they have participated in well-organized drills and other

structured exercises or in on-board programs of basic safety training,

during which their performance was evaluated, and areas of weakness

were brought to their attention.

Two comments suggested that both familiarization and basic safety

training be conducted on board by using videos, structured drills, and

interactive computer training. The Coast Guard agrees that these

methods are suitable for familiarization and for confirming that

seafarers are maintaining competence in basic safety after initial

training or instruction. However, some aspects of basic safety training

(e.g., extinguishing actual fire, and jumping from an actual height

into actual water) work better at actual facilities than on virtual

ones.

As also stated in the guidance developed by the STCW Subcommittee

and circulated in STCW.7/circ. 1 dated September 24, 1996, masters,

mates, and watchkeeping ratings need not be reassessed in basic safety

to renew 1978 STCW endorsements, except for service after February 1,

2002. This guidance enters this interim rule at the rule on license

renewal (Sec. 10.209).

To meet the requirements of the 1995 STCW Amendments, formal basic

safety training or instruction must be ``approved'' or accepted by the

Coast Guard and monitored by a OSS. But formal approval might reach few

if any of the following: basic safety training conducted before

February 1, 1997; seafarers commencing sea service after that date; and

seafarers not otherwise required to complete approved training (such as

fire-fighting and first aid) for licensing or documentation. The Coast

Guard is preparing a two-state approach. Between January 31, 1997, and

August 1, 1998, all basic safety training or instruction that meets the

following criteria will count as Coast Guard-Accepted without further

action by the Coast Guard, or by those offering the training, if--

(1) The training or instruction uses as checklists tables A-VI/1-1,

A-VI/1-2, A-VI/1-3, and A-VI/1-4 in Section A-VI/1 of the STCW Code;

(2) The table adapted from STCW contains a statement that the

seafarer under scrutiny has achieved the required standard of

competence to undertake the tasks, duties, and responsibilities listed

in column 1 of the relevant table or tables;

(3) The statement is dated and signed by an officer holding an

ocean or near-coastal license issued under 46 CFR part 10, and an STCW

endorsement, for service on seagoing vessels of 200 GRT and more; and

(4) The same person that signed the original of this statement

signs a copy and provides the copy to the seafarer to serve as evidence

required under Section A-VI/1, paragraph 2.2.

Any basic safety training or instruction conducted on or after

August 1, 1998, must be approved either in accordance with Coast Guard

course-approval procedures or under alternative procedures, governing

approved training other than approved courses, set out in Sec. 10.309

or subpart 12.03 of this interim rule.

Basic safety training established under the former procedures for

the period starting February 1, 1997, and ending July 31, 1998, can

continue beyond the later date, if it has been independently monitored

in accordance with Sec. 10.309 or Sec. 12.03 of this interim rule.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Part 10--Licensing of Maritime Personnel

1. Section 10.101, which states the purposes of part 10, is

retained as it was proposed in the NPRM.

2. Section 10.102 indicates that STCW (the Convention proper) and

the associated STCW Code have been incorporated by reference into the

regulations in part 10. Except for adjusting the list of regulations

that refer to STCW or the Code, the wording remains as proposed in the

NPRM.

3. Section 10.103 includes definitions for new terms used in part

10.

One comment recommended that the definitions for Qualified

instructor and Designated examiner require that the person be

certificated as an active mariner. As discussed in this preamble under

the section on ``qualified Instructors and Assessors,'' the Coast Guard

has determined that holding a license is not necessary in every case

for performing these functions.

Another comment suggested that a definition be added for ``approved

[[Page 34522]]

course.'' The Coast Guard finds no need for a special definition of

this term, since ``Approved'' training encompasses Coast Guard approval

of courses under Sec. 10.302.

One comment recommended that the STCW definition of ``seagoing

ship'' be modified to ``self-propelled vessel'' and be included in this

section. The Coast Guard understand the term ``seagoing ship'' to mean,

for the purposes of applying STCW, a self-propelled vessel. Therefore,

it does not consider it necessary to modify the STCW definition and

include it in part 10; however, it does include a definition in part 15

to clarify the application of new STCW requirements to certain

categories of vessels.

The wording of Sec. 10.103 remains as proposed in the NPRM with two

exceptions. First, the terms ``Qualified instructor'' and ``Designated

examiner'' now indicate that a faculty member currently employed or

instructing in a navigation or engineering course at a State maritime

academy or the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy operated in accordance with

46 CFR part 310 is qualified to serve as a qualified instructor or

designated examiner in his or her area(s) of specialization without

individual designation by the Coast Guard. Comments on the extent to

which this principle should be retained or broadened to include faculty

employed at other reputable marine-training facilities can be made to

the docket. They will be taken into account in preparing the final

rule. Second, the term ``STCW endorsement'' now allows the Coast Guard

to place the reference to STCW directly on the license or document. At

present, this amounts only to an administrative convenience for

facilitating issuance of licenses to personnel serving on small vessels

on domestic-only voyages.

4. Section 10.107 indicates that certain substantive sections

contain record-keeping requirements. The section remains as proposed in

the NPRM.

5. Section 10.201 is a general regulation requiring applicants for

licenses and certificates to establish their qualifications to the

satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), before

this Officer will issue a license or certificate.

One comment suggested this section allow the use of third parties

to evaluate the qualifications of a candidate and confirm that he or

she is entitled to hold a Coast Guard license. The Coast Guard

considers the use of a third party not restricted under this section.

Therefore, no revision is necessary, and the section remains worded as

it was in the NPRM.

6. Section 10.202(j) now states that the OCMI will issue an STCW

endorsement to a person qualified to hold one.

Under Sec. 10.202(k), holders of the following classes of licenses

will be issued STCW endorsements on request, on the grounds that the

laws (statutes and regulations), policies, and standard industry

practices governing them provide for a degree of safety at sea and

pollution prevention equivalent to that of the STCW requirements.

Candidates for the following classes of license will not have to meet

any new requirements under Secs. 10.205 (k), (l), (m), (n), or (o),

10.304, or 10.901:

(1) Master's, mate's, operator's, or engineer's license for service

on small passenger vessels that are subject to subchapter T or K of

title 46, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and that operate beyond the

Boundary Line.

(2) Master's, mate's, operator's, or engineer's license for service

on seagoing vessels of less than 200 GRT (other than passenger vessels

subject to subchapter H of title 46, CFR).

Section 10.202 also provides that personnel serving on the

following vessels need not hold STCW certificates:

(1) Uninspected passenger vessels as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(42).

(2) Fishing vessels as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(11)(a).

(3) Fishing vessels used as fish-tender vessels as defined in 46

U.S.C. 2101(11)(c).

(4) Barges as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(2), including non-self-

propelled mobile offshore-drilling units (MODUs) and also on

international waters of the U.S. in the straits of Juna de Luca.

(5) Vessels operating exclusively on the Great Lakes.

7. Section 10.205 identifies requirements for original licenses and

certificates. This section contains a number of substantive as well as

editorial changes to its predecessor as that appeared in the NPRM.

First, a new paragraph (k) consolidates the STCW requirements for basic

safety training into one rule, and uses wording more closely aligned to

STCW. Second, the requirements for ARPA appear as a new paragraph (1).

Third, the requirements for GMDSS radio operator appear in paragraph

(m) with a change that requires the candidate to hold both an FCC

certificate and a certificate of completion form an approved course or

approved program of training and assessment; wording in paragraph (m)

indicates that a suitable statement of qualification will be added onto

either the license of a candidate or onto his or her endorsement.

Fourth, the requirements for bridge teamwork procedures occupy a new

paragraph (n): Each new requirement must be met to allow the issuance

of an unqualified STCW certificate or endorsement valid for any period

on or after February 1, 2002. And, fifth, practical demonstration of

skills is treated as it was in the NPRM, but occupies paragraph (o).

8. Section 10.207 concerns requirements for raises of grades of

licenses. It is worded as it was proposed in the NPRM.

9. Section 10.209 identifies requirements for renewal of licenses,

certificates of registry, and STCW certificates and endorsements. Under

its revised paragraph (k), renewals after February 1, 1997, of

certificates that will be valid for service after February 1, 2002,

must rest on new STCW requirements. Also under the paragraph,

requirements cross-refer to ones in Sec. 10.205, including evidence of

basic safety competence within the previous 5 years, and indicate that

persons serving only on smaller vessels do not have to meet them. With

respect to the references to ARPA, GMDSS, bridge teamwork procedures,

basic safety training, and proficiency in survival craft, only basic

safety training and proficiency in survival craft are subject to the

requirement for maintaining evidence that competency have been

reassessed within the 5 years prior to the renewal.

10. Section 10.304 mandates the use of approved training-record

books only by candidates for certification as officers in charge of the

navigational watch, officers in charge of the engineering watch, or

designated duty engineers, commencing approved training or sea service

on or after August 1, 1998. It also frees candidates for certain

licenses for service on smaller vessels from having to use training-

record books.

It also allows training-record books to be maintained

electronically, provided the records meet Coast-Guard-accepted

standards for accuracy, integrity, and availability.

11. Section 10.309, on Coast Guard-accepted training other than

approved courses, now takes into account comments submitted to the

docket and makes editorial changes. Substantive changes include the

following: (1) Specific linkage to training and assessment necessary

for holding an STCW certificate or endorsement; (2) a reference to

designated examiners; (3) a shift from ``classroom hours'' to ``hours *

* * devoted to instruction;'' (4) recognition that maritime academies

are already subject to extensive monitoring under 46 CFR part 310; (5)

the address for sending reports on the results of

[[Page 34523]]

independent monitoring; (6) letting the Coast Guard observe training

and review documents without advance notice; and (7) provisional

certification of offerors of approved training or assessment, under a

Coast Guard-accepted QSS, as capable of providing the advertised

training and of meeting the stated training objectives not less than 45

days before the training is offered to students. Comments on this

approach should be submitted to the docket and will be taken into

account in preparing the final rule.

Courses which remain subject to Coast Guard-approval are: Fire-

fighting under Sec. 10.205(g); Radar under Sec. 10.480; Tankerman under

part 13; and courses being used to substitute for seagoing service

under Sec. 10.304, as well as Lifeboatman under Sec. 12.10-3(a)(6).

12. As discussed earlier in this preamble, Secs. 10.491 through

10.497 establish three new classes of deck officers' licenses: ``Master

(OSV),'' ``Chief Mate (OSV),'' and ``Mate (OSV).'' Sections 10.551

through 10.555 establish two new classes of engineer officers'

licenses: ``Chief Engineer (OSV)'' and ``Engineer (OSV).'' Both

subparts compel applicants to meet the applicable requirements of the

1995 Amendments. Both also let the Coast Guard exempt candidates from

certain requirements that are irrelevant or inappropriate for service

on an OSV, or that are met by equivalencies under Article IX of STCW.

The Coast Guard will work with the offshore industry to determine the

specific requirements for sea service, training, and competence for

these new licenses. Any determinations made will be reflected in the

final rule.

13. Sections 10.601 and 10.603, on certification of radio officers

and radio operators, are now consistent with Sec. 10.202(m) and take

into account the Certificate for GMDSS radio operator. Section 10.603

entitles a person holding an FCC certificate as GMDSS radio operator

and a certificate of completion from a Coast Guard-approved GMDSS

radio-operator course, or from an approved program of training and

assessment, to hold an STCW certificate suitably endorsed for

performing duties associated with GMDSS.

14. Section 10.901, on general provisions, stays as proposed in the

NPRM, but incorporates one comment that suggested clarifying that all

the methods for demonstration of competence, allowed by the tables in

part A of the STCW Code, be available to applicants seeking STCW

certificates or endorsements valid for service on or after February 1,

2002.

15. Existing tables Secs. 10.910 and 10.950 identify the subjects

of license examinations and the practical demonstrations of competence

required for each class of license. One comment recommended replacing

the tables in the NPRM (ones based on the subject tables currently in

Secs. 10.910 and 10.950) with the tables from the STCW Code. Another

said the Coast Guard should be receptive to lists of training and tasks

that may not look like the tables in Secs. 10.910 and 10.950 but that

are more in line with actual training and tasks on a modern ship.

The Coast Guard is retaining the existing tables under this interim

rule, partly because no change to the subjects affecting licenses for

inland service is within the scope of this rulemaking and partly

because personnel serving on smaller vessels will not have to meet new

requirements under this interim rule.

However, Secs. 10.901 and 10.903 does let the tables in part A of

the STCW Code replace the current tables for candidates for certain

licenses commencing approved training or approved sea service on or

after August 1, 1998.

16. Sections 10.1001, 10.1003, and 10.1005, on Roll-on/Roll-off

(Ro-Ro) passenger ships, stay as proposed in the NPRM, but correct the

date from January 30, 1997, to January 31, 1997. In keeping with

guidance issued by the Subcommittee of IMO on STW, training in crisis

management under STCW Regulation V/2 is not required until August 1,

1998.

Part 12--Certification of Seamen

17. Section 12.01-1 addresses the purpose of the rule. Part 12

remains substantially as proposed in the NPRM.

18. Section 12.01-3 indicates that STCW (the Convention proper) and

its associated STCW Code have been incorporated by reference into the

regulations in part 12. Except for adjusting the list of regulations

that refer to STCW or its Code, the wording remains as proposed in the

NPRM.

19. Section 12.01-6 includes definitions for new terms used in part

12. Those now harmonize with those used in part 10 (from Sec. 10.103).

That of ``STCW endorsement'' allows the OCMI to enter an STCW

endorsement directly on the MMD rather than issue a separate document.

20. Section 12.01-9 indicates that certain substantive sections

contain record-keeping requirements. The section remains as proposed in

the NPRM.

21. Section 12.02-7 addresses compliance dates and stays as

proposed in the NPRM except for three substantive changes:

(1) It now reflects that the requirement to have an STCW

endorsement for service as a rating forming part of a navigational

watch is effective as of February 1, 1997 (as, in fact, it has long

been under the original, 1978 STCW).

(2) It now provides that each person serving as a rating forming

part of the engineering watch or, designated to perform duties in a

periodically unmanned engine-room, shall as of February 1, 2002, in

accordance with guidance issued by the Subcommittee of IMO on STW (STCW

Circ. 7) hold an appropriate STCW endorsement certifying his or her

qualification.

(3) It now provides that unlicensed mariners serving on certain

classes of smaller vessels are exempt from any requirement to hold an

STCW certificate or endorsement.

22. Section 12.02-11 sets forth the general provisions respecting

merchant mariners' documents. This section remains as proposed in the

NPRM except for minor editorial corrections.

23. Section 12.02-17 contains rules for issuance of documents. It

now requires medical certificates of fitness only for those applicants

who will be serving on seagoing ships of 200 gross register tons or

more. The requirement is effective for entry-level personnel as of

August 1, 1998.

24. Section 12.03-1 addresses Coast Guard-accepted training other

than approved courses and has changed to harmonize with Sec. 10.309 as

changed. Training courses for lifeboatman endorsement under Sec. 12.10-

3(a)(6) remain subject to Coast Guard approval under Sec. 10.302.

25. Section 12.05-3 imposes general requirements for endorsements

as Able Seaman and particular ones for approved basic safety training

for STCW endorsements that will be valid for service on or after

February 1, 2002. By application of Sec. 12.02-7, this section does not

affect unlicensed personnel serving on certain classes of small

vessels.

26. Section 12.05-7 requires service and training for endorsements

as Able Seaman and stays basically as proposed in the NPRM. It is

effective as of August 1, 1998.

27. Section 12.05-11 addresses general provisions for MMD

endorsements as an Able Seaman, and stays as proposed in the NPRM.

28. Section 12.10-3 addresses general requirements for lifeboatman

and is clarified by restoring the original wording of paragraph (a); by

increasing the period of sea time from 3 to 6 months in paragraph

(a)(6), as it was proposed in the NPRM; and by

[[Page 34524]]

increasing a minimum age in the new paragraph.

29. Section 12.10-5 is revised to incorporate by reference the

requirements for proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats set

forth by Section A-VI/2 and Table A-VI/2-1 of the STCW Code, effective

as of August 1, 1998. The candidate must have evidence that his or her

competency has been achieved or assessed within the previous 5 years.

30. Section 12.10-7 is revised by introducing a reference to the

STCW requirements for proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats,

or fast rescue boats.

31. New Sec. 12.10-9, on evidence of proficiency in fast rescue

boats, is added as proposed in the NPRM, effective as of August 1,

1998.

32. Proposed Sec. 12.10-11 addresses persons designated to provide

medical care, or take charge of medical care on board ship. It stays as

proposed in the NPRM, but becomes new subpart 12.13. Its requirements

will be effective as of August 1, 1998.

33. Section 12.15-3 addresses the qualified member of the engine

department (QMED) and now requires approved basic safety training for

an STCW endorsement, which will be valid for service on or after

February 1, 2002. (Read with Sec. 12.02-7 it does not require this of

unlicensed personnel serving on certain classes of smaller vessels.)

34. Section 12.15-7 addresses service or training requirements for

the engine-room rating. It stays as proposed in the NPRM, though it

corrects the reference to the STCW Code.

35. Section 12.25-45, entitled ``Electronics Technician'' in the

NPRM, is modified by (1) deleting references to a new rating for an

``Electronics technician--Non-GMDSS''; (2) replacing ``Electronics

Technician'' with the term ``GMDSS At-sea Maintainer''; and (3)

providing for the adding of a suitable endorsement to an MMD if the

holder can furnish sufficient evidence of having received training in

the maintenance of GMDSS installations on board ships. This section

does not preclude anyone from serving as an GMDSS At-sea Maintainer if

he or she meets FCC requirements. The section also allows a licensed

person, as well as an unlicensed one, to receive a ``GMDSS At-sea

Maintainer'' endorsement if he or she qualifies.

36. Subpart 12.30 addresses Ro-Ro passenger ships and stays

essentially as proposed in the NPRM; the effective date, however, has

changed to February 1, 1997, which is consistent with guidance issued

by the Subcommittee of IMO on STW (STCW-7/Circ. 1).

Part 15--Manning

37. Section 15.103 contains general provisions that clarify the

scope of part 15. New paragraph (d) states, subpart J applies to

seagoing vessels which are subject to STCW. New paragraph (e) and (f)

state that the regulations implementing STCW (i.e., those constituting

new subpart J) do not directly apply to certain classes of smaller

vessels or to the personnel serving on them. These vessels are already

subject to a complex of laws that collectively secure a degree of

safety at sea, and of pollution prevention, both at least equivalent to

the applicable requirements of STCW itself. New paragraph (g) provides

for the issuance of the appropriate STCW certificate or endorsement if

the vessel engages in international voyages.

38. Section 15.105 indicates that STCW and its Code have been

incorporated by reference into the regulations in part 10. Except for

adjusting the list of regulations that refer to STCW or its Codes, the

wording remains as proposed in the NPRM.

39. Section 15.301 contains definitions. It replaces the term

``Electronics technician'' with ``GMDSS At-sea Maintainer'', and

withdraws the proposed term ``Electronics technician--Non-GMDSS''.

40. New subpart J consolidates the new requirements emanating from

the 1995 STCW Amendments. Essentially, those proposed as

Secs. 15.401(b), 15.403, 15.411, and 15.705 all appear as elements of

this new subpart.

Section 15.1101 is general and comprises (a) definitions; (b) a

statement of applicability that exempts certain classes of smaller

vessels by reference to paragraph 15.103(d); and (c) acceptance of a

Safety Management Certificate that meets the requirements of the

subpart. This recognition of the Certificate, which is international,

and of its domestic counterpart reflects enactment of Pub. L. 104-324

(Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996), and particularly of Sec. 602,

which provides the legal basis for earning the Certificate.

41. Section 15.1103 sets out restrictions, employment, service, and

the effective dates of certain new requirements.

Paragraph (a) requires masters, mates, engineers, and radio

operators, among others, to hold the appropriate STCW certificates or

endorsements issued in accordance with part 10. (However, paragraph (e)

allows for the continued use, through January 31, 2002, of STCW

certificates and endorsements issued on the basis of 1978 STCW and of

NVIC 8-95.)

Paragraph (b) requires unlicensed personnel in the navigational

watch on seagoing vessels of 500 gross tons or more to hold the

appropriate STCW certificates or endorsements issued in accordance with

part 12. It becomes effective as of February 1, 1997. (A similar

requirement has already been in effect under the 1978 STCW Convention).

Paragraph (c) requires unlicensed personnel in the engineering

watch, on seagoing vessels with propulsion power of 750 kW (1000hp) or

more, to hold the appropriate STCW certificates or endorsements in

accordance with part 12. This paragraph, however, does not require the

certificates or endorsements until February 1, 2002; it is in keeping

with the guidance issued by the Subcommittee of IMO on STW.

Paragraph (d) applies to Ro-Ro passenger ships and is consistent

with the terminology used in Chapter V of the STCW. It is effective as

of February 1, 1997.

Paragraph (e) requires masters and mates to hold Certificates for

Operators of Radio in GMDSS if they are serving on seagoing vessels on

or after February 1, 2002. This does not affect the requirements of

SOLAS and FCC that there be primary and secondary operators on board

GMDSS ships as of February 1, 1999.

Paragraph (f) addresses the GMDSS At-sea Maintainer. Since it is

fully consistent with Chapter IV of SOLAS, the Coast Guard considers it

appropriate to align the effective date respecting the GMDSS At-sea

Maintainer with that respecting the maintenance option in Chapter IV of

SOLAS February 1, 1999.

42. Section 15.1105 addresses familiarization and basic safety-

training. Section 15.403 in the NPRM, it clarifies its own scope by

exempting personnel serving on certain classes of smaller vessels (see

Sec. 15.103(d)). Paragraph (a) provides that no person may be assigned

duties on board a vessel unless he or she first receives

familiarization training or instruction, to prepare him or her to take

proper action in emergencies. Paragraph (b) provides that persons

required to be on board as part of the crew complement must become

familiar with ship-specific systems and arrangements, before being

assigned to duties. Paragraph (c) provides that persons who are part of

the crew complement or are assigned duties on the muster list must

produce evidence of having (1) received approved basic safety training

or instruction and (2) achieved or maintained competence in base safety

within the last 5 years.

Paragraph 15.1105(d) reflects the guidance issued by the

Subcommittee of

[[Page 34525]]

IMO on STW, to the effect that, in applying STCW Regulation V/1 on

basic safety-training or instruction to seafarers who have commenced

sea service before February 1, 1997, administrations should ``treat

each case on its merits.'' It exempts those mariners (except where

basic safety-training may be a requirement for holding a license or

document under part 10 or 12) from undergoing formal training or

instruction in basic safety until August 1, 2002, if they hold evidence

of achieving or maintaining competence within the last 5 years. The

required evidence can be based on records that a mariner has

participated in well-organized drills and other structured exercises,

or participated in on-board safety training programs, during which his

or her performance was evaluated, and weaknesses brought to his or her

attention.

43. Section 15.1107 covers maintenance of records. It now indicates

that a certificate by a qualified medical practitioner, to the effect

that a seaman is medically fit to perform tasks and duties likely to be

involved in the performance of the job for which he or she is employed,

is sufficient to meet the record-keeping requirement of this rule

respecting medical fitness. Records must be maintained only for those

seamen on seagoing vessels who hold licenses or merchant mariners'

documents.

44. Section 15.1109 (which was Sec. 15.705 in the NPRM) addressed

watchkeeping. It stays basically as proposed, though with editorial

improvements.

45. Section 15.1111 (which was Sec. 15.710 in the NPRM) concerns

work hours and rest periods. It is re-drafted (1) to square with STCW

on rest periods; (2) to clarify that no rest period may be used for

work even on a voluntary basis; (3) to provide examples of duties that

should not be assigned during rest periods; (4) to require watchkeeping

personnel to comply with domestic limits on work-hours in U.S.C. 8104;

and (5) to make necessary editorial corrections.

Incorporation by Reference

The following material would be incorporated by reference in

Sec. 10.102, 12.01-3, and 15.105: Amendments to the Annex to the

International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, and the associated Seafarers'

Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) Code, as adopted under

resolutions 1 and 2, respectively, by the Conference of Parties to the

International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, held at IMO from June 26 to July 7,

1995.

Copies of the material are available for inspection where indicated

under Addresses. Copies of the material are also available from IMO, 4

Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, England, telephone in London 0171-

735-7611.

The Coast Guard submitted this material to the Director of the

Federal Register for approval of the incorporation by reference.

Assessment

This Interim Rule is a significant regulatory action under section

3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget under that Order. It is significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). A regulatory assessment has been

prepared for this interim rule based on comments on the NPRM and

preliminary regulatory assessment. The regulatory assessment is

available for inspection where indicated under ADDRESSES.

In response to the NPRM comments, recent legislation, and an

overarching effort to reduce the regulatory burden we impose, the Coast

Guard has made four notable decisions that will sharply reduce the

breadth of this rulemaking and its concomitant costs. The long term

benefits of the resultant rule far exceed its costs.

1. A number of comments indicated that requiring uninspected

passenger vessels to comply with STCW would have a negative impact on

the uninspected passenger vessel industry. Subsequent analysis by the

Coast Guard supports this conclusion. Because domestic law has

generally excluded uninspected passenger vessels from regulations

applicable to ocean-going vessels and STCW is not likely to be cost-

effective for that segment of the industry, the Coast Guard is

exempting personnel serving on uninspected passenger vessels from the

application of STCW.

2. Existing domestic regulations for small passenger vessels are

equivalent to STCW standards. The Coast Guard therefore estimates that

the interim rule will impose no costs on the small passenger vessel

industry or on seafarers employed within this industry.

3. The Congress exempted the fish-tenders from application of SRCW

under Section 1146 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 (Pub.

L. 104-324). The Coast Guard therefore estimates that the interim rule

will impose no new costs on the fish-tender vessel industry or on

seafarers employed within this industry.

4. The Coast Guard believes existing domestic regulations for

seagoing vessels (other than passenger vessels) that are less than 200

GRTs are equivalent to STCW standards. Therefore, this interim rule

imposes no additional burden or concomitant costs on the ``less than

200 GRT seagoing vessel'' industry or on seafarers employed within this

industry.

The Coast Guard estimates that after these equivalences and

exemptions are taken into account, approximately 1,356 vessels

operating outside the Boundary Line will be affected by this interim

rule. Vessels affected include: 114 fish processing vessels; 516

freight ships; 10 mobile offshore-drilling units (MODUs); 18 oil

recovery vessels; 385 offshore supply vessels; 13 passenger vessels; 41

research vessels; 13 school ships; 201 tank ships; and 45 towboats,

tugboats, and integrated tug-barge units.

In addition, the Coast Guard estimates that the interim rule will

affect approximately 50,000 seafarers. This group includes: 16,000 deck

and other officers; 7,500 engineering officers; 13,000 entry-level

seafarers; 6,000 able seamen; 2,000 lifeboatmen; and 5,500 qualified

members of the engineering department.

The following outlines the costs and benefits of STCW

implementation; it presents all costs and benefits in 1996 dollars.

Costs

The costs of this interim rule fall into the following categories:

training course and practical skills demonstration costs; ship company

costs; maritime trainers' costs; and government costs.

Training Course and Practical Skills Demonstration Costs

Training course and practical skills demonstration costs vary with

the number of seafarers applying for STCW certification. Because all

seafarers employed on STCW certification. Because all seafarers

employed on STCW-affected vessels will be required to have STCW

certification by February 1, 2002, and because original certification

is more expensive than recertification, training course and practical

skills demonstration costs will be higher in the first five years

following STCW implementation (1997-2001) than they will be in

subsequent years.

A seafarer possessing a license or document may satisfy some STCW

requirements by a demonstration of competence in lieu of training. If a

seafarer is unable to demonstrate the

[[Page 34526]]

required competence in skills needed to perform their duties, however,

it may be necessary for a seafarer to take certain STCW training

required for an original license or document before receiving STCW

certification. Consequently, training course and practical skill

demonstration costs potentially affect both new and current seafarers.

Deck officers, engineers, and unlicensed personnel may be required

to take new courses to receive STCW certificates or endorsements.

Course costs for individuals are expected to be $8,384,739 annually

between 1997 and 2001, and $1,619,969 annually after 2001.

When formal training is not required, deck officers, engineers, and

unlicensed personnel will be required to demonstrate competency in

skills relevant to their assigned duties before receiving or renewing

STCW certification. The Coast Guard estimates the total cost of

demonstrating competency and documenting experience will be $2,148,940

annually between 1997 and 2001, and $1,921,766 annually after 2001.

Ship Company Costs

The Coast Guard estimates that the burden of keeping company

records, as required by STCW, will cost ship companies a total of

$11,270 annually.

Maritime Training Costs

The STCW will impose negligible new costs on marine training

institutions. The Interim Rule does not require that seafarers take all

STCW training at any one institution, or that any one institution offer

all training required for STCW certification. Therefore, marine

training institutions need not offer any new courses. Any marine

training institutions offering new courses will do so to meet increased

demand in response to market forces.

Government Costs

There will be a one-time cost to the government of approximately

$350,000 incurred between 1997 and 2001 for approving mariner courses,

in-house training, policy development, and recordkeeping required by

STCW-based rules.

Summary of Costs

The present value of the costs of this Interim Rule through 2006,

discounted at 7% to 1996, will total $53,922,941.

Benefits

Human error is the cause of over 80% of all marine accidents. By

ensuring that seafarers have the skills needed to perform their duties,

STCW will prevent accidents that result from insufficient knowledge or

inadequate skills. The benefits of STCW are the costs avoided by

preventing accidents caused by human error.

To determine the economic value of accidents prevented, the Coast

Guard analyzed casualty records of and investigation reports into the

causes and costs of marine accidents that have occurred on U.S.-flagged

vessels of the types to be affected by STCW. The benefits are a

function of the type and magnitude of marine accidents that will be

avoided. A lower and an upper range of benefits are estimated to bound

the anticipated range of effectiveness STCW will have in preventing

accidents. Casualty records analyzed and the methodology used to

determine STCW's effectiveness in preventing accidents are presented in

the regulatory assessment that is available for inspection as indicated

under ADDRESSES. The Coast Guard's analysis of casualty records

determined that STCW is likely to prevent damages and injuries valued

between $13,820,709 and $24,511,455 annually.

The benefits of STCW flow from the accidents avoided. The benefits

associated with preventing marine accidents are phased in according to

the percentage of mariners who will complete the requirements needed to

receive STCW certification each year. As the full effect of these STCW

requirements will be gained by seafarers that enter the workforce or

upgrade an existing license/document, the full benefit of STCW is

assumed to accrue to the U.S. economy within 10 years.

Summary of Benefits

The Coast Guard estimates that the present value of the benefits

discussed above, discounted at 7% through 2006, will total between

$56,464,784 and $100,142,042.

Non-Quantifiable Benefits

The Coast Guard also identified non-quantifiable benefits due to

STCW. As a result of implementing this international convention, the

United States, acting in its capacity as a port state, will have the

authority to detain foreign vessels that are not in compliance with

STCW. The Coast Guard believes that these vessels are more likely to

have marine accidents than those that are in compliance with STCW. As a

result of its ability to restrain the movements of these unsafe

foreign-flag vessels in U.S. waters, the Coast Guard expects to see

fewer accidents in U.S. waters caused by foreign-flag vessels. Although

these benefits are not quantified, it is worth noting that over 90% of

the vessels subject to STCW and calling on U.S. ports fly the flag of a

foreign nation.

Benefit/Cost Comparison

Tables 1 and 2 outline the present value of the costs and benefits

of STCW, calculated from 1997 to the year noted in the tables. Each

value has been discounted at 7% to 1996 and is presented in 1996

dollars.

Table 1.--Present Value of Benefits and Costs, Benefits Calculated at Lower End of Range, 1996 Dollars

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

Benefit/

Year PV benefits PV costs cost ratio

NPV

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

2006......................................................... 56,464,784 53,922,941 1.05

2016......................................................... 105,810,695 66,608,706 1.59

2026......................................................... 130,895,655 73,057,506 1,79

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

Note.--PV: Present Value. NPV; Net Present Value.

[[Page 34527]]

Table 2.--Present Value of Benefits and Costs, Benefits Calculated at Upper End of Range, 1996 Dollars

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

Benefit/

Year PV benefits PV costs cost ratio

NPV

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

2006......................................................... 100,142,042 53,922,941 1.86

2016......................................................... 187,658,544 66,608,706 2.82

2026......................................................... 232,147,496 73,057,506 3.18

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

Note.--PV: Present Value. NPV; Net Present Value.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], the

Coast Guard must consider whether this interim rule, if adopted, would

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. ``Small entities'' may include independently owned and

operated small businesses that are not dominant in their field and that

otherwise qualify as ``small business concerns'' under Section 3 of the

Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). ``Small entities'' also include

small not-for-profit organizations and small governmental

jurisdictions.

The Coast Guard did consider the impact on businesses,

organizations, and jurisdictions defined as small entities and

potentially affected by STCW. Small entities include: owners and

operators of some STCW-affected vessels; training institutions; and

businesses offering marine training courses or supplying assessors or

examiners.

Because STCW does not require that any single business offer or

assess all courses required under STCW, no training institution or

business offering training course assessors will have to offer new

services. This rulemaking allows for small entities to remain in and

actively compete in the maritime training sector with options to teach

and assess as many courses or functions as the entity chooses.

The NPRM generated over 400 comments from owners and operators of

small passenger vessels, seagoing vessels (other than passenger

vessels) that are less than 200 Gross Registered Tons (GRT), as well as

uninspected passenger vessels and fish-tenders. Many of these owners

and operators were small businesses. Their comments indicated that STCW

might have a significant impact on their business. The Interim Rule

addresses these concerns. Specifically, the system of equivalencies

under existing domestic regulations established for small passenger

vessels and for seagoing vessels (other than passenger vessels) that

are less than 200 GRTs, as well as the system of exemptions for

uninspected passenger vessels and fish-tenders, means that STCW will

not impose any new requirements on these businesses.

These accommodations for owners and operators of small passenger

vessels, seagoing vessels (other than passenger vessels) that are less

than 200 GRTs, as well as for those of uninspected passenger vessels

and fish-tenders, and the flexibility maintained in this Interim Rule

for marine educators and assessors, convince the Coast Guard that it

has eliminated impacts on small entities that would otherwise have been

affected by the Interim Rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.

605(b) that this Interim Rule will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulatory

flexibility analysis is included in the regulatory assessment, which is

in the docket.

Unfunded Mandates

Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4) (the Act),

the Coast Guard must consider whether this Interim Rule will result in

an annual expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million (adjusted annually

for inflation). The Act also requires (in section 205) that the Coast

Guard identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives, and from those alternatives, select the least costly,

most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the

objective of the Interim Rule.

The cost analysis completed for this Interim Rule estimates that

compliance costs through the year 2006 will total $53.9 million and

through the year 2016 will total $66.6 million. This Interim Rule will

not result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more either to

State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private

sector.

Representatives of training institutions were interviewed to assess

the impact of STCW. STCW does not require that any single business,

including any State-training institution, offer or assess all courses

required under STCW. In addition, no business, including any training

institution offering training course assessors, will have to offer new

services. At the same time, State and private training institutions

will have the opportunity to remain in, and actively compete in, the

maritime training sector.

Collection of Information

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.], the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each rule that contains

collection-of-information requirements to determine whether the

practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by its

collection. Collection-of-information requirements include reporting,

recordkeeping, notification, and other, similar requirements. The Coast

Guard is currently requesting a revision of a current collection of

information, under OMB control number 2115-0624, approved at the stage

of the NPRM.

This Interim Rule contains collection-of-information requirements

in the following sections: 10.205 (documentation of practical-skills

demonstration); 10.304 (training-record books); 10.309 and 12.03-1

(documentation of training and assessment); 12.02-17 (documentation of

medical fitness); 15.1107 (maintenance of merchant mariners' records by

owner or operator); and 15.1111 (work hours and rest periods). The

following particulars apply:

Where courses are not required, candidates for original licenses

and license renewals must demonstrate competency in skills necessary to

perform assigned duties. Evidence of demonstrated competency must be

documented and submitted to the OCMI in order for candidates to receive

STCW certification or documentation.

Candidates for an STCW certificate or endorsement as an officer in

charge of a navigational watch or engineering watch may use a

combination of training and sea service to meet STCW requirements. When

seagoing service is combined with training in order to qualify for STCW

certification, training must be documented in a Coast Guard-accepted

training-record book.

Objectives and criteria used for training and assessment not

subject to Coast Guard approval, but used to

[[Page 34528]]

qualify for STCW certification or endorsement, must also be documented

and available for evaluation.

Applicants for merchant mariners' documents must submit written

reports from medical practitioners stating that they are medically fit

to perform assigned duties.

Ship companies must ensure that information regarding the medical

fitness, experience, and competency of seafarers serving on any vessel

is maintained and accessible to management. Recordkeeping requirements

respecting any particular seafarer would be in effect only during the

period of service of the seafarer concerned.

The rules in STCW were drafted to apply to companies and training

programs worldwide. And in due course, under STCW as amended, the

United States must show the IM

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.