[Federal Register: January 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 16)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3605-3695]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ja07-22]
[[Page 3605]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 1, 20, 70, 95, 101, 110, 141, 155, 156, 160, 162, 163,
164, and 165
46 CFR Parts 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 26, 28, 30, 31,
35, 42, 58, 61, 78, 97, 98, 105, 114, 115, 122, 125, 131, 151, 166,
169, 175, 176, 185, 196, 199, 401 and 402
Docket No. USCG-2006-24371
RIN 1625-AB02
Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials
AGENCY: United States Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard issues this Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM) for the Consolidation of Merchant Mariner
Qualification Credentials rulemaking project to amend its Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in May 2006. The purpose of this
SNPRM is to address comments received from the public on the NPRM,
revise the proposed rule based on those comments, and provide the
public with an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed
revisions. This revised proposed rule would work in tandem with the
joint final rule published by the Coast Guard and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register entitled ``Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC) Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials
Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License''.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before April 25, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2006-24371 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
(1) Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room PL-401, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
(3) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(4) Delivery: Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for format and other information
about comment submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this proposed
rule, call Mr. Luke Harden (G-PSO-1), United States Coast Guard, 2100
Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593; telephone 1-877-687-2243.
For questions concerning viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Management
System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone (202) 493-0402.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Background and Purpose
III. Discussion of the Proposed Rulemaking
IV. Quick Summary of Differences Between this SNPRM and the Current
Regulations
V. Discussion of Comments and Changes
A. Comments From the Docket or Public Meetings
1. Comments Regarding TWIC
2. General Objections to the Rulemaking
3. Course of the Rulemaking
4. Appeals
5. Applicability
6. Application Process
7. Authority
8. Burden
9. Citizenship
10. Concurrent Processing of Applications
11. Continuity Licenses
12. Definitions
13. Editing
14. Expiration dates
15. Format of the MMC
16. General
17. International Agreements
18. Information Sharing
19. Interim Credentials
20. Invalid Credentials
21. License Creep
22. Loss of License as Separate Credential
23. Medical
24. National Driver Register
25. Port Access
26. Posting
27. Preemption
28. Personal Privacy
29. Public Meetings
30. Regulatory Requirements
31. Renewals and Duplicates
32. Suspension and Revocation
33. Safety and Suitability
34. Miscellaneous Comments Outside the Scope of this Rulemaking
35. Support for the Rulemaking
36. Travel
37. Vetting
B. Recommendations from Advisory Committees
1. MERPAC strongly recommends that TSA remove mariners from the
TWIC project.
2. Given the size, complexity, and impact of these three
rulemaking proposals; MERPAC recommends an extension of the comment
period for at least another ninety days.
3. MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard delay implementation
of the MMC, separating the implementation of the MMC from the TWIC
implementation.
4. MERPAC believes that this rulemaking exceeds the authority of
the Coast Guard to create a consolidated credential.
5. Page 29464 states that there are no changes to the
qualifications, experience, examinations, classes and other
requirements needed, and that this is just a reorganization of
existing regulations.
6. The Coast Guard needs to protect a mariner's financial
information by removing the requirement to place the applicants
Social Security Number on the face of the form of payment.
7. MERPAC suggests the removal of the language in section
10.211(e).
8. Section 10.217 allows the Coast Guard to designate other
Coast Guard locations to provide service to applicants for MMCs, and
MERPAC applauds this addition.
9. Section 10.225 states that mariners must surrender their old
MMC, but 10.227 states that the mariner can retain an expired
document.
10. MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard create an MMC that is
convenient for the mariner.
11. MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard begin a new
rulemaking that would harmonize the criminal background checks with
TSA standards.
12. MERPAC recommends that Coast Guard remove the self-
disclosure portion of the application process.
13. MERPAC has concerns about the appeal process, and encourages
the agencies to further define and explain this process.
14. MERPAC recommends that Coast Guard redesign the rulemaking
to assure that mariners can make application for their TWIC and
their MMC simultaneously.
15. MERPAC recommends that the Coast Guard and TSA develop an
interim clearance process be provided to a mariner, and that
mariners be allowed to train and work, while awaiting a final
determination.
C. Additional Changes Made in this SNPRM
1. Purpose of rules in this part. (10.101)
2. Definitions in Subchapter B. (10.107)
3. General characteristics of the Merchant Mariner Credential.
(10.201)
4. Requirement to hold a TWIC and a Merchant Mariner Credential.
(10.203)
5. Validity of a Merchant Mariner Credential. (10.205)
6. General application procedures. (10.209)
7. Criminal record review. (10.211)
8. Medical and physical requirements. (10.215)
[[Page 3606]]
9. MMC application and examination locations. (10.217)
10. Fees. (10.219)
11. Citizenship. (10.221)
12. Modification or removal of limitations or scope (10.223)
13. Requirements for originals. (10.225)
14. Requirements for renewal. (10.227)
15. Requirements for raises of grade or new endorsements.
(10.231)
16. Obligations of the holder of a Merchant Mariner Credential.
(10.233)
17. Suspension or revocation of Merchant Mariner Credentials.
(10.235)
18. Right of appeal. (10.237)
19. Quick reference table for MMC requirements. (10.239)
20. Application process
21. Amendatory Instructions
22. Eligibility for officer endorsements, general. (11.201)
23. Identification Credentials for Persons Requiring Access to
Waterfront Facilities or Vessels. (33 CFR part 125)
24. Amendments from the TWIC Final Rule. (10.113, 12.01-11 and
15.415)
25. Other Corrections Outside 46 CFR part 10
VI. Regulatory Evaluation
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
J. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
K. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
L. Technical Standards
M. National Environmental Policy Act
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://dms.dot.gov and will include any personal
information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department
of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please
see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your
name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-
2006-24371), indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may
submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or
delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material only once. If
you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format,
no larger than 8\1/2\ inches by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like the Coast
Guard to acknowledge receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in
view of them.
Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time, click on ``Simple Search,'' enter
the last five digits of the docket number for this rulemaking [24371],
and click on ``Search.'' You may also visit the Docket Management
Facility in Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement published in the
Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
II. Background and Purpose
On May 22, 2006, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register titled ``Consolidation of
Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials.'' (71 FR 29462). The NPRM
included a 45-day comment period, and announced four public meetings
that were held in Newark, NJ, Tampa, FL, St. Louis, MO, and Long Beach,
CA.
During the comment period for the NPRM, the Coast Guard received
over 100 requests, both in writing in the docket for this rulemaking
and in person at the public meetings, for additional time to comment.
These requests came from individuals, large and small businesses,
industry organizations, and members of Congress. Among other things,
these comments stated that the 45 day comment period did not provide
enough time to comment on the NPRM or on the accompanying
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation
in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a
Commercial Driver's License rule (``TWIC rule'') NPRM published the
same day (71 FR 29395). Concerns were raised that the 45 day public
review period prevented a thorough analysis of the proposed
rulemakings.
After considering these requests, the Coast Guard chose not to
extend the comment period on the NPRM, but instead to publish this
Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM). This SNPRM should
provide the public with more opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process than would have been provided by an extension of the
comment period for the NPRM. This SNPRM addresses those substantive
comments received during the NPRM comment period, proposes changes to
the regulatory text as a result of those comments, solicits additional
input on key points of interest, and most importantly, provides an
additional opportunity for the public to comment on these proposed
regulatory changes.
Public comment is sought on all proposed regulatory changes, not
just those that are newly introduced in this SNPRM. The changes that
were proposed in the NPRM were discussed in that document and are not
discussed again in the preamble to this SNPRM. The regulatory text at
the end of this document reflects the combination of the changes
proposed in the NPRM as well as those changes that were made to the
NPRM as a result of public comments and additional Coast Guard review.
The Coast Guard seeks public comment on the regulatory text provided in
this SNPRM, not the text provided in the NPRM. The preamble of the NPRM
should be referenced as an aid, however, because it discusses changes
that may not have been altered between the NPRM and SNPRM, and it is a
useful tool to locate where proposed text originated in our current
regulations. Because of the large number of amendatory instructions and
numerous changes made to the proposed regulations since the NPRM, to
further aid the public's review of this SNPRM, a redline version of the
rule text, showing all changes to the text from the NPRM to the SNPRM,
is available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
III. Discussion of the Proposed Rulemaking
This rulemaking was precipitated by the promulgation of the
Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), which included a
requirement in 46 U.S.C. 70105 that the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security issue a biometric transportation security card to,
among others, every ``individual issued a license, certificate of
registry,
[[Page 3607]]
or merchant mariners document under part E of subtitle II of this
title''. The Secretary designated the TWIC as this biometric security
card, and tasked the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to
promulgate regulations implementing TWIC. Similarly, on October 13,
2006, the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE
Port Act) (Pub.L. 109-347) was enacted. Among other things, the SAFE
Port Act mandates concurrent processing of a mariner's TWIC and MMD by
TSA and the Coast Guard. This mandate was not created for license
applicants, however the Coast Guard has voluntarily extended concurrent
processing to licenses as well, as discussed below.
TSA, with support from the Coast Guard, published a joint final
rule for the TWIC regulatory project elsewhere in today's Federal
Register. That final rule sets out the application requirements and
implementation schedule for the TWIC. TSA will soon begin issuing the
TWIC and will enroll port and vessel employees over a period of 18
months in over 125 TWIC enrollment centers.
All credentialed merchant mariners are required by 46 U.S.C. 70105
and the TWIC rule to apply for and obtain a TWIC. To apply for a TWIC,
a mariner must appear in person at a TWIC enrollment center to be
fingerprinted, photographed and show proof of identification. The new
TWIC application requirements are duplicative for mariners. Currently,
all mariners applying for a merchant mariner's document (MMD), merchant
mariner's license (license) and/or certificate of registry (COR) must
appear in person at a Coast Guard Regional Examination Center (REC) to
be fingerprinted by and show proof of identification to an REC
employee. The appearance requirement in the TWIC rule is less
burdensome on mariners, however, because there will be over 125 TWIC
enrollment centers vice the 17 RECs. This rule proposes to remove the
requirement that mariners appear at an REC. As proposed in this SNPRM,
once a mariner appears in person to apply for their TWIC, they can
complete their entire MMC application process by mail unless an
examination is required. Also, since TSA will be verifying the identity
of and conducting a security threat assessment for all TWIC applicants,
this rulemaking also proposes to remove the Coast Guard security and
identity vetting requirements for mariners. This proposed rulemaking
would remove those application requirements made duplicative by the
TWIC rule.
The creation of the TWIC requirement increases the number of
credentials that a mariner may be required to carry to five. To
streamline the process and lessen the number of credentials that a
mariner must carry, this rulemaking proposes to consolidate the
license, MMD, COR and STCW endorsement into one credential, called the
Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC). The MMC would be issued to every
qualified mariner and would contain the mariner's photograph and other
identity information currently shown on the MMD as well as endorsements
reflecting the individual's particular job qualifications. The
mariner's job qualifications would appear in the form of endorsements
on the MMC. Endorsements currently associated with a License or COR
would be referred to as officer endorsements, those currently provided
on the MMD would be referred to as rating endorsements, and those
currently appearing on the STCW endorsement would continue to be
referred to as STCW endorsements. A full list of the available
endorsements is provided in proposed 46 CFR 10.109. If this rulemaking
goes into effect, mariners would hold two separate, but linked
credentials: a TWIC as the MTSA-required biometric security card, and
the MMC as the consolidated qualification credential for merchant
mariners.
To consolidate the merchant mariner qualification documents into
one, it is necessary to consolidate the Coast Guard's application and
procedural regulatory requirements for MMDs, licenses, CORs and STCW
endorsements that are currently contained in 46 CFR parts 10 and 12. As
proposed in this rulemaking, part 10 would contain only those
application and procedural requirements necessary to obtain the MMC for
all applicants. Those requirements for licenses, that are currently in
part 10 but are not directly applicable to all credential applicants,
have been moved to create a new part 11. Part 12 would continue to hold
only those requirements exclusive to ratings that do not directly apply
to the procedures for application.
In this proposed rulemaking, although there are a large number of
terminology changes proposed throughout titles 33 and 46 CFR, almost
all of the proposed substantive changes were made in part 10. The large
number of changes outside part 10 contain mostly editorial changes,
removing references to the terms ``license'', ``MMD'', ``COR'',
``certificate'', ``document'', etc that would no longer be appropriate,
and replacing them with the terms ``MMC'', ``credential'',
``endorsement'', ``officer endorsement'', ``rating endorsement'', etc.
as appropriate.
Throughout this rulemaking, where possible, existing regulatory
language was retained to minimize changes to the qualifications,
experience, examinations, classes and other requirements needed to
serve as a merchant mariner. At times, however, it was necessary to
make substantive changes to the regulatory text in order to consolidate
the application requirements for ratings and officers, or to simplify
the application process.
The regulatory changes proposed in this SNPRM are intended to serve
as a benefit to merchant mariners. This rulemaking is intended to take
advantage of the TWIC requirement, and use it to reduce the travel
burden on mariners and consolidate the credentialing process. It is not
only expected to reduce the financial burden on mariners by removing
the requirement that they travel to one of 17 Coast Guard RECs, but
also improve clarity, reduce the processing time currently creating
backlogs at the RECs, and reduce the number of fees paid to the Coast
Guard by mariners.
If the regulatory changes proposed in this SNPRM are made final, it
is not expected that they would become effective until approximately
August, 2008. The delay in effectiveness coincides with the TWIC roll
out schedule and is necessary to allow all mariners to obtain a TWIC
before it is a prerequisite for the MMC. In addition, it allows for the
construction and testing of the system that would transmit all
applicants' personal data from TSA to the Coast Guard.
IV. Quick Summary of Differences Between This SNPRM and the Coast
Guard's Current Regulations
This list is not intended to include every proposed change to the
regulations, but provides a quick reference summary of some of the most
important changes proposed.
General
Creates the merchant mariner credential (MMC), which would
contain the elements of the MMD, license, COR and STCW endorsement,
reducing the total number of credentials a mariner could be required to
hold to two: The MMC and the TWIC.
Phases in the MMC over a period of five years to begin
approximately August 2008.
Transfers the security and identity vetting portion of the
merchant mariner credentialing process entirely to TSA.
[[Page 3608]]
Provides a complete list of officer, rating and STCW
endorsements that a mariner could have on their MMC.
Reorganizes 46 CFR parts 10 and 12, and adds a new part
11.
Combines the definitions for Subpart B in part 10, with
the exception of those in part 16.
Makes non-substantive, linguistic changes throughout
titles 33 and 46 of the CFR to reflect the new MMC, endorsements, and
TWIC.
Fees
Reduces the number of $45 issuance fees a mariner would
have to pay.
Includes a credit card as an acceptable method of payment.
Removes the requirement that a full social security number
be written on the face of all checks and money orders.
Application Process
Requires an applicant to apply for a TWIC before they can
apply for an MMC, but the applications may be processed simultaneously.
Requires that an applicant must hold a TWIC before an MMC
will be issued.
Provides that an applicant's fingerprints, photograph,
proof of citizenship and, if applicable, FBI number, criminal record,
and/or proof of legal resident alien status will be received by the
Coast Guard from TSA, not directly from the applicant.
Travel
Removes the requirement for mariners to appear in person
at a Coast Guard REC to be fingerprinted by, and show proof of
identification to, an REC employee.
Allows mariners to apply for an MMC entirely by mail
unless an examination is required.
Allows oaths to be taken by a notary and submitted by
mail.
Creates the ability for the Coast Guard to designate other
facilities, in addition to RECs, to provide MMC services to applicants.
Citizenship
Revises the regulations to clearly state that cadets at
the United States Merchant Marine Academy are allowed to receive MMCs
regardless of citizenship or alien status. This is a statutory
requirement and is currently done under our regulations, but is not
expressly stated.
Criminal Record Review
Removes the criminal record review requirement for
duplicates.
Changes the Coast Guard criminal record review to remove
crimes against national security.
Medical and Physical Requirements
Resolves contradictory requirements for those who may
currently perform exams for MMDs and licenses, and adds licensed nurse
practitioners to the list of those who may perform, witness or review
mariner tests, exams or demonstrations.
Restates the requirement that pilots and those serving as
pilots submit their annual physical to the Coast Guard, previously
implemented through a Federal Register Notice.
Restates the requirement that pilots and those serving as
pilots submit their annual chemical test for dangerous drugs to the
Coast Guard, previously implemented through a Federal Register notice.
Clarifies the requirements for demonstrations of physical
ability.
Clarifies the STCW physical requirements for those
mariners who would serve on vessels to which STCW applies.
Requires hearing tests when the medical practitioner
conducting the general medical exam has concerns that an applicant's
ability to hear may impact maritime safety.
Adds specifics about the hearing tests to provide
information for medical professionals and applicants.
Requires a demonstration of physical ability if the
medical practitioner conducting the general medical exam is concerned
that an applicant's physical ability may impact maritime safety, or if
the mariner must pass a demonstration of physical ability but not a
general medical exam.
Specifies that if a state license issued to a medical
doctor or professional nurse contains limitations, any staff officer
endorsement issued will reflect the same limitation.
Expiration Dates
Consolidates all expiration dates into one so that
mariners do not have multiple qualification credentials or endorsements
expiring on multiple days. (However, the TWIC and MMC expiration dates
need not match.)
Memorabilia
Requires mariners to return MMCs to the Coast Guard upon
expiration, issuance of a duplicate and issuance of a renewal, but if
the mariner submits a written request with their credential, the Coast
Guard will return the cancelled MMC to the mariner.
Duplicates
Requires proof that a mariner holds a valid TWIC before a
duplicate MMC will be issued.
Provides that during the five year phase in of the MMC, if
a mariner requests a duplicate of their MMD, COR, STCW endorsement or
license, the duplicate will be issued in the form of an MMC.
Renewal
Removes the 1 year limitation on renewals.
Introduces the Document of Continuity to replace the
continuity endorsement placed on a license or MMD. The Document of
Continuity would have no expiration date or fee unlike the current
continuity endorsement.
Suspension, Revocation, and Appeal
Includes failure to hold a TWIC as a basis for suspension
and revocation of a mariner's MMC, MMD, license, COR and/or STCW
endorsement.
States that a mariner who has either been denied issuance
of a TWIC or whose TWIC has been revoked by TSA will be deemed by the
Coast Guard to be a security risk.
Advises that the Coast Guard will not review TSA decisions
to deny or revoke a TWIC.
V. Discussion of Comments and Changes
As discussed above, the Coast Guard conducted four public meetings
for this rulemaking. We also received over 200 documents in the written
docket. The Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) and the Merchant
Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) were also asked to provide
recommendations to the Coast Guard on the NPRM (USCG-2006-24371). This
section addresses those comments and recommendations received.
A. Comments From the Docket or Public Meetings
The following comments were either submitted in writing to the
docket for the MMC NPRM or orally at one of the four public meetings.
All written comments received and transcripts from the public meetings
are available for inspection in the public docket for this rulemaking.
1. Comments Regarding TWIC
We received numerous comments to the docket regarding the TWIC.
Because this rulemaking project has its own docket number (USCG-2006-
24371) and the TWIC rulemaking project has two dockets, one for the
Coast Guard
[[Page 3609]]
portion (USCG-2006-24196) and one for the TSA portion (TSA-2006-24191),
there were three dockets in which the public could comment. Most
commenters submitted their comments to both rulemaking projects in one
document, submitted to all three dockets. Comments regarding the TWIC
rulemaking are inappropriate for discussion in this rulemaking. They
are not addressed in this SNPRM, but are addressed in the TWIC final
rule.
2. General Objection to the Rulemaking
We received six comments generally objecting to the NPRM that did
not provide enough specificity for individual response. We do not agree
with these comments, and are proceeding with this SNPRM.
3. Course of the Rulemaking
We received one comment recommending that the Coast Guard proceed
with an Interim Rule rather than a Final Rule, two comments
recommending that we go forward with a SNPRM and four comments
requesting that the Coast Guard withdraw the rulemaking and propose an
alternative.
We agree with the two comments that sought an SNPRM, and as
previously discussed, this SNPRM provides a 90 day comment period to
allow for public comment on our revised proposed rule. An Interim Rule
would be inappropriate at this time as Interim Rules would not allow us
to take into account the comments received by the public before
becoming effective and they typically become effective upon
publication, or soon thereafter. This SNPRM proposes that these
regulatory changes not go into effect until approximately August 2008.
This delay will allow the Coast Guard to accept and apply additional
public comments before the proposed regulations go into effect as well
as provide all mariners ample time to obtain TWICs before making the
TWIC mandatory for issuance of the MMC. As for withdrawing the
rulemaking, the Coast Guard believes that this rulemaking is beneficial
and is opposed to withdrawal.
4. Appeals
We received seven comments either requesting a clarification of the
appeal process for TWICs and MMCs, or requesting that an appeal process
be created. We also received 12 comments asking that an Administrative
Law Judge review the appeals on rejection of the TWIC, and/or
expressing displeasure over the automatic loss of the MMC if a
mariner's TWIC is revoked.
An individual who is denied a TWIC should not be working as a
credentialed merchant mariner. According to the language of 46 U.S.C.
70105, a TWIC will be issued to an individual unless that individual
poses a security risk. 46 U.S.C. 7703 and 7702, which provide for the
suspension or revocation of mariner credentials, state that a mariner's
credential may be suspended or revoked if the holder is a security risk
who poses a threat to the safety or security of a vessel or to a public
or commercial structure located within or adjacent to the marine
environment. Allowing the Coast Guard to suspend or revoke a mariner's
MMC or other credential for failure to hold a valid TWIC, is therefore,
necessary and appropriate. The Coast Guard has determined, however,
that automatically invalidating a mariner's credential upon
notification from TSA that a mariner's TWIC has been revoked, or that
their application has been denied, without a hearing, is improper. The
language of 46 CFR 10.203(b) has been changed to remove the automatic
invalidation.
If an MMC is issued, unless the situation calls for temporary
suspension under 46 U.S.C. 7702, or the circumstances call for
suspension and revocation for a reason other than security, the Coast
Guard would not begin suspension and revocation proceedings until we
were notified that the applicant had fully exhausted his or her TSA
appeal rights. If the Coast Guard is notified by TSA that final agency
action has occurred and a mariner has either been denied a TWIC or
their TWIC has been revoked, the Coast Guard would begin suspension and
revocation action against the individual's MMC. The suspension and
revocation procedures for the MMC would remain the same as those
presently used. The Coast Guard will not review a TSA decision
regarding the issuance or revocation of a TWIC. Decisions regarding the
issuance and revocation of TWICs are solely the responsibility of TSA.
The Coast Guard does not have the authority to review, in any way, TSA
decisions with respect to the issuance or revocation of TWICs. Language
to this effect has been added to the proposed regulations in this SNPRM
at 46 CFR 10.235(g) and 10.237(c).
The appeal processes for the MMC would remain the same as those
presently used; the right of appeal for an applicant receiving an
unfavorable decision during the application process remains in 46 CFR
1.03. The right of appeal associated with suspension and revocation
remains as stated in 46 CFR 5.701. The proposed regulations have
retained the paper appeal process for the Coast Guard's refusal to
issue an MMC. Similarly, if a mariner is issued a license or document,
he or she would be a ``holder'' of that license or document, and would
be given a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) before
adverse action, such as suspension and revocation, would be taken
against that credential.
All appeals regarding the issuance or revocation of TWICs would be
handled by TSA under the TWIC appeal process. That process involves a
paper appeal for all denials, and the use of an ALJ for appeals of
waiver decisions. For more information on the TWIC appeal process,
please see the TWIC Final Rule published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register.
5. Applicability
We received six comments opposing the proposed regulatory
requirement that all merchant mariners hold a TWIC. Exemptions were
requested for cadets, entry level ratings, officers serving aboard
vessels that do not need a vessel security plan, and captains of
Subchapter T (46 CFR parts 175 to 185) or smaller vessels.
The requirement for all credentialed mariners to hold a TWIC is
contained in 46 U.S.C. 70105 and implemented in the TWIC final rule
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. By the terms of that
statute, all mariners issued a credential under part E of subtitle II
of Title 46 U.S.C. (currently the MMD, license and COR, and if this
proposed rule becomes effective, the MMC), as well as all individuals
seeking unescorted access to secure areas of 33 CFR Subchapter H
vessels or facilities must obtain a TWIC. This is a statutory
requirement imposed by Congress that the Coast Guard cannot alter
through regulation. In addition to the statutory mandate, exempting
classes of credentialed mariners from the TWIC requirement would be
problematic because it would exempt those individuals from the identity
and security review which would no longer be performed by the Coast
Guard. No changes have been made in this SNPRM to exempt certain
classes of mariners from the TWIC or MMC requirements.
One comment requested clarification on how the proposed 46 CFR
10.211 would affect requirements in section 312 of the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 that allow foreign riding gangs for
60 days at a time.
Section 10.211 discusses the criminal record review process for the
MMC. If the foreign riding gangs are currently required to obtain a
U.S. MMD, license, COR or STCW endorsement, they would be required to
obtain an MMC. This
[[Page 3610]]
includes passing all requirements for the MMC, including the criminal
record review, citizenship and TWIC requirements. This proposed
regulation would not change the population of people who must obtain a
mariner credential.
One comment requested clarification on how 46 CFR 10.211 would
affect foreign security teams who are not mariners, but provide
security services on U.S.-flagged vessels and need unescorted access on
the vessel.
Generally, individuals who are not merchant mariners and are not
currently required to hold a MMD, license, COR or STCW endorsement
would not be required to get an MMC. The MMC merely changes the form in
which the MMD, license, COR and STCW endorsements appear by
consolidating them into one document. Anyone who currently has to hold
one or more of those credentials would be required to hold an MMC.
Individuals who are not required to get an MMC will not be required to
undergo the criminal record review set out in section 10.211. More
specifically, individuals who are engaged, employed, or serve on board
a vessel of at least 100 gross tons, as measured under 46 U.S.C. 14502,
or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 (except as set out
in 46 U.S.C. 8701(a)) are currently required to obtain an MMD. In
general this is interpreted by the Coast Guard to mean that any
individual engaged or employed in the business of the ship, or a person
whose efforts contribute to accomplishing the ships' business whether
or not the person is involved with the operation of the vessel, must
obtain an MMD, and therefore would be required to obtain an MMC. For
additional information on the requirements for seamen on U.S.
documented vessels and foreign vessels within U.S. jurisdiction, see
Commandant Instruction M16000.8B, Marine Safety Manual Volume III,
chapter 20, section E.
6. Application Process
We received one comment regarding the complexity of the application
process and requesting that it be streamlined. We received eight
comments that this rulemaking will hurt the ability of industry to
recruit and retain qualified mariners.
The Coast Guard believes that the consolidation of the 46 U.S.C.,
subtitle II, part E credentials and the removal of the requirement that
mariners travel to one of the 17 REC locations will serve as a benefit
to mariners, and therefore, aid the industry's ability to recruit and
retain employees. This rulemaking seeks to streamline the application
process by removing the appearance requirement; through the
consolidation and clarification of existing requirements; by reducing
the number of issuance fees that must be paid to the Coast Guard; and
through the sharing of information between TSA and the Coast Guard.
This proposed rulemaking should remove duplication of effort by the
government and applicants resulting in a cost savings. The requirement
that all merchant mariners obtain a TWIC, and the cost and burden
associated with that requirement, is contained in the TWIC final rule
which is published elsewhere in today's Federal Register and will go
into effect even before the comment period on this SNPRM will close. If
you believe that the regulatory changes in this proposed rulemaking,
not the TWIC rulemaking, will add a burden, or will limit your ability
to recruit and retain qualified mariners, please submit a comment to
the docket explaining your concerns in detail.
Two comments requested a web-based application process and
tracking.
This is something that the Coast Guard is contemplating. Although
such a process is not in place at this time, 46 CFR 10.209(d) as
currently proposed would support such an option, as it states that the
written portion of the application may be submitted by mail, fax, ``or
other electronic means.''
One comment sought a single application process for the TWIC and
MMC and another comment sought a more streamlined process stating
``there is nearly a 50 percent failure rate in applying for the MMD due
to multiple forms and information''. Finally, there were four comments
received that were concerned that the consolidation would result in an
increase in paperwork.
We acknowledge that the new requirement to apply for a TWIC will
result in an increase in the overall number of applications that must
be submitted by mariners because they will need to submit an
application for the TWIC and a separate application for the MMC. We are
making every feasible attempt to reduce the burden on applicants from
the requirement added by the TWIC rule. Because TSA will share the
fingerprint, photograph, proof of citizenship and, if applicable, FBI
number, criminal record and/or proof of legal resident alien status
with the Coast Guard, we propose to remove the requirement that all
merchant mariners travel to one of 17 RECs. Instead, the proposed
regulation would allow mariners to apply for the MMC by mail after
applying for a TWIC and visiting one of the approximately 125 TWIC
enrollment centers located throughout the country. The restructuring of
the merchant mariner credentialing process is an ongoing and
incremental process. This proposed consolidation of credentials and the
associated TWIC rulemaking are only a small piece in the envisioned
effort. The restructuring of the National Maritime Center (NMC), the
publishing of additional Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars
(NVICs), guidance documents, and future rulemaking projects are all
intended to improve and streamline the merchant mariner credentialing
process, reduce the review periods, and lower the application failure
rate.
It is not feasible at this time for TWIC enrollment centers to
receive and analyze the safety and suitability information necessary to
determine whether a mariner should be issued an MMC. The Coast Guard is
cooperating with TSA to shift the responsibility for reviewing the
identification and security threat portion of the application for MMCs
from the Coast Guard to TSA. However, because more than identity and
security related issues are involved with merchant mariner
credentialing, the Coast Guard will remain in control of those portions
of the evaluation that address whether an individual is a safe and
suitable person who should be authorized to serve in the merchant
marine. Maintenance of the merchant marine is an area in which the
Coast Guard has a long-standing history of regulation, and is one which
we are inherently more qualified to manage. On the other hand, the
security of our nation's transportation industry is the statutory
responsibility of TSA, and should not be taken over by the Coast Guard.
The creation of an identification credential which could span all
sectors of the transportation industry is outside the scope of Coast
Guard responsibility and expertise. The TWIC is best left in the hands
of TSA with Coast Guard assistance with respect to vessels, ports, and
merchant mariners. Due to the vastly different purpose and need
associated with the TWIC and the MMC, the Coast Guard and TSA have
opted not to consolidate their application processes and reviews into
one.
One comment was received that sought walk-in service at the RECs,
not only a mail submission process.
Mariners will have the option of submitting their MMC application
entirely by mail, and would not be required to visit one of the 17 RECs
unless an examination is required for the endorsement they seek. Some
endorsements require written examination as currently provided in 46
CFR 10.901 (proposed Sec. 11.901, in this SNPRM). The RECs, however,
will
[[Page 3611]]
remain open and accessible to mariners for purposes other than the
examinations. Mariners will still be able to walk into an REC to submit
their applications in person, ask questions, and seek in-person
guidance.
We received one comment that mariners will be required to hold both
an MMD and a TWIC until the phase-in period is complete.
While this is true, it is temporary and necessary in order to
facilitate a smooth transition while reducing the burden on mariners as
much as possible. The Coast Guard is honoring the five year validity
period of a mariner's current MMD, license, COR or STCW endorsement to
meet our statutory obligations under 46 U.S.C. 7107 and 7302, as well
as prevent mariners from undergoing an unnecessary early renewal. The
MMC will be phased in over a five-year period, because it will be
issued as mariners' current credentials expire.
During the five-year phase-in period of the MMC, when a mariner's
MMD expires, he or she will apply for an MMC, not another MMD. The
Coast Guard envisions that we will begin issuing MMCs exclusively once
the TWIC becomes mandatory for all mariners. According to the TWIC
implementation schedule, the TWIC will be phased in over an 18 month
period, during which time individuals will be enrolled in the TWIC
program at locations across the country. Although other vessel/facility
workers are required to apply for a TWIC during their particular
vessel/facility's scheduled enrollment period, merchant mariners are
allowed to visit any of the TWIC enrollment centers at any time during
the 18 month initial enrollment period. It is important to note,
however, that vessels or facilities may begin to use the TWIC for
access control once enrollment has been completed in their geographic
location. Because mariners are inherently mobile, they may need to
visit one of the vessels or facilities that have begun requiring the
TWIC for access control before the end of the 18 month period. An
interim measure has been created in the TWIC rule that will give
mariners access to secure areas of 33 CFR Subchapter H regulated
vessels and facilities with their MMD, or their license or COR and a
valid photo ID until full TWIC enrollment has been completed.
The Coast Guard does not envision that this rule will become
effective until TWICs are mandatory for all credentialed mariners.
Because the Coast Guard will continue to issue MMDs, licenses, CORs and
STCW endorsements under our current regulations until this rule becomes
effective, for up to five years after the TWIC becomes mandatory
individuals holding MMDs will also hold a TWIC until their MMD expires.
The TWIC is an identity credential that Congress made mandatory for all
merchant mariners as well as those seeking unescorted access to secure
areas of 33 CFR Subchapter H regulated vessels and facilities. It does
not contain the rating endorsements that appear on the MMD. Conversely,
the MMD does not contain the electronic biometric information found on
the TWIC, and does not satisfy the goal of having one unique credential
for unescorted access. Until an MMC is issued containing the mariner's
rating information, mariners will have to hold both a TWIC and an MMD.
In this SNPRM the Coast Guard is proposing to begin issuing MMCs in
approximately August 2008. This 20 month delay coincides with the
completion of the TWIC initial enrollment period. It is possible that
the Coast Guard could begin issuing mariner credentials in the form of
MMCs within the TWIC enrollment period if the credentialing material
and production machinery is available before that time. In addition, it
is possible that the Coast Guard and TSA could begin sharing
application information before August 2008 if the technology
infrastructure has been established and fully tested before that date.
7. Authority
We received 20 comments alleging that the Coast Guard lacks the
legal authority to consolidate the MMD, COR and license into the MMC.
More specifically, 13 of these 20 comments focused on the authority to
change licenses to officer endorsements. We received one additional
comment that claimed the Coast Guard is ``attempting a regulatory short
cut'' through this regulation rather than through a legislative change
proposal.
The proposed change will not affect the legal standing of merchant
marine officers. Section 10.201 in the proposed rulemaking describes
the characteristics and purpose of the MMC, explaining that it combines
the elements of the MMD, COR, license and any other required
endorsements (such as STCW) into a single document. This is a valid
exercise of the Coast Guard's broad authority under 46 U.S.C. Part E.
With respect to licenses, 46 U.S.C. 7101 provides the Coast Guard
authority to issue licenses to various classes of qualified applicants.
The Code is not specific regarding the required form of the mariner's
credentials, including the license, allowing the Coast Guard to
exercise discretion through the rulemaking process.
``Merchant Mariner Credential'' is merely the term used to describe
the document issued by the Coast Guard that incorporates the mariner's
license with the MMD and other endorsements into one; with endorsements
listed on it depending on the mariner's qualifications. The term
``Officer Endorsement'' is merely the term used to describe the
qualifications of the mariner which are defined as licenses in the
current regulations. The mariner's actual capacity to serve in the
merchant marine as specified by the endorsements on his or her MMC is
unchanged by this proposed rulemaking.
8. Burden
We received 17 comments that generally objected to the additional
cost associated with this rulemaking, three comments that objected to
the regulatory burden on mariners and one comment that complained of
duplicative fees and costs to mariners. We received six comments that
these proposed rules will seriously burden the operation of U.S.-
flagged vessels and mariners without providing a genuine increase in
security. We received three comments that the TWIC and MMC program
costs would affect U.S. commerce negatively.
The Coast Guard disagrees with these comments. This proposed rule
should neither create an additional cost or burden on mariners or U.S.-
flagged vessels, nor should it negatively affect U.S. commerce. This
rulemaking is intended to reduce the burdens on mariners and streamline
the credentialing process. It should have little or no effect on the
operation of U.S.-flagged vessels or U.S. commerce as these vessels are
already required to hire only properly qualified and credentialed
merchant mariners. If a mariner must currently hold a MMD, license, COR
or STCW endorsement, he or she will be required to get an MMC in lieu
of the MMD, license, COR or STCW endorsement. It does not add to, or
subtract from, the population of mariners who would need to apply for
credentials. It should not have a negative impact on employers, and if
anything, it should be seen as a benefit because mariners would no
longer need to take time away from work to travel to an REC to apply
for their credential. In addition, the determination of security risk
associated with the TWIC is no more stringent than that analysis
currently employed for any of those four current credentials. Mariners
should actually see at least two tangible benefits from this rule: (1)
A reduction
[[Page 3612]]
in issuance fees for those holding multiple mariner credentials; and
(2) the reduction of the cost and burden associated with the
requirement to travel to an REC.
It is important to note that although this rule relies upon the
TWIC rule to function properly, it is separate and distinct from the
TWIC rule and that rule's statutory mandate requiring the issuance of a
biometric transportation security card. Costs associated with the TWIC
are discussed in that rulemaking and should not be attributed to this
rulemaking.
Under the current regulations, applicants pay a $45 issuance fee
for each credential that they apply for. Under the proposed rulemaking
applicants would only apply for a single MMC and as a result would only
be required to pay one $45 issuance fee regardless of the number of
endorsements that they carry. Any mariner who would, under the current
rules, require multiple mariner qualification documents, would benefit
from this change in the fee structure. In addition, approximately
14,000 mariners have more than one credential without aligned
expiration dates. The differences in these expiration dates would
require multiple trips to an REC. The issuance of the MMC would be of
particular benefit to those mariners as it would require them to track
and update only one document. In addition, there would be no user fee
charged, at all, for the issuance of a Document of Continuity, which is
the proposed replacement for the license or MMD with a continuity
endorsement. The Document of Continuity is discussed below in the
comments received about continuity.
This rulemaking also proposes to remove the requirement that all
mariners travel to an REC to be fingerprinted by, and show proof of
identification to, an REC employee. Instead, since the proposed TWIC
rule would require these same individuals to visit one of the many TWIC
enrollment centers to supply this information, the Coast Guard and TSA
have agreed to electronically share the information necessary to
complete the Coast Guard's safety and suitability analysis. The TWIC
rule anticipates that there will be more than 125 initial TWIC
enrollment centers established nation-wide for enrollment. Although the
final number of TWIC enrollment centers that will remain open after
initial enrollment is not known at this time, it is almost certain that
there will be significantly more than the 17 Coast Guard RECs. By
allowing mariners to visit TWIC enrollment centers instead of RECs,
this proposed rule would provide a potential benefit to mariners by
reducing their time and travel costs currently required to receive a
credential.
The Coast Guard asserts that the overall cost for mariners
associated with this rulemaking would actually decrease or remain the
same and would serve to provide more flexibility to mariners since
there would be more TWIC enrollment centers than RECs.
We received one comment alleging that the rule is an unfunded
mandate that does not provide for appropriate partnership between
government and industry.
The Coast Guard disagrees, and does not believe that this proposed
rulemaking will result in an unfunded mandate. The Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. As discussed above, this rulemaking is actually expected to
reduce costs associated with the credentialing of merchant mariners. In
addition, it should not affect any cost expenditure upon a State, local
or tribal government or private sector entity, and if it does create an
increase in cost to any of those entities it should be well below
$100,000,000 in any one year.
We received one comment that sought a particular economic review of
the financial impact of the rule on tall ship operators, and one that
sought an economic review of the financial impact of the rule on
training vessels.
The economic impact of this proposed rulemaking is addressed in
detail in the Regulatory Evaluation section below. Further economic
review will take place between this SNPRM and any further rulemaking.
If you believe that the consolidation of merchant mariner credentials
(not the requirement that merchant mariners must obtain a TWIC) will
negatively affect your business, please submit a detailed comment to
this SNPRM. If such information is confidential commercial information,
please mark the comment accordingly and submit it to Mr. Luke Harden at
the address listed above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
9. Citizenship
One comment noted that the citizenship exemption for Operator of
Uninspected Passenger Vessels (OUPV) was removed from the regulatory
text although the preamble table stated that it was retained.
This error has been corrected. In accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7102,
licenses and CORs for individuals on documented vessels may be issued
only to citizens of the United States. The Coast Guard has historically
interpreted the statute to allow an exemption for alien OUPVs who do
not work on documented vessels. Removal of this exemption from the
regulatory text was unintentional. Corrections have been made to 46 CFR
10.221, table 10.239 and 11.467 accordingly. These individuals will
still be required to meet the citizenship requirements for the TWIC set
out in that rule in the new 49 CFR 1572.17. Although the Coast Guard
does not believe that requiring a TWIC for OUPVs on undocumented
vessels will cause many individuals to lose their mariner credentials,
we are unable to create an exception from the TWIC requirement. It is
clear in 46 U.S.C. 70105 that all credentialed merchant mariners must
hold a TWIC. If an individual holds a license or an MMC with an officer
endorsement as OUPV, they must have a TWIC. Since this proposed
regulation is not expected to become effective until approximately
August 2008, foreign mariners should have time to meet the requirements
to obtain a TWIC, if possible.
On October 17, 2006, Congress passed the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364). In
that Act, Congress amended 46 U.S.C. 8103 to permit an alien allowed to
be employed in the U.S. under the Immigration and Nationality Act who
meets additional requirements for service as a steward aboard large
passenger vessels to obtain an MMD. Although language has not been
proposed in this rulemaking to address this new statutory authority,
the Coast Guard is aware of it and is initiating a separate rulemaking
to address these new requirements.
We received four comments inquiring about the citizenship
requirements for the crews of Offshore Supply Vessels (OSVs) and Mobile
Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs) in foreign waters.
This question appears to seek clarification as to the language of
46 CFR 15.720(a) and (b), which provide for the waiver of the
citizenship requirements in 46 U.S.C. 8103(a) and (b). The substance of
15.720(a) and (b) has not been removed in this proposed regulation. In
the SNPRM, citizenship requirements continue to be waived for OSVs
operating in a foreign port and MODUs operating beyond the water above
the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf as they are in the Coast Guard's
current regulations.
One comment expressed displeasure that lawful non-immigrants with
work authorizations would be precluded from obtaining a credential even
though they
[[Page 3613]]
may be lawfully employed on certain U.S.-flagged vessels and may
require an endorsement in the performance of their duties. Four
comments objected to limiting the issuance of MMCs to aliens admitted
for permanent residence.
No changes to the regulations have been made as a result of these
comments. The citizenship and alien status requirements are set by
statute and cannot be changed by the Coast Guard through regulation.
Statutory requirements in 46 U.S.C. 7102 mandate that licenses may only
be issued to U.S. citizens. The Coast Guard has carved out of that
language an exception for OUPVs serving on undocumented vessels, but
the statutory language provides no additional room for exception. With
respect to MMDs, 46 U.S.C. 8103 restricts the issuance of MMCs to
aliens who present acceptable documentary evidence that they are
lawfully admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence and cadets
enrolled at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. The proposed 10.221 would
not change the current requirements except that it now clearly states
that credentials may be issued to cadets enrolled at the U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy. This would not be a change from our statutory
requirement or current practice.
Four comments requested a clarification of the immigration status
requirements for the TWIC and their relationship to the MMC.
A full discussion of the immigration status requirements for the
TWIC is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. That said, all merchant
mariners holding a MMD, license, COR or STCW endorsement are required
to obtain a TWIC. Therefore all credentialed merchant mariners must be
U.S. citizens or would be required to meet the immigration requirements
for the TWIC which are contained in the proposed TWIC rulemaking at 49
CFR 1572.105. Mariners who are not U.S. citizens and cannot meet those
citizenship requirements, will not be issued a TWIC, and will be unable
to obtain an MMC. With the exception of some alien holders of OUPV
licenses, however, all mariners who are currently able to meet the
citizenship or immigration requirements for the MMD or license will be
able to meet the citizenship or immigration requirements for the TWIC.
10. Concurrent Processing of Applications
We received 32 comments about the current processing time for Coast
Guard merchant mariner credentials. We received two comments that this
rulemaking would increase the backlog of applications, and eight
comments that the TWIC and MMC will slow the documentation process.
Four comments were unclear as to whether the TWIC was required before
the MMC. One comment suggested that the Coast Guard issue the MMC
without the requirement for having a TWIC. Finally, we received 60
comments requesting concurrent processing of applications.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that mariners are dissatisfied with
the current processing time for merchant mariner applications. This
proposed rulemaking is one of the many ongoing projects that the Coast
Guard is undertaking in an effort to streamline the process and reduce
backlog. This proposed consolidation of credentials and the associated
TWIC rulemaking are only a piece of this effort. The restructuring of
the NMC, the creation of additional NVICs, guidance documents, as well
as current and future rulemaking projects are all intended to reduce
the evaluation period.
In addition to the Coast Guard's voluntary effort at restructuring
the mariner credentialing process and attempting to reduce processing
time, the recently passed SAFE Port Act mandates concurrent processing
of a mariner's TWIC and MMD by TSA and the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard
agrees that processing the MMC only after the TWIC has been issued
could potentially increase this backlog and be overly burdensome to the
mariner. As a result, changes have been made to 46 CFR 10.225(b)(2) to
allow new applicants to apply for their MMC if they either hold a valid
TWIC or can prove that they have applied for one in the past 30 days.
The MMC application could be processed simultaneously with the
individual's TWIC application. However, because of the Coast Guard's
need to obtain biometric and biographic information submitted by the
applicant at a TWIC enrollment center, the TWIC application must be
submitted before the MMC application. In addition, because of the need
to ensure that the applicant's identity has been verified and that he
or she has been determined not to pose a security risk, the Coast Guard
proposes to retain the requirement that the TWIC be issued to the
applicant before an MMC would be issued. Because applicants for
renewals, duplicates, or modifications should already hold a valid
TWIC, concurrent processing should not be an issue for those
applicants.
11. Continuity Licenses
One commenter was concerned about the loss of the continuity
license. Another comment stated that the proposed certificate of
continuity would be insufficient to meet the ``significant amount of
pride in the maritime industry evidenced by holding a license'', and
recommended that we issue the MMC with continuity endorsement but
exempt it from the TWIC requirement.
Although the actual continuity license has been removed from the
regulations in this proposed rulemaking, the concept of the continuity
license was retained. The concept existed in the NPRM at 46 CFR
10.227(i), and continues to exist in this SNPRM at 46 CFR 10.227(e),
but has been revised substantially from the language proposed in the
NPRM.
As proposed in this SNPRM, the Document of Continuity would take
the place of the inactive ``continuity'' license or MMD renewal. The
Coast Guard recognizes that one of the main purposes for the continuity
document is to allow those mariners temporarily working ashore to apply
as a renewal rather than as an original should they decide to return to
active status after a period of inactivity. The language of the MTSA at
46 U.S.C. 70105, however, requires all holders of merchant mariner
credentials issued under title 46 U.S.C. subtitle II, part E (the MMD,
license, COR, and MMC) to hold a TWIC. The continuity license is a
license, and is issued under 46 U.S.C. subtitle II, part E, therefore
all mariners holding a continuity license must get a TWIC. The Coast
Guard does not have the authority to limit this statutory requirement
to certain classes of mariners. We thought it over-burdensome and
unnecessary to require individuals who are not serving as merchant
mariners to undergo the expense and burden of obtaining a TWIC, and
thought that the addition of a TWIC requirement could reduce the number
of mariners that would be available for service in a time of national
need.
To avoid imposing the TWIC requirement on inactive mariners, we
created the concept of a Document of Continuity. The Document of
Continuity would not be an MMC, MMD, license or COR, and would not
authorize a mariner to serve. It would not be issued under 46 U.S.C.
subtitle II, part E. It is technically a receipt, issued by the OCMI,
acknowledging that the mariner once held a valid credential. To obtain
a Document of Continuity, a mariner would submit the same paperwork to
the Coast Guard as they would currently submit to get a license or MMD
with a continuity endorsement, except that mariners would also be
required to return the credential being renewed so that it can be
canceled. Since a
[[Page 3614]]
Document of Continuity will be issued only as a means to reserve an
inactive mariner's ability to apply as a renewal at some time in the
future, the mariner should not need to work under the authority of that
credential while the Coast Guard processes their application and should
not be burdened by the requirement to submit their current credential
for cancellation. Photocopies would no longer be accepted.
The Document of Continuity would be issued free of charge
(applicants for licenses or MMDs with a continuity endorsement are
currently charged $45), and the Document of Continuity would have no
expiration date (licenses or MMDs with a continuity endorsement are
currently valid for only 5 years). Mariners who are working on shore
and are not serving as merchant mariners, but who would prefer to hold
an MMC may apply for and receive an MMC after meeting all of the
requirements for renewal set out in 46 CFR10.227, including but not
limited to obtaining a TWIC, meeting the medical and physical
requirements in 46 CFR 10.215 and being drug tested.
12. Definitions
Four comments requested a definition of the term ``entry level
mariner''. A definition has been added to proposed 46 CFR 10.107 of
this SNPRM.
One comment requested a definition of ``DDE''. The definition for
the term ``designated duty engineer'' existed in section 10.107 of the
NPRM; we added the acronym for the term (``DDE'') to the definition in
this SNPRM.
Four comments requested a definition of the term ``U.S.C.G
sector''. The term has been removed in favor of retaining the broader
term ``Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection'', or ``OCMI'', which is
defined in section 10.107.
One comment requested revision of the definition of ``conviction''
to read ``a final judgment of guilty in a criminal case''. We have
chosen to retain the definition of the term ``conviction'' as the
requested language is too vague and would omit many convictions that
the Coast Guard currently uses to determine whether an individual is
safe and suitable to serve in the merchant marine.
13. Editing
Many small editorial changes were requested throughout the NPRM.
Due to the large number of these requests, and because of their non-
substantive nature, they are not discussed here individually. Most of
the requested changes were made in the SNPRM. The following is a
discussion of some of the more in-depth comments requesting editorial
changes:
One comment pointed out an inconsistent use of the term ``valid''
through out the regulations. Although the Coast Guard recognizes that
the regulations in Subchapter B could be written more clearly, since
most of the language and inconsistency exists in the current
regulations, this change is one that would be best handled in a
separate rulemaking when the Coast Guard revises Subchapter B to make
such linguistic changes throughout the subchapter.
Four comments requested a clarification of the intent behind 46 CFR
10.217(c)(3), and four comments noted that that section uses the
undefined terms ``regular certificates'', ``temporary permit'', and
``permanent certificate''.
The language regarding Merchant Marine Details at locations other
than the RECs came directly from the current 46 CFR 12.02-3(b). In the
NPRM, the language was expanded from ``Coast Guard Merchant Marine
Details abroad'' to ``Coast Guard Merchant Marine Details'', to allow
for more operational flexibility. Upon additional review of the intent
and language of the provision, the term ``abroad'' has been reinserted
into the regulation in this SNPRM. Also, this provision currently
exists for unlicensed personnel only, and was inadvertently extended to
all mariners in the NPRM. Language has been added in this SNPRM to
restrict this provision to ratings. Currently, 46 CFR 12.02-3(b) is
intended to allow mariners who require a replacement or renewal of a
Coast Guard issued credential to obtain temporary certificates from
Coast Guard facilities while overseas. This provision is rarely used,
and is typically associated with the need to support mariners assisting
in international conflicts. It was last used during Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Because the terms used in this section were merely carried
over from the existing regulations, definitions of the terms noted in
the comment were not added at this time.
Four comments requested a clarification of the relationship of 46
CFR 14.205 to 46 U.S.C. 8103(e).
The proposed change to 46 CFR 14.205 merely adds the TWIC and
replaces the word ``license'' with ``credential'' for those items that
a merchant mariner must present to the master or individual in charge
of the vessel before engagement for a voyage upon which shipping
articles are required. Individuals must present all those items that
are ``required by law for the service the mariner would perform''. If
the mariner is required by law to carry a credential, he or she will
have to present it before signing shipping articles. This requirement
stems from the requirement in 46 U.S.C. 10306 which requires mariners
to exhibit an MMD before signing shipping articles. Since the MMD will
now be in the form of an MMC, and a TWIC is a requirement for an MMC,
the TWIC and any other required ``credential'' must be exhibited. 46
U.S.C. 8103(e) involves the waiver of citizenship requirements for
individuals (other than master and radio officer) on a documented
vessel on a foreign voyage which must hire foreign mariners to fill a
vacancy until the vessel returns to a port where a U.S. citizen can be
obtained for the position. The current and proposed Coast Guard
regulations include this waiver provision in 46 CFR 15.720(a).
We received one comment requesting that 46 CFR 10.219 be revised to
allow payment with cash and credit cards when applying by mail, to
conform to the allowable payment options for personal appearance.
As a result of this comment, 46 CFR 10.219(d) has been revised in
this SNPRM, and credit card payment is proposed as an acceptable form
of payment. Due to the risk of theft, the Coast Guard will not accept
cash payment through the mail.
Three commenters requested that references to shipping
commissioners be removed throughout the regulations to be consistent
with amended statutes since shipping commissioners no longer exist.
46 CFR 12.10-1 has been revised in this SNPRM to remove the term
shipping commissioner. The removal of that term throughout the Coast
Guard's regulations will be considered in a separate rulemaking.
Two comments noted an inconsistent use of quotation marks
throughout the NPRM.
We disagree. When quotation marks are used in conjunction with
directions to the Federal Register, such as remove the word ``the'' and
add, in its place, the word ``for'', the quotation marks all appear to
be used consistently. Quotation marks have also been used around the
actual endorsement placed upon the MMC, such as an endorsement as
``Master''. This is the proper use of quotation marks. We recognize
that throughout the regulations, quotations have not been placed around
the endorsement in this fashion. This is an editorial change that will
be considered in the contemplated Subchapter B revision.
Four comments stated that the list of endorsements in proposed
10.109 are incomplete and restrictive.
[[Page 3615]]
We agree, and have revised 46 CFR 10.109 to include the missing
endorsements.
Two comments requested a title for 46 CFR Part 11.
We have entitled Part 11 ``OFFICER ENDORSEMENTS''.
One comment requested that we replace the words ``not more than''
with the words ``less than''.
We disagree with this request. Because the term ``not more than''
includes ``equal to'', and ``less than'' does not, this would change
the meaning of the terminology as well as the current tonnage
endorsements, and it would change the regulated populations of the
various officer tonnage categories. A further review of these terms is
envisioned in the STCW rulemaking that is currently in development.
14. Expiration Dates
We received two comments seeking an explanation of how the validity
date for training certificates would align with the uniform expiration
date of the MMC. We received three additional comments that the radar
observer endorsement should align with the MMC expiration date.
As proposed in this rulemaking, there is no relationship between
the expiration date of the MMC and the underlying training
certificates. The MMC, and any endorsements on it, will be valid for a
set 5 year period. It will be the mariner's responsibility to ensure
that at the time of application their training is up to date, and that
they ensure that their training certificates remain valid throughout
the period of endorsement. Changes have been made to 46 CFR 11.480(g)
to remove the requirement that the month and year of the radar-observer
certificate appear on the MMC. Similarly, section 11.480(k) has been
removed because it will be unnecessary to synchronize dates when there
will only be one date on the new MMC. Finally, 46 CFR 15.815 has been
revised to require mariners to have readily available evidence that
they hold a valid radar-observer certificate. This will allow mariners
the flexibility to maintain the actual certificate at home or at an
employer's office, but still allow them to provide proof of compliance
to inspectors.
Four comments were received that opposed aligning the expiration
dates of the TWIC and MMC, and one comment was received in favor of
making the expiration dates align.
It is not expected that mariners will be required to align the
expiration dates for the TWIC and MMC. A mariner must hold a valid TWIC
before an MMC will be issued, and failure to hold a valid TWIC may be
grounds for suspension and revocation of an MMC, but the expiration
dates do not need to match. Requiring them to match would cause the
period of validity of the MMC to be shorter than five years due to the
time it takes to apply for and process the TWIC and MMC applications.
It would also remove the ability for the Coast Guard to allow mariners
to apply for a renewal MMC at any time during the validity period (and
up to 1 year after expiration) as proposed in this rulemaking, because
the renewal periods for a TWIC remain limited. If mariners are required
to match the expiration dates of their credentials, they would have to
renew their MMC on the same schedule as their TWIC. Mariners are not
prohibited from voluntarily aligning their expiration dates, but it is
not required.
15. Format of the MMC
We received a large number of comments on the format of the MMC.
Five comments wanted the biometric TWIC card to also contain the
qualification information proposed for the MMC. Four comments wanted to
do away with the TWIC, and instead, modify the MMC to include biometric
data and an embedded chip. Nine comments wanted to retain the MMD, but
modify it to include biometrics and an embedded chip. One comment
generally objected to having a TWIC in addition to the MMC. One comment
generally requested one card for the MMC/MMD and TWIC. One comment
stated that the MMD is sufficient for mariners because the criminal
record and immigration status are already reviewed. Finally one comment
sought a more thorough analysis of why a single card cannot be issued.
Through 46 U.S.C. 70105, Congress has directed the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to issue a biometric transportation
security card to all individuals who need unescorted access to secure
areas designated in a vessel or facility security plan; individuals
issued credentials under part E of subtitle II of Title 46 U.S.C.
(credentialed mariners); vessel pilots; individuals working on a towing
vessel that pushes, pulls, or hauls alongside a tank vessel; certain
individuals with access to security sensitive information; and other
individuals engaged in port security activities.
The House Committee Report, written when the statute was still a
bill, but contained the language that was passed, states ``Section
70105 establishes a national standard for issuance of biometric
transportation security cards whose purpose is to control access to
secure terminal areas to only authorized personnel.'' The Department of
Homeland Security has interpreted this language, and the language of
the statute itself, to exhibit a Congressional intent that the
Secretary create a single biometric identification credential. This
national biometric transportation security card is to be used at all 33
CFR Subchapter H regulated vessels and facilities by everyone to whom
the statute applies. Such a uniform requirement would improve security
and reduce fraud through the creation of a single, recognizable
identity credential instead of multiple credentials that would be
dependant on the type of function that the individual would serve at
the vessel or facility.
The population of individuals covered by 46 U.S.C. 70105 includes a
large number of individuals outside of the merchant marine. Altering
the MMD to include biometric capabilities would not only fail to
satisfy the requirement for all of the people to whom the Secretary
must issue the credential, but it would not even cover the entire
population of mariners that are affected by the statutory mandate.
Altering the MMD to include biometric capabilities would cover only
those people who carry an MMD. As of December 31, 2005, of the total
estimated 205,000 merchant mariner population, 67,637 held only an MMD;
41,343 mariners held both a license and MMD; and 27,790 mariners held a
license, MMD and STCW endorsement (the remainder hold a license only,
which is not an identity document).
Allowing the MMD to serve as an alternate to TWIC would violate
this concept of a single uniform nationwide credential for all. Also
for this reason, we have opted not to consolidate the merchant mariner
credentials into the MMC with a biometric chip. Although this option
would be more expansive because it would at least create a uniform
biometric credential for all merchant mariners, it would not reach the
other categories of people included under the 46 U.S.C. 70105
requirement, and would therefore violate the intent and benefits that
could be derived from a single nationwide standard.
There are many other reasons why the Department of Homeland
Security has chosen not to place a biometric on the MMD or MMC in an
attempt at satisfying this statutory mandate. One of these reasons is
cost. The process proposed in this SNPRM would allow all mariners to
apply for their MMC entirely by mail. Mariners would apply for their
TWIC by going to one of the
[[Page 3616]]
over 125 TWIC enrollment centers to be fingerprinted, photographed, and
show proof of identification and citizenship status. TSA would then
share this information electronically with the Coast Guard. This
proposed regulation would result in a cost savings for mariners because
it would completely remove the need for all mariners to travel to one
of the 17 Coast Guard RECs. As proposed, the Coast Guard would no
longer conduct identity verification and security vetting. If the MMD
or MMC was to be re-vamped to include a TWIC-like biometric chip, then
those mariners who would get the MMD or MMC would have to travel to one
of the 17 RECs, instead of the 125 TWIC enrollment centers, to submit
their application information. This would be more of an inconvenience
to the mariner, as 125 locations are more likely to provide a shorter
travel distance than the Coast Guard's current 17 REC locations.
TWIC enrollment centers are for the gathering of information from
TWIC applicants only. Even if that were not the case, the collection of
application information, security vetting and the maintenance of the
database make up most of TSA's TWIC program expenses. If mariners were
allowed to register for a biometric MMD or MMC at a TWIC enrollment
center, they would still incur the security and application costs even
if they weren't applying for a TWC. In that situation, the cost to
mariners would increase, while the security benefit of a uniform
credential would be lost.
The addition of a biometric chip to either the MMD or MMC would
also significantly increase the costs to produce the card. Right now,
this SNPRM does not propose to change the fees for the MMC from those
that are currently charged for the license and MMD. If the Coast Guard
changed the MMD or MMC to conform to the TWIC technology, the cost of
the credential would increase.
The final option considered was to incorporate all of the merchant
mariner qualification information onto the TWIC. This is a goal that
the Coast Guard hopes to reach some time in the future; however, it is
simply not feasible at this time. STCW requires foreign port state
control officers to be able to read a mariner's qualification
credentials, and not all countries have the ability to read smart
cards. It is impractical, and for some it may be impossible, to print
all of the information that will appear on an MMC on the face of the
TWIC. In addition, although the technology continues to advance, the
type of technology used for the TWIC does not offer sufficient storage
for all of the information that the Coast Guard would need to put on
the MMC. At some point in the future the Coast Guard hopes that new
technology will be available, costs will be reduced, and international
capabilities will exist to make this a viable alternative.
For these reasons, the Coast Guard and TSA have opted to present
two separate, but linked credentials: a TWIC as the biometric security
card required in 46 U.S.C. 70105, and the MMC as the consolidated
qualification credential for merchant mariners.
We also received comments regarding the format of the MMC. One
comment objected to a certificate suitable for framing, and sought a
credential similar in size to the current MMD. One comment sought
either a laminated card or a frameable document. Two comments requested
a laminated card, and another two comments sought a smaller, wallet-
size credential.
For the reasons stated above, a laminated wallet-sized card, much
like the current MMD or the proposed TWIC, is not feasible at this time
due to international requirements and technological limitations.
The Coast Guard is also considering a passport-style credential.
The passport credential would have a thick, sturdy cover like the U.S.
passport, would have a page with the individual's photograph and
biographic information, and would have pages inside that would contain
a mariner's endorsements. STCW endorsements, for example, could be
contained on the center sheet and would contain all of the information
necessary to meet the STCW convention and code requirements. Officer
endorsements could be contained on opposing pages and would not contain
personal privacy information so that the credential could be opened to
that page for posting aboard vessels to satisfy the requirements of 46
U.S.C. 7110. Several other nations have already adopted a passport
style document as the primary mariner qualification credential. The
Coast Guard is currently investigating this option and the costs
associated with this format. We are concerned that a credential that
costs significantly more to produce could result in a future increase
in user fees.
Finally, two comments stated that the proposed format does not meet
the needs of blue-water or domestic mariners, and requested that the
Coast Guard seek guidance from mariners on the format.
We explicitly request public input on this subject during the
comment period for this SNPRM. Draft samples of a certificate format
and passport style format are available for inspection in the public
docket for this rulemaking. Please provide information as to the type
of credential that would best serve your needs and still meet domestic
and international requirements. Please provide comments on format,
cost, production possibilities, technology availability, or any
information you believe could help.
16. General
One commenter disagreed with the assertion that mariners could be
required to carry up to five credentials.
The Coast Guard disagrees. A mariner could hold up to five
credentials if the credentials are not consolidated. These five
credentials are the MMD, license, COR, STCW endorsement and TWIC. For
some mariners, the STCW endorsement is printed on the license, but in
most cases the STCW endorsement is a separate document. As of July 16,
2006, 139,791 mariners held a license, 63,466 mariners held an MMD, 530
mariners held a COR, 49,994 mariners held an STCW endorsement, and 13
mariners held all four.
Ten commenters were completely against the consolidation of
credentials.
The comments received to this point have not persuaded the Coast
Guard to abandon our proposal to consolidate the merchant mariner
credentials. This proposal will ultimately result in the simplification
of procedures, increased national security, decreased costs and
increased efficiency.
We received one comment that the Coast Guard has been unable to
ascertain and report on the number and type of valid licenses and MMDs
in existence at any time, suggesting a limitation on our ability to
call on mariners in response to a national emergency.
We disagree that this information is not readily available, or that
we have been unable to ascertain or report on this information. The
Coast Guard maintains an electronic database with this information and
can retrieve it whenever necessary. As stated above, as of July 16,
2006, 139,791 mariners held a license, 63,466 mariners held an MMD, 530
mariners held a COR, 49,994 mariners held an STCW endorsement, and 13
mariners held all four.
17. International Agreements
Seven comments stated that the proposed MMC fails to address the
ILO 185 Convention, and two comments generally recommended that we
harmonize the MMC with international standards.
The MMC will be harmonious with the International Convention on
[[Page 3617]]
Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978 as amended (STCW). However, efforts will not be taken to conform
the MMC to the requirements of the International Labour Organization
Seafarers' Identity Document Convention (Revised), 2003 (ILO-185) at
this time. As the United States is not a signatory to ILO-185, no plans
have been made at this time to produce an identification document
complying with that particular standard. The Coast Guard will ensure
that the MMC conforms to those international agreements to which the
United States is a party.
18. Information Sharing
We received one comment requesting a process where TSA routinely
notifies CG of TWIC evaluations.
The process for transferring data between TSA and the Coast Guard
has not been finalized at this time. As currently envisioned, however,
TSA would have the ability to push information to the Coast Guard upon
notification by the applicant that they are a merchant mariner or
applying to become a merchant mariner, and the Coast Guard would have
the ability to pull application data directly from TSA upon receipt of
an MMC application. The Coast Guard would also have access to TSA's
Identity Management System (IDMS) to allow us to verify that the
applicant holds a valid TWIC. Furthermore, if a mariner's TWIC is
revoked, TSA will notify the Coast Guard so that after the applicant
exhausts the TWIC appeal process, we could initiate suspension and
revocation action against the individual's MMC.
19. Interim Credentials
We received one comment recommending that 46 CFR 10.209 be amended
to allow the issuance of an interim MMC for applicants who have been
approved for a TWIC and have simultaneously applied for the MMC but are
awaiting final MMC approval. An additional comment requested that the
Coast Guard issue MMCs without a TWIC for seasonal workers.
The statutory requirements of 46 U.S.C. 70105 do not provide for
the exemption of seasonal workers from the obligation for all
credentialed merchant mariners to hold a TWIC. The general requirement
to hold a TWIC is discussed further in the TWIC final rule published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The Coast Guard seeks additional
pubic comment with respect to the issuance of interim MMCs. In 46
U.S.C. 7302(g), the Coast Guard was given the statutory authority to
issue an interim credential to the following people:
(1) An individual to be employed as gaming personnel, entertainment
personnel, wait staff, or other service personnel on board a passenger
vessel not engaged in foreign service, with no duties, including
emergency duties, related to the navigation of the vessel or the safety
of the vessel, its crew, cargo or passengers; or
(2) An individual seeking renewal of a rating endorsement, or
qualifying for a supplemental rating endorsement.
This interim credential could only be valid for up to 120 days and
could only be issued one time to the people covered in paragraph (1)
above. This statute gives the Coast Guard the authority to issue these
interim credentials, but does not make them mandatory.
At this time, the Coast Guard is not in favor of adding interim
MMCs to the regulations. We have amended the proposed regulations to
include concurrent applications, which should speed the application
process, and we believe that adding in the processing time to issue an
interim credential would add a burden onto REC personnel which would
negate the time benefit created by this concurrent review change. In
addition, it is imperative that the Coast Guard verify that an
individual has all required qualifications before they are allowed to
serve aboard a commercial vessel. Ensuring that the individual is not a
security risk through the TWIC is only a part of the merchant mariner
credentialing process. The potential risks to life and property and the
inherently dangerous nature of a career in the merchant marine creates
a heightened need to ensure that the individual is a safe and suitable
person for the job.
Although the Coast Guard is not currently in favor of adding
interim credentials to our regulations, we specifically seek public
comment on this issue to aid us in making a final decision.
We received one comment requesting a transition period that would
permit mariners to continue working even if their current credentials
are expired, as long as they can demonstrate that they have applied for
and are awaiting a TWIC.
As discussed above, the security review is only a part of the
merchant mariner credentialing process. Expiration dates are created so
that a mariner's background and professional qualifications can be re-
evaluated every five years to ensure that they are still qualified to
hold that credential. Under the proposed regulations, although mariners
will not be allowed to work after the credential expires, they will be
allowed to renew their credentials at any time before expiration and up
to one year after expiration, so mariners are free to renew their MMC
at whatever time is most convenient to them. It will be up to the
mariner to ensure that he or she applies for renewal early enough to
ensure that they always hold a valid MMC.
20. Invalid Credentials
Four comments requested that the Coast Guard require mariners to
send an invalid credential to the Coast Guard for cancellation, but
agree to return the canceled credential to the mariner for sentimental
purposes; and two additional comments requested that we resolve the
inconsistency in the NPRM regarding the return of cancelled
credentials.
We have revised 10.209(g), 10.225(b)(5), 10.227(d)(4) and
(e)(2)(i), 10.223(c)(5), 10.231(c)(5) and 10.233(c) in response to
these comments. The requirement to return credentials that are expired,
invalid, or have been renewed remains; however, mariners may request in
writing, at the time of submission, that the canceled credential be
returned to them after cancellation.
21. License Creep
We received five comments requesting that the MMC be effective upon
the original renewal date regardless of when the mariner applied for
renewal.
The Coast Guard is aware of the ``license creep'' problem, and is
working to solve it. License creep occurs because although a mariner's
credential is technically valid for a five year term, they must apply
to renew that credential before the close of that five year term so
that there will not be a gap between when their new credential is
issued and the old one expires. Mariners frequently find themselves
applying for renewal many months before the expiration of their
credential to ensure that they will receive their new credential in
time. Licenses, MMDs (and as proposed, MMCs) are valid for five years
from the date of issuance. This means that if their renewal is issued
before the expiration date of the credential being renewed, the mariner
loses the period of time they could have served on their expiring
credential measured from the date the new credential is issued to the
expiration date of the expiring credential. Essentially, the five-year
validity term ``creeps'' back with each renewal.
[[Page 3618]]
The comments suggested that the Coast Guard issue renewal
credentials with an effective date that would match the expiration date
of their expiring credential so that there is continuity in validity
and the preservation of a full five-year validity term. We deliberated
over this comment for quite some time. In the end, we determined that
the solution presented by the comments requires further research due to
possible legal implications. Statutory limitations were placed on the
Coast Guard by Congress in 46 U.S.C. 7702 and 7703 that restrict those
bases on which we may initiate suspension and revocation procedures
against a mariner's credential. Certain paragraphs in those sections
only allow the Coast Guard to seek suspension and revocation against a
mariner's credential for actions that they take while acting under the
authority of the credential. The concern is that a mariner cannot be
acting under the authority of a credential that is not yet effective.
The Coast Guard can initiate suspension and revocation actions against
a mariner's current credential for those acts done while acting under
the authority of that credential, but that suspension and revocation
action may not legally apply to a renewed credential that has already
been issued but would become effective at some point in the future.
Considering other methods of solving the license creep issue, we
also thought about linking the MMC expiration date to an applicant's
birth date, much like the method used for state driver's licenses. We
realized that this option, too, would not be feasible. It would punish
applicants who sought to renew early after applying for new
endorsements in the middle of the credential's validity period. They
would receive those endorsements, but they would not be effective until
their next birthday, so they would not be able to work in those jobs
until that date. The same problem would occur with respect to new
applicants. Unless the credential was actually issued on their
birthday, it would either be shorter than the five year period
(validity began in the past) or there would be a gap during which the
mariner would not be able to work (validity would begin at some point
in the future). Furthermore, making the credential effective on their
last birthday would not only fail to solve the problem, but it would be
a clear violation of 46 U.S.C. 7106 and 46 U.S.C. 7302(f) which state
that credentials issued must be valid for five year periods and may be
renewed for five year periods. This language provides no leeway to
shorten or lengthen the validity period of the credentials.
These are only two of the regulatory options the Coast Guard has
considered to end the problem of license creep. We will continue to
analyze this issue and will attempt to address it in the final rule if
a legally sufficient solution can be arranged. We encourage public
comment on this issue, and welcome any solutions that the public wishes
to propose. In the meantime we suggest that mariners request delayed
issuance, in writing, at the time they submit their renewal
applications. According to National Maritime Center (NMC) Policy Letter
09-03, RECs have been directed by the Commanding Officer of the
National Maritime Center (NMC) to delay issuance of renewed credentials
upon written request from the applicant. This policy was created in
direct response to the license creep problem and has been in effect at
the RECs since 2003. A copy of this policy letter is available in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
22. Loss of License as Separate Credential
We received six comments expressing displeasure that the Coast
Guard is proposing to change the license to a generic credential, 10
comments objecting to the license being substituted by a card, and 23
comments objecting to the loss of a license as a separate credential.
The Coast Guard is considering various formats for the MMC. We
expressly request input as to how the credential should be arranged,
the form in which it should appear, and methods that could be employed
to differentiate between officers and ratings. The final document must
balance the recognition of a mariner's accomplishment with the benefits
of efficiency and savings associated with combining multiple
credentials into one document. As noted above, we have received
comments requesting that the MMC come in various forms, including 8.5 x
11, passport size, card size, and laminated. We are taking all of these
comments into consideration and are working to create a credential that
will satisfy the needs of mariners while being as cost efficient as
possible.
The Coast Guard is also considering a different format of the MMC
for officers and ratings. If it was passport style, perhaps the cover
of an MMC with officer endorsements would appear in a different color
from that of an MMC without officer endorsements. If it were in an 8.5
x 11 format, perhaps the MMC containing officer endorsements could have
a distinctive border around it, a seal, or some other feature that
would distinguish it from an MMC without officer endorsements.
As discussed above, at this time the Coast Guard has not been
persuaded that there is a compelling need to retain the separate
credentialing process for officers and ratings which would outweigh the
benefits associated with the combined credential. In addition to the
cost benefits associated with the omission of the requirement to appear
at an REC resulting from the integration of the TWIC, the combined
credential would serve to reduce issuance fees, and would allow for
more streamlined and efficient processing at the RECs. Also, the
consolidation of the regulations would remove the many inconsistencies
that currently exist between the requirements and process associated
with approving MMDs and licenses in our current regulations. If a
format other than an 8.5 x 11 non-laminated sheet of paper is selected,
the combined credential would reduce the likelihood of tearing and
water damage that is currently associated with the license. It would
assist the Master of a vessel when determining a mariner's
qualifications under 46 CFR 15.401. It would aid the mariner in the
renewal process by providing only one credential with one expiration
date vice many. Finally, as of December 31, 2005, 41,343 mariners held
both a license and MMD, and as of July 16, 2006, 13 mariners actually
held all four credentials; the consolidation would reduce the number of
credentials that they have to carry and issuance fees that they have to
pay. For these reasons, the Coast Guard continues to believe that the
consolidation of credentials is a good idea and continues forward with
the concept in this SNPRM.
23. Medical
We received four comments that objected to the incorporation of
medical and physical guidance contained in Navigation and Vessel
Inspection Circulars (NVICs) without public review.
Policy guidance regarding the regulatory medical and physical
requirements is contained in NVIC 2-98 which is available to the public
in many places including the Internet at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nvic/index.htm.
The Coast Guard is currently working on a revision of
NVIC 2-98, which has been provided to the public for comment and is
available through the Docket Management System at docket number USCG-
2006-25080, but is not yet final as of the signature date of this
SNPRM. This proposed regulation does not seek to incorporate either
NVIC by
[[Page 3619]]
reference. The intent of the sentence placed into 46 CFR 10.215(a) in
the NPRM was to merely highlight that there is additional guidance on
medical and physical competence issued by the Coast Guard. Due to the
apparent confusion caused by that sentence, it has been removed.
One comment stated that 46 CFR 10.215 should address problems with
medical issues, but provided insufficient information to determine what
problems the commenter believed needs to be addressed.
One comment opposed allowing nurse practitioners to perform,
witness, or review the required test, exam or demonstration in proposed
section 10.215. Three comments, however, approved of the change and
requested that nurse practitioners also be allowed to consult with the
Coast Guard in the recommendation of a waiver.
Under our current regulations, licensed physician assistants are
allowed to conduct these exams. There have been no problems with this
policy. Licensed nurse practitioners are also recognized as independent
mid-level practitioners within the medical community. No problems are
contemplated with allowing nurse practitioners to provide this service
as well. As a result, we have also amended proposed section 10.215(g)
in this SNPRM to allow licensed nurse practitioners to consult with the
Coast Guard with respect to medical waivers.
One comment suggested that we remove the table and text of section
10.215 or correct it to remove STCW standards that have been
incorrectly applied to domestic mariners.
The table of section 10.215 provides a quick reference source for a
mariner to determine what test, exam or demonstration applies to the
endorsement sought. It is intended to supplement the regulatory text.
Changes have been made to the table as a result of this comment to
reflect the differences between the requirements for all mariners and
those that apply only to individuals serving on vessels to which STCW
applies.
The requirement for a demonstration of physical ability has been
removed for staff officers, applicants seeking an endorsement for
proficiency in survival craft, and food handlers serving on vessels to
which STCW does not apply. As a practical matter, however, staff
officers and those seeking endorsements for proficiency in survival
craft typically will have rating or officer endorsements that would
already require the applicant to satisfy this requirement. The language
in the table was also revised to limit the requirement for ratings to
pass a demonstration of physical ability. It now reads: ``Ratings,
including entry-level, serving on vessels to which STCW applies, other
than those listed above''. This conforms to the exception for non-STCW
mariners that existed in paragraph (e) in the NPRM and has carried over
to the SNPRM. Also in the NPRM, the demonstration of physical ability
was required for all food handlers, not just those to whom STCW
applies. Food handlers have now been broken down to those to whom STCW
applies, and those it does not.
Also, as a result of this comment, paragraph (e) was revised to
further limit the demonstration of physical ability requirement to only
those applicants whose medical practitioner, during the performance of
the applicant's general medical exam, becomes concerned that the
applicant's physical ability may impact maritime safety. It would also
apply to those applicants who are not required to pass a general
medical exam. This change was made because during the general medical
exam, a medical practitioner should be able to determine whether an
applicant's physical ability would impact maritime safety. If this is
not a concern, requiring a demonstration of physical ability is not
necessary. Finally, a new paragraph (h) has been added to the end of
the section to specifically exclude individuals only seeking MMCs with
staff officer endorsements from the requirements of section 10.215.
One comment recommended that the certifying person should be
required to certify that they are familiar with the Coast Guard's
physical standards and the rigors of marine employment.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this recommendation. Requiring
medical professionals to sign such an additional statement is
unnecessary. Forms CG-719K and CG-719K/E include a partial list of
physical demands for performing the duties of a merchant mariner. In
addition, medical professionals are referred to NVIC 2-98 discussed
above, and the regulations. These notices should be sufficient to
provide a minimal familiarization as to the Coast Guard's physical
standards and the rigors of marine employment.
One comment sought penalties for mariners who supply false
information to certifying physicians and/or employers or who fail to
disclose material information about their physical condition.
The Coast Guard agrees with the general sentiment of this comment,
but disagrees that such a change needs to be placed in our regulations.
18 U.S.C. 1001 provides criminal penalties for making a false official
statement to the Federal government. That statutory penalty applies to
any mariner that falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact; makes any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses
any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. The
penalty is up to five years in prison and/or a $5,000 fine, and that
increases if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism.
This penalty would apply to any material misrepresentation or omission
directly to the Coast Guard in the application, or any material
misrepresentation or omission to the mariner's physician or employer
that would affect the Coast Guard's credentialing decision.
We received 18 comments stating the inclusion of additional hearing
standards in 10.215(c) are unnecessary, and one additional comment that
the hearing test thresholds in that section are overly prescriptive and
should be substituted with a more performance-based approach that is
tied to the mariner's duties on the vessel.
Section 10.215(c) has been rewritten in this SNPRM. It has been
revised to limit the categories of mariners who must undergo the
hearing exam, and provides more information to medical professionals
conducting the exam. In the NPRM, the introductory text to paragraph
(c) referred to a different test than the hearing thresholds discussed
in subparagraphs (c) (1) and (2). This was clarified and corrected in
the SNPRM. In addition, in subparagraphs (c) (1) and (2), the word
``should'' was replaced with the word ``must'', as the proposed hearing
thresholds would be requirements, not general suggestions.
Finally, as a result of these comments, the newly proposed language
would require a hearing test only if the medical professional
conducting the general medical exam has concerns regarding the
applicant's ability to hear, and a waiver may be requested if a mariner
can pass one test but not another. We opted not to tie the hearing
thresholds to each mariner's particular duties on the vessel in favor
of minimal requirements that all mariners must meet. Such a standard
for all mariners is less subjective and serves a safety purpose in that
all mariners should be able to hear at the same minimum level.
We received 29 comments stating that the language of proposed
10.215(e) created an unnecessary burden on the mariner and physician by
requiring the physician to travel to a vessel to document a mariner's
physical ability.
[[Page 3620]]
The Coast Guard does not contemplate that every mariner must
demonstrate physical ability, nor do we contemplate requiring medical
professionals to travel to vessels to complete this test. It has,
however, always been the responsibility of the medical professional to
attest that the mariner is able to meet the physical requirements of
the job. The information contained within 10.215(e) provides clarity as
to the level of fitness necessary in the maritime industry and the
level of satisfaction the medical professional must achieve to
determine that the applicant meets these standards.
All eight of the enumerated abilities that must be satisfied to
pass a demonstration of physical ability are able to be reviewed in a
medical office. For example, a person standing on one leg anywhere can
show no disturbance in the sense of balance; any ladder or staircase
can be used to show ability to climb up and down vertical ladders and
inclined stairs; and any obstruction of similar height can be used to
show that a person can step over a door sill or coaming. Furthermore,
weights can be used to show that the applicant would have the ability
to grasp, lift and manipulate tools, and move hands and arms to open
and close valve wheels; a general medical exam should detect a disease
that would prevent normal movement and physical activity, or the
ability to respond to a visual or audible alarm; finally, the ability
to stand and walk for extended periods could be shown anywhere as could
the determination as to whether the applicant is capable of normal
conversation.
These enumerated abilities were taken from the STCW Code Table B-I/
9-2, which is guidance on the assessment of minimum entry-level and in-
service physical abilities for seafarers. These standards have been
deemed effective minimum standards for mariners in the international
community and the Coast Guard believes that they are good standards to
employ in order to ensure that U.S. mariners have the physical ability
to do their job without injuring themselves or others.
24. National Driver Register
We received one comment requesting that proposed 46 CFR
10.213(g)(1) be amended to add additional drug testing while on the
vessel. Another comment requested that the three-year look back period
in proposed 10.213(c) be extended to five years. Finally, another
comment requested that land-based driving under the influence (DUI)
convictions be given less weight than marine-based DUI convictions, and
that the burden placed on the mariner to establish qualification should
be changed so that the burden after a land-based DUI should not be as
high as the burden associated with marine-based convictions.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to consolidate the merchant
mariner qualification credentials. It is not intended to completely
revise 46 CFR Subchapter B. These three comments are outside the scope
of this rulemaking, but revisions to the drug testing requirements and
evaluation criteria may be considered by the Coast Guard in subsequent
rulemaking projects.
Twenty comments objected to an unlimited NDR check.
The Coast Guard did not intend to propose an unlimited NDR check in
the NPRM. Paragraph 10.213(b) in the NPRM contained language that
currently exists in our regulations regarding criminal record review,
but was inadvertently moved into the NDR section of the NPRM. That
section has been moved to 46 CFR 10.211(l) in this SNPRM. For the
offenses described in section 205 of the National Driver Register Act
of 1982, as amended, the Coast Guard will not be doing an unlimited
look back in the NDR, but will only look at those crimes listed in that
Act that are provided in the course of the criminal record review. The
law allows the Coast Guard to look back beyond three years only when
individuals have ongoing suspensions or revocation for NDR Act
offenses. This is not an unlimited NDR check. The Coast Guard
appreciates notification of this error.
25. Port Access
We received one comment that the Coast Guard should ensure that the
international community accepts the TWIC as a replacement MMD for shore
leave.
We agree and will provide information on the MMC and TWIC programs
to the International Maritime Organization for communication to other
parties.
One comment stated that the MMD, not the TWIC or MMC, should meet
the standards for an identification credential and allow access to
ports.
Under the statutory requirements of 46 U.S.C. 70105, a biometric
identification credential (the TWIC) must be created by the Secretary
to allow individuals unescorted access to all 33 CFR Subchapter H
regulated vessels and facilities. The MMD does not satisfy the
requirements of 46 U.S.C. 70105. For the reasons discussed above in
``Format of the MMC'', the TWIC and MMD will not be combined at this
time.
26. Posting
Seven comments stated that the requirement to post the license
would be affected by this proposed rulemaking project.
The Coast Guard disagrees with these comments. We have not changed
the requirement for posting an officer's qualification credential. This
posting requirement is required by 46 U.S.C. 7110 and cannot be changed
by Coast Guard regulation. The format of the MMC will be designed so
that posting of the officer endorsement will be possible while also
protecting the mariner's private personal information from view.
27. Preemption
One comment was received that States should not be allowed to
permissibly bar a mariner access based on stricter criteria than the
TWIC and MMC.
The MMC would be a qualification credential that would also contain
a mariner's identity information, but would not be used to obtain
access to port facilities. This comment, and the issues of State
preemption, are discussed in the TWIC rulemaking and are beyond the
scope of this MMC rulemaking.
28. Personal Privacy
Five comments objected to the requirement in the NPRM at 46 CFR
10.219(d) (2), that the front of all checks or money orders must
contain the applicant's full social security number.
Although the social security number requirement proposed in section
10.219 in the NPRM was carried over from our current regulations, due
to the increased concern over identity theft nationwide the Coast Guard
is proposing an alternative in this SNPRM. Section 10.219(d)(4) has
been revised to require that all checks and money orders contain the
applicant's full legal name and last four digits of their social
security number. The full legal name is necessary to link the
individual to the payment, and the last four digits of the social
security number would be used to differentiate between mariners who may
have common names.
Two comments were received that stated a general concern for the
protection of privacy information.
The Coast Guard is extremely concerned about the recent rise in
identity theft and recognizes the need to protect personal privacy
information. We have proposed several measures in this proposed
rulemaking to protect that
[[Page 3621]]
information. We have proposed an alternative to the social security
number requirement discussed above, we intend to design the MMC so that
personal privacy information will not be visible when posted under the
requirement in 46 U.S.C. 7110, and we will develop and test a secure
electronic data sharing system for the transmission of mariners'
application information from TSA to the Coast Guard before this rule
would become effective.
29. Public Meetings
We received 12 comments to the docket requesting additional public
meetings on the MMC NPRM.
We encourage public participation in this rulemaking. However, the
Coast Guard received a relatively small number of comments on this
rulemaking during the joint MMC/TWIC public meetings held in May and
June 2006, and additional public meetings will not be held on the TWIC
rulemaking project during the 90 day comment period for this MMC SNPRM.
For those reasons, the Coast Guard does not intend to hold additional
public meetings on this rulemaking at this time. Written and oral
comments are given equal weight in the rulemaking process. Please
submit written comments to the docket for this rulemaking project,
which is available by conducting a simple search for docket number
24371 at http://www.dms.dot.gov. If, after reading this SNPRM, you
believe that additional public meetings would be beneficial, please
submit a request to the docket explaining why one would be beneficial.
If the Coast Guard determines that additional public meetings would aid
this rulemaking, we will provide advance notice in the Federal
Register.
30. Regulatory Requirements
We received five comments that this rulemaking fails to resolve
outstanding issues in the STCW Interim Rule published June 26, 1997 at
62 FR 34505.
This rulemaking is not intended to close or finalize the STCW
rulemaking project. A Coast Guard rulemaking team is currently working
on a Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for that project that
will address the public comments received on that Interim Rule, propose
additional changes to the regulations to conform U.S. regulations to
the STCW Code and Convention, and take additional public comment.
We received two comments that this rulemaking fails to resolve
outstanding issues within the MMD and Licensing Interim Rules.
This rulemaking project is not intended to close or finalize either
the Validation of Merchant Mariner's Vital Information and Issuance of
Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Documents (MMDs) (docket number USCG-
2003-14500, the ``MMD rule''), or Validation of Merchant Mariner's
Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's
Licenses and Certificates of Registry (docket number USCG-2004-17455,
the ``Licensing rule''), projects. The Coast Guard intends to publish
final rules on those projects to address the public comments received,
and make any appropriate adjustments to the regulatory text as a result
of those comments. This MMC rulemaking would, however, effectively
address the bulk of the negative comments received to those rulemaking
projects by removing the requirement that mariners appear at least once
at one of the 17 RECs to be fingerprinted by, and show identification
to, an REC employee. The majority of the comments received in the
dockets to those rulemakings complained that the location of the 17
RECs require mariners to travel a great distance.
This proposed MMC rulemaking would remove, or at least reduce, that
burden on mariners by removing the REC requirement and allowing them to
apply for the MMC entirely by mail unless an examination is required.
Instead, mariners would complete the fingerprint and identification
portion of the MMC application process at one of the many TWIC
enrollment centers spread across the country. This rulemaking, although
proposing to remove the appearance requirement, will not finalize or
close either the MMD or Licensing rulemaking projects. Final rules for
those projects are expected to be drafted and published after the
completion of this rulemaking project and the STCW rulemaking project
discussed above.
One comment stated that the current language of our regulations in
Subchapter B is poorly written and contains many issues that have not
been addressed by this rulemaking. It suggested that we start from
scratch, rewriting the Subchapter, instead of continuing to use
existing regulatory language.
In this rulemaking, the Coast Guard decided to use the existing
regulatory language wherever possible. This was done in an effort to
make as few substantive changes as possible while consolidating the
credentials into one while also adapting the system to transfer the
security and identity verification process to TSA. The Coast Guard is
currently undertaking many different actions, both regulatory and non-
regulatory, to improve the merchant mariner credentialing process.
There are currently five open Coast Guard rulemaking projects involving
Subchapter B: (1) This rule, (2) the MMD rule, (3) the Licensing rule,
(4) Implementation of 1995 Amendments to the International Convention
on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978 (docket number USCG-2004-17914, the ``STCW rule''), and (5)
Training and Service Requirements for Merchant Marine Officers (the
``Radar rule'') (docket number USCG-2006-26202). Each of these
rulemaking projects is intended to address different issues within
Subchapter B. Once these five rulemaking projects are completed, the
Coast Guard intends to open a sixth rulemaking project unofficially
referred to as the Subchapter B Revision, which would clean up the
entire subchapter, to improve upon clarity, readability, correct
editorial inconsistencies and make non-substantive procedural changes.
Three comments pointed out that the MMC NPRM did not appear in the
Spring 2006 Regulatory Agenda.
The commenters are correct. At the time that information for the
Spring 2006 Regulatory Agenda data call was requested, the substance of
this regulation was incorporated into the TWIC rulemaking project, so
it was not independently referenced. Now that it has been separated
from TWIC and is an independent rulemaking project, it has been
assigned Regulatory Identification Number 1625-AB02 and was included in
the Fall 2006 Regulatory Agenda.
Three comments requested that the Coast Guard slow implementation
of the TWIC and MMC.
Discussion of the implementation schedule of the TWIC is outside
the scope of this rulemaking however, implementation of the card reader
requirements has been delayed. A discussion of the TWIC implementation
schedule and the delay in implementation of the reader requirements is
provided in the TWIC final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register.
With respect to the MMC, if made effective, the proposed
regulations in this SNPRM would not be implemented until approximately
August 2008. This long delay before implementation has been proposed to
allow all merchant mariners to obtain a TWIC before this proposed
regulation would make it mandatory for the issuance of an MMC. The
delay would also allow time for the Coast Guard to develop the form of
the new credential and produce a sufficient
[[Page 3622]]
supply before the date of issuance. Furthermore, the delay would
provide time to build and test the system that will transmit each MMC
applicant's digital photograph, fingerprints, proof of identification,
proof of citizenship, and if applicable, the applicant's criminal
record and proof of legal resident alien status to the Coast Guard from
TSA. The protection of this personal data is extremely important to the
Coast Guard and TSA and we have planned this delay to allow sufficient
time to test the system to ensure the security of that data. In
addition, the new credential would be phased in over a five year
period. A mariner would not be required to obtain an MMC until he or
she either chooses to renew or upgrade their current MMD, license, COR
or STCW endorsement, or they chose to apply for an MMC after this
proposed rule is made effective. We find any additional delay to be
unnecessary.
One comment stated that this is a substantive rulemaking.
We agree. This is a substantive, non-significant rulemaking. It
proposes substantive changes to the Coast Guard's regulations that are
not merely procedural or technical in nature, but will actually affect
the public. Because this is a substantive rulemaking, the Coast Guard
has published both an NPRM and SNPRM in the Federal Register and is
seeking public comment to assist us in the rulemaking process.
We received one comment requesting that the Coast Guard hold the
MMC regulatory project in abeyance until the TWIC regulatory project
becomes final.
We agree in part with the commenter. The TWIC regulatory project
published a final rule elsewhere in today's Federal Register. That
final rule will become effective 60 days from today. This SNPRM,
however, will remain open for a 90 day comment period after which it
will be withdrawn, amended, or made effective through the publication
of a final rule. A