Validation of Merchant Mariners' Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Licenses and Certificates of Registry, 2154-2167 [06-369]
Download as PDF
2154
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
2. Add new § 165.1710 to read as
follows:
I
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
§ 165.1710 Port Valdez and Valdez
Narrows, Valdez, Alaska—security zones.
(a) Location. The following areas are
security zones:
(1) Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS)
Valdez Terminal complex (Terminal),
Valdez, Alaska and TAPS tank vessels.
All waters enclosed within a line
beginning on the southern shoreline of
Port Valdez at 61°05′03.6″ N, 146°25′42″
W; thence northerly to yellow buoy at
61°06′00″ N, 146°25′42″ W; thence east
to the yellow buoy at 61°06′00″ N,
146°21′30″ W; thence south to 61°05′06″
N, 146°21′30″ W; thence west along the
shoreline and including the area 2000
yards inland along the shoreline to the
beginning point.
(2) Tank vessel moving security zone.
All waters within 200 yards of any
TAPS tank vessel maneuvering to
approach, moor, unmoor or depart the
TAPS Terminal or transiting,
maneuvering, laying to or anchored
within the boundaries of the Captain of
the Port, Prince William Sound Zone
described in 33 CFR 3.85–20 (b).
(3) Valdez Narrows, Port Valdez,
Valdez, Alaska. All waters 200 yards
either side of the Valdez Narrows
Tanker Optimum Track line bounded by
a line beginning at 61°05′15″ N,
146°37′18″ W; thence south west to
61°04′00″ N, 146°39′52″ W; thence
southerly to 61°02′32.5″ N, 146°41′25″
W; thence north west to 61°02′40.5″ N,
146°41′47″ W; thence north east to
61°04′07.5″ N, 146°40′15″ W; thence
north east to 61°05′22″ N, 146°37′38″ W;
thence south east back to the starting
point at 61°05′15″ N, 146°37′18″ W.
(b) Regulations. (1) The general
regulations in 33 CFR 165.33 apply to
the security zones described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Tank vessels transiting directly to
the TAPS terminal complex, engaged in
the movement of oil from the terminal
or fuel to the terminal, and vessels used
to provide assistance or support to the
tank vessels directly transiting to the
terminal, or to the terminal itself, and
that have reported their movements to
the Vessel Traffic Service, as required
under 33 CFR part 161 and § 165.1704,
may operate as necessary to ensure safe
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
passage of tank vessels to and from the
terminal.
(3) All persons and vessels must
comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port and the
designated on-scene patrol personnel.
These personnel comprise
commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being
hailed by a vessel displaying a U.S.
Coast Guard ensign by siren, radio,
flashing light, or other means, the
operator of the vessel must proceed as
directed. Coast Guard Auxiliary and
local or state agencies may be present to
inform vessel operators of the
requirements of this section and other
applicable laws.
Dated: December 16, 2005.
M.S. Gardiner,
Commander, United States Coast Guard,
Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Prince
William Sound, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 06–161 Filed 1–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 10
[USCG–2004–17455]
RIN 1625–AA85
Validation of Merchant Mariners’ Vital
Information and Issuance of Coast
Guard Merchant Mariner’s Licenses
and Certificates of Registry
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending
the maritime personnel licensing rules
to include new security requirements
when mariners apply for original,
renewal, and raise of grade licenses and
certificates of registry. This interim rule
corrects omissions and ambiguities in
the Coast Guard’s preexisting maritime
personnel licensing regulations. This
interim rule will require all applicants
for licenses and certificates of registry to
have their identity checked and their
fingerprints taken for a criminal record
review by the Coast Guard. The new
requirements are similar to those that
apply to applicants for merchant
mariner’s documents.
DATES: This interim rule is effective
January 13, 2006 and is applicable for
applications received by the Coast
Guard on or after that date. Comments
and related material must reach the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Docket Management Facility on or
before April 13, 2006. Comments sent to
the Office of Management and Budget
on collection of information must reach
OMB on or before March 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG–2004–17455 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: https://dms.dot.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street SW., 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:
https://www.regulations.gov.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or RIN for this rulemaking. All
comments will be posted without
change to https://www.dms.dot.gov/
feddocket, including any personal
information sent with each comment.
For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation in Rulemaking
Process’’ heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
submitted comments, go to
https://www.dmt.dot.gov. You may also
access the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this interim rule,
call Mr. Stewart Walker, Project
Manager, National Maritime Center
(NMC), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone
202–493–1022. If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Ms. Andrea M.
Jenkins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, Department of
Transportation, telephone 202–366–
0271.
For questions on submitting an
application for the issuance of a license
or certificate of registry, call the nearest
Coast Guard Regional Examination
Center (REC), a list of which appears in
Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations
(46 CFR) section 10.105, or on the
Internet at https://www.uscg.mil/STCW/
index.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
II. Background and Purpose
III. Discussion of the Rule
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
B. Regulatory Evaluation
Baseline Population
Costs
Benefits
Small Entities
Assistance for Small Entities
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Taking of Private Property
G. Civil Justice Reform
H. Protection of Children
I. Indian Tribal Governments
J. Energy Effects
K. Technical Standards
L. Environment
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 10
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
Interested persons are invited to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or
arguments on all aspects of the interim
rule. Comments that will provide the
most assistance to the Coast Guard in
developing these procedures will
reference a specific portion of the
interim rule, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include data,
information, or authority that support
such recommended change. See
ADDRESSES above for information on
how to submit comments. All comments
received will be posted, without change,
to https://dms.dot.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy
Act’’ paragraph below.
The Coast Guard does not plan to
hold a public meeting to solicit
comments on this interim rule.
However, you may submit a request for
one to the Docket Management Facility
at the address under ADDRESSES
explaining why a hearing would be
beneficial. If the Coast Guard
determines that a public hearing would
aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at
a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.
Submitting comments: If you submit a
comment, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking (USCG–2004–17455),
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 by
only one means. If you submit them by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit them by
mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period in the drafting of
the final rule.
Viewing comments and documents:
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://dms.dot.gov at any time and
conduct a simple search using the
docket number. 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.). Because the
Coast Guard currently maintains
comments on its regulations on the
Docket Management System for the
Department of Transportation (DOT),
please review DOT’s Privacy Act
Statement, published in the Federal
Register on April 11, 2000 at 65 FR
19477, or visit https://dms.dot.gov for the
handling of public comments under the
Privacy Act.
II. Background and Purpose
A brief discussion of the terms used
in portions of the preamble is offered to
assist in the understanding of this
interim rule. The term ‘‘credential’’
encompasses the merchant mariner’s
document (MMD), license, and
certificate of registry (COR). This rule
affects only licenses and CORs, so in
this document we use the term
‘‘credential’’ only to refer to a license or
COR, and we specify if and when we
mean to include MMDs. We use the
term ‘‘original’’ credential to refer to an
applicant’s first license or COR; the term
‘‘subsequent issue’’ credential to refer to
a raise of grade, renewal, or duplicate
license or COR; and the term
‘‘applicant’’ to refer to mariners or
prospective mariners who are applying
for a license or COR.
The Coast Guard has been regulating
merchant mariners for quite some time,
pursuant to an extensive statutory
framework. 46 U.S.C. 2103. Title 46
U.S.C. Chapter 71 addresses licenses,
certificates, and documents and
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2155
authorizes the Coast Guard to issue
licenses and CORs to applicants found
qualified as to age, character, habits of
life, experience, professional
qualifications, and physical fitness.
Mariners who serve as officers must
possess licenses or CORs to serve on
board U.S.-flagged merchant vessels. 46
U.S.C. 8103. The license or COR
functions as proof of a mariner’s
qualifications and competency,
specifying each class for which the
holder is qualified. 46 U.S.C. 7101.
Licenses and CORs for individuals on
documented vessels may be issued only
to citizens of the United States. 46
U.S.C. 7102. A license or COR is valid
for five years, and may be renewed for
additional five-year periods. 46 U.S.C.
7106. For raise of grade licenses, such
as from second mate to chief mate, a
mariner must have at least one year of
service at sea, receive training,
demonstrate practical skills, and pass an
examination. Raises of grade are done at
the option of the mariner, dependent on
a mariner’s personal initiative. Coast
Guard regulations governing the
licensing and registering of mariners
appear at 46 CFR part 10.
At this time merchant mariners may
be required to carry one of three
credentials. These are the MMD, license,
and COR. This interim rule affects only
the mariner’s license and COR.
MMDs are required for mariners who
sail on vessels of at least 100 gross
register tons on oceans and the Great
Lakes, with some exceptions. When
MMDs are required for a vessel, all
mariners on that vessel, whether
licensed or unlicensed, must hold them.
When MMDs are not required for a
vessel, mariners serving as officers on
the vessel must still hold a proper
license, while those not serving as
officers generally will not need to
possess any Coast Guard-issued
credential.
Unlike licenses and CORs, the MMD
is an identity document. An MMD
shows the mariner’s photograph, ID
number, nationality, address, date of
birth, physical characteristics, and
signature. Also, for those mariners who
do not need to carry a license, the MMD
is used to show that the mariner has
undergone a safety and security check,
and to show any additional
qualifications or endorsements in the
Deck, Engine or Steward’s Department,
and any additional endorsements such
as Lifeboatman or Tankerman Person-inCharge.
The license is not an identity
document. A license is a certificate that
is issued for a term of five years and
demonstrates a mariner’s qualifications
and competency to serve as a Deck
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
2156
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Officer, Engineer Officer, Pilot, or Radio
Officer.
CORs are similar to licenses, but are
used only for staff officers in purser and
medical positions. Medical positions
require that the candidate also hold a
valid State license. The COR, like the
license, is not used for identification
purposes. It is a certificate that shows
that the mariner is qualified to perform
one or more specialized job functions.
The purpose of this interim rule is to
amend 46 CFR part 10 to strengthen the
security of the licensing process by
increasing the likelihood that licenses
and CORs are issued only to eligible
mariners. To do this, the Coast Guard
will now require mariners to appear at
a Regional Exam Center (REC) to
provide fingerprints, and allow REC
staff to evaluate the information
provided on the mariner’s application at
the REC. We will use the information
provided to conduct a criminal record
review in accordance with applicable
law and regulations.
III. Discussion of the Rule
The Coast Guard is revising its
merchant mariner credentialing
regulations with respect to licenses and
CORs. MMDs are not affected by this
rule because on January 6, 2004, the
Coast Guard published an interim rule
in the Federal Register, entitled
‘‘Validation of Merchant Mariners’ Vital
Information and Issuance of Coast
Guard Merchant Mariner’s Documents
(MMDs)’’ (69 FR 526) to require
appearance at a Coast Guard REC for the
purposes of presenting identification
and having fingerprints taken for
original, renewal, and raise of grade
MMDs. This rulemaking is meant to
implement similar requirements for
licenses and CORs. Similar to the MMD
rulemaking, the Coast Guard is phasing
in these requirements over a five-year
period to reduce the burden on both
mariners and Coast Guard resources.
There are approximately 200,000
credentialed mariners in the United
States. The MMD interim rule
mentioned above affected
approximately half of this population.
This rulemaking will affect the
remaining population. All of our
substantive changes will increase the
likelihood that the Coast Guard will
process applications only from, and
issue credentials only to, applicants
who can prove they are who they claim
to be, and whose backgrounds can be
verified to make sure they meet
security-related requirements. In
addition to our substantive changes, we
corrected minor stylistic and
grammatical errors in 46 CFR part 10
only when making a substantive change
within the same section.
The substantive changes to 46 CFR
part 10 are discussed in Table 1, below.
This table lists the problem with the
preexisting regulations in column 1,
then in column 2 it lists the change that
was made and why.
The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), under the authority of
the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act and the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002, is
developing a program that can be used
to control access to secure areas in
vessels, facilities, and ports. (See 49
U.S.C. 114(f)(12); 46 U.S.C. 70105.) This
program includes a system-wide
transportation worker identification
card which is currently under
development. DHS is developing this
program through the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), the
Coast Guard, and other Federal
agencies, including others within DHS.
The Coast Guard will work with TSA to
ensure that the regulations for obtaining
licenses and CORs are consistent with
this initiative to minimize future
impacts on mariners.
TABLE 1.—FORMER AND NEW PROVISIONS OF 46 CFR PART 10
Former Rule
New Rule
The definition for ‘‘conviction’’ specified that an applicant convicted of
certain crimes was ineligible for licensing, but did not include foreign
or military court convictions. (§ 10.103).
We revised the definition of ‘‘conviction’’ to include foreign or military
court convictions, as these may be relevant to a determination of an
applicant’s character and habits of life; convictions for certain crimes
by those courts now will count against an applicant. (§ 10.103).
The regulation now defines ‘‘dangerous drug,’’ using the same definition that appears in 46 CFR 16.105. 46 CFR 16.105 is part of the
Coast Guard’s regulations on chemical testing of merchant mariners.
This correction of an omission conforms our regulations in parts 10
and 16. (§ 10.103).
All applicants must appear at a Coast Guard Regional Exam Center
(REC) to be fingerprinted by, and show identification (ID) to, an REC
employee. This personal appearance requirement allows the Coast
Guard to see that the fingerprints and ID actually belong to the applicant, thereby reducing the chance of fraud. (§ 10.105, § 10.209).
All fingerprints must be taken at an REC, by an REC employee. Allowing mariners to submit fingerprints that were taken elsewhere left the
Coast Guard with no assurance that the fingerprints actually belonged to the applicant. (§ 10.105, § 10.201).
Applicants must appear at an REC and present two acceptable forms
of ID. The requirement of two IDs provides the Coast Guard with an
adequate amount of documentation to be reasonably confident that
applicants are who they say they are. (§ 10.105).
An applicant who fails a chemical test for dangerous drugs was ineligible for licensing, but the regulation did not define a ‘‘dangerous
drug.’’ (§ 10.103).
Applicants for renewals could conduct the entire renewal process by
mail. (§ 10.105, § 10.209).
The Coast Guard allowed applicants to provide fingerprints taken by an
outside entity. (§ 10.201).
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Applicants for original and subsequent issue credentials had to show
proof of their age and citizenship, but were not required to show ID.
(§ 10.201).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
2157
TABLE 1.—FORMER AND NEW PROVISIONS OF 46 CFR PART 10—Continued
Former Rule
New Rule
No list of acceptable forms of ID was presented in the regulation.
(None).
A list of acceptable forms of ID is now presented in the regulation. As
the requirement for ID is new, this list notifies the mariners as to
what forms will be acceptable. The forms of ID that are listed are
more easily verifiable by REC employees and more difficult to falsify.
Additionally, on May 11, 2005, Congress enacted the REAL ID Act of
2005 (P.L. 109–13), which establishes a process for promulgating
standards for the issuance of driver’s licenses and ID cards. The
statute states that after May 11, 2008 Federal agencies will be prohibited from accepting for any official purpose IDs issued by States
and territories that do not comply with this Act. Because of this, acceptable driver’s licenses and ID cards are limited to those issued by
States and territories that meet the requirements of the Act. As the
requirements of the Act do not become mandatory until May 11,
2008, IDs from all States will be acceptable at least until that date,
so long as their validity can be verified by an REC employee.
(§ 10.105).
The application can now be approved by any officer specified by Coast
Guard policy. This reduces the likelihood of unreasonable delays in
approving an applicant’s qualifications. (§ 10.201).
The Coast Guard began issuing new MMDs utilizing more tamper-resistant cards on February 3, 2003. Only valid MMDs issued after that
date may be used to document citizenship and identity. (§ 10.205).
The Coast Guard is no longer accepting atypical proofs of citizenship.
We believe verifying atypical proofs of citizenship is best left in the
jurisdiction of government agencies that specialize in document
verification and citizenship like the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) or the Department of State. Thus, we have aligned
acceptable proof of citizenship with commonly used documents listed
on the USCIS’s Eligibility for Employment (I–9) form. By doing so,
we maintained acceptance of commonly used documents, including
birth certificates, Certificates of Citizenship, Certificates of Naturalization, and passports. These documents are issued by government
agencies and are more difficult to alter than the previously accepted
atypical proofs of citizenship. (§ 10.205).
Criminal record reviews and fingerprints are required of all applicants
each time an application is made, including renewals. No credential
will be issued until the applicant has passed a criminal record review. This is to increase the likelihood that credentials are only given
to those mariners whose character and habits of life are such that
the applicant can be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of
the license or COR. (§ 10.201).
Criminal record reviews are now required for all applicants—regardless
of whether they are original or subsequent issue applications. The
Coast Guard will not issue any credential until the applicant has
passed a criminal record review. This is to increase the likelihood
that credentials are only given to those mariners whose character
and habits of life are such that the applicant can be entrusted with
the duties and responsibilities of the license or COR. (§ 10.201).
We revised 10.201(a) to allow others in the Coast Guard to make eligibility determinations. This change was made to streamline internal
Coast Guard administrative procedures. (§ 10.201).
Every time that a mariner applies for a new credential they must provide a set of fingerprints and two acceptable forms of ID. While the
likelihood that an individual’s fingerprints will change is low, it is imperative that the Coast Guard determine if a mariner is who he or
she says he or she is before issuing a credential. This information
will be used for identification purposes as well as to update any
criminal record history. (§ 10.105, § 10.209).
An applicant’s qualifications could only be approved by the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection, (OCMI). (§ 10.201).
Applicants could prove citizenship through any Merchant Mariner’s
Document (MMD) issued by the Coast Guard. (§ 10.205).
Applicants could use any of the following atypical proofs of their citizenship: Baptismal certificates; parish records; statements of a physician’s attendance at a birth; delayed certificates of birth; reports from
the Census Bureau which showed the earliest available record of
age or birth; affidavit(s) from a parent, other relative, or two or more
responsible citizens; school records; immigration records; and insurance policies. (§ 10.205).
There was no requirement for a criminal record review or fingerprint
submission for renewals. (§ 10.201).
Criminal record reviews were not mandatory in the language of the regulation for all original and subsequent issue applicants. (§ 10.201).
In section 10.201(a), the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI)
had to be satisfied as to an applicant’s eligibility for a license or
COR. (§ 10.201).
Applicants were not required to provide new fingerprints and/or ID
when seeking a raise of grade or renewal credential. (§ 10.209).
IV. Regulatory Requirements
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
A. Administrative Procedure Act
Implementation of this rule as an
interim rule with a request for public
comment after the effective date of the
rule is based upon the ‘‘good cause’’
exception found under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Coast Guard has
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
determined that delaying
implementation of this rule to await
public notice and comment is
unnecessary, impracticable and contrary
to the public interest for the following
reasons:
In the interests of marine safety and
seamen’s welfare, the Coast Guard was
given general superintendence of
merchant marine personnel by 46 U.S.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2103 and 46 U.S.C. chapter 71. In 2002,
Congress found that U.S. ports are
susceptible to large-scale acts of
terrorism that could cause a large loss of
life or economic disruption, that ‘‘ports
are often a major locus of Federal
crime,’’ (Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002, section 101, Pub.
L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064) and that it
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
2158
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
is in the best interest of the United
States to increase port security. A Coast
Guard-issued license authorizes its
holder to serve in the capacity of
vessel’s officer, allowing him or her to
assume positions of responsibility in the
command and control of merchant
marine vessels. The harm that can be
caused by persons who wrongfully
obtain licenses with the intention of
committing crimes or terrorist acts
jeopardizes mariner safety and welfare,
as well as national security. Our goal is
to protect the licensing process from
abuse. As discussed above, the Coast
Guard has identified several omissions
and ambiguities in the former rule that
could facilitate licensing abuse. This
interim rule corrects those omissions
and clarifies those ambiguities to
promote maritime safety and security
within the United States.
Further, delay or suspension of the
existing merchant mariner licensing
process pending completion of notice
and comment and publication of a final
rule could have a severe impact on the
professional lives of individual
mariners, who are required to carry
valid licenses to work on board certain
U.S.-flag vessels, and could interfere
with maritime commerce, which relies
on the ready availability of licensed
personnel.
The delay of this rule would set up ‘‘a
situation in which the interest of the
public would be defeated,’’ as well as
impede the ‘‘due and timely execution’’
of an important Coast Guard function;
see Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
v. Environmental Protection Agency,
236 F.3d 749 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The Coast
Guard therefore finds delay of the
implementation of this rule to allow for
prior notice and comment to be
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest.
The Coast Guard also finds good
cause, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for this
interim rule to take effect immediately.
The Coast Guard finds that, for the
reasons previously discussed, it would
be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest to subject this interim
rule to prior notice and public
comment, or to delay its taking effect.
Although we have good cause to
publish this rule without prior notice
and comment, we value public
comments. As a result, we are soliciting
public comments on this interim rule
and may revise the final rule in
response to those comments.
B. Regulatory Evaluation
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’, 58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993, requires a
determination whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order. This rule has been
identified as significant under Executive
Order 12866 and has been reviewed by
OMB.
This interim rule changes certain
requirements in 46 CFR part 10 for how
mariners and prospective mariners will
apply for licenses and CORs.
This interim rule requires applicants
for original (new) and subsequent issue
(raise of grade, renewal, and duplicate)
licenses and CORs to have their
fingerprints taken at an REC and to have
their IDs checked at an REC. The rule
requires an applicant to appear at least
once in the application process, even if
submitting an application by mail, fax,
or other electronic means, and requires
that the Coast Guard conduct
fingerprinting and check IDs for original
(new) and subsequent issue (raise of
grade, renewal, and duplicate) license
and COR transactions. The primary
costs of this rule to applicants for
licenses and CORs include the travel
cost to an REC and the time spent at an
REC in order to have their fingerprints
taken and IDs checked. Currently, there
is no consistent fingerprinting or
identification policy among the RECs for
license or COR applications. Some RECs
asked all license applicants to visit an
REC for fingerprinting, and some do not.
All RECs allowed an applicant to renew
a license or COR entirely by mail, since
there was no requirement to submit
fingerprints for that transaction. This
interim rule will create one consistent
policy at all RECs.
The following sections discuss the
baseline population of applicants and
the portion of this population that will
incur additional costs, the estimated
cost per applicant, and the estimated
national costs and benefits.
Baseline Population
The average annual population of
applicants who apply for a license or a
COR is 30,142 mariners and prospective
mariners. This population includes
9,384 applicants for original (new)
licenses, 20,627 applicants for
subsequent issue (raise of grade,
renewal, and duplicate) licenses, and
131 applicants for CORs. This
population includes all applicants with
or without a valid MMD at the time of
the license or COR application. Table 2
presents the average annual applicant
population by transaction type.
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL APPLICANT POPULATION BY TRANSACTION TYPE
Applicants for
original
licenses
Applicants for
subsequent
issue licenses
Applicants for
all CORs
Total
Applicants who currently have an MMD ..........................................................
Applicants who DO NOT currently have an MMD ..........................................
2,038
7,346
7,302
13,325
131
........................
........................
........................
Total Affected Population .........................................................................
9,384
20,627
131
30,142
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Current credential status of applicant
The average annual population is
based on field information and data
received from the Coast Guard’s NMC
and the Coast Guard’s Maritime
Personnel Qualifications Division. The
period of analysis is inclusive from year
2005 through year 2009. We use a fiveyear period because all currently
licensed mariners must renew their
licenses and CORs once every five years.
Therefore, this five-year period will
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
cover a complete license and COR
renewal cycle, which will give an
accurate snapshot of the total cost of the
interim rule for mariners to comply with
the new application requirements.
The subset of the population that will
incur additional costs from this rule is
comprised of those applicants who
currently apply for licenses and CORs
who do not have their fingerprints taken
at an REC and do not have their IDs
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
checked at an REC. These applicants
must now incur an additional cost for
travel to an REC to have their
fingerprints taken and to have their IDs
checked.
Not all applicants will incur
additional costs from this interim rule.
The subset of the population that will
not incur additional costs includes
applicants who currently visit an REC to
have their fingerprints taken and their
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
IDs checked. These applicants are
currently complying with what this rule
requires by visiting an REC to have their
fingerprints taken and their IDs
checked. Prior to this interim rule, some
RECs asked applicants to visit an REC
to have fingerprints taken and IDs
checked as a part of the application
process for licenses; other RECs did not.
Some applicants also traveled to RECs
to have their fingerprints taken because
of their close proximity to an REC.
Based on information from the Coast
Guard’s RECs, we estimate that 40
percent of the applicants for original
licenses and 15 percent of the
applicants for subsequent issue licenses
currently travel to an REC for the
purposes of having their fingerprints
taken and IDs checked. Therefore, we do
not include these applicants in the cost
analysis.
There could be other applicants who
do not incur additional costs, such as
applicants who simultaneously apply
for both MMDs and licenses. These
applicants may have chosen to apply for
both credentials at the same time to
minimize cost and to synchronize the
expiration dates for both of their
credentials. Since these applicants will
be applying for an MMD and a license
at the same time, they will make one
appearance at an REC to have their
fingerprints taken and to have their IDs
checked. These applicants would be
regulated and processed under the
regulations for MMDs published on
January 6, 2004, which currently require
applicants to have their fingerprints
taken and their IDs checked at an REC.
69 FR 526. Therefore, these applicants
do not incur additional costs by this
rule.
However, it is difficult to estimate
what percentage of these applicants is
simultaneously applying for credentials
after the publication of the regulations
2159
for MMDs. We do not adjust our
analysis for these mariners, and
therefore our estimates may be
conservative because we possibly have
counted some of the applicants twice,
once under the MMD interim rule, and
once under this interim rule. Based on
discussions with Coast Guard staff and
REC officials, we believe that this
number will be relatively small.
Accordingly, the estimated total
annual quantity of applicants who will
incur an additional cost (referred to as
the baseline population) by this rule is
23,294 applicants for licenses and
CORs. This baseline population is
estimated as the total affected
population less the subset of the
affected population that does not incur
additional costs. Table 3 presents the
summary of the annual baseline
population that will incur additional
costs under this interim rule.
TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL BASELINE POPULATION BY TRANSACTION TYPE THAT WILL INCUR ADDITIONAL
COSTS 1
Applicants for
original
licenses
Applicants for
subsequent
issue licenses
Applicants for
all CORs
Total
Applicants who currently have an MMD ..........................................................
Applicants who DO NOT currently have an MMD ..........................................
1,223
4,408
6,207
11,326
131
........................
........................
........................
Total Affected Population 2 .......................................................................
5,630
17,533
131
23,294
Current credential status of applicant
1 This
baseline population is adjusted to reflect the percentage of current applicants who already travel to have their fingerprints taken at an
REC. These are the totals in Table 2 less a 40 percent reduction in original applicants and less a 15 percent reduction in subsequent issue applicants.
2 Some values may not total due to rounding.
Costs
The costs of this rule include (1) the
cost of applicants’ time at an REC, and
(2) the cost of applicants’ travel to and
from an REC. For all costs, we assume
an applicant’s wage rate as a proxy for
the opportunity cost of the work time or
free time forgone due to a mariner’s visit
to an REC and travel to and from an
REC. We also assume maximum
government per diem reimbursement
rates as proxy unit costs for travel
expenses. Table 4 presents the basic
unit cost assumptions and sources that
we used in this analysis of the interim
rule.
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF BASIC UNIT COSTS
Unit cost
Source reference
Opportunity Cost of Applicant Time
$37/hour .........................................
Driving Mileage ...............................
$0.375/mile (rounded to $0.38/
mile).
Round-trip Air-Fare .........................
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Item
$250/trip .........................................
This wage rate is conservatively based on the 90th percentile wage
estimate (the highest) from the 2002 National Occupation Employment and Wage Statistics for Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water
Vessels published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This wage
rate best applies to licensed officers because they typically earn
higher wages than other mariners.
2004 Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) Reimbursement Rates for Automobiles in Amendment 2003–6 of the Federal Travel Regulation,
published December 15, 2003, and effective January 1, 2004, by
the General Services Administration (GSA). 68 FR 69618.
This airfare is based on industry research of current airfare price levels and the 2002 price index for airline fares in the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003, 123rd Edition, issued December
2003, by the U.S. Census Bureau.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
2160
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF BASIC UNIT COSTS—Continued
Item
Unit cost
Source reference
Round-trip Airport Transfer .............
$50/transfer ....................................
Incidentals and Meals .....................
$53/day ..........................................
Lodging ............................................
$137/night ......................................
This round-trip airport transfer cost is based on research of the average private and public transfer costs, including taxi or car rental
costs associated with U.S. airports and regional destinations. It is
not a mathematic or rigorous estimate, but an average transfer
cost based on information available from associations and trade
groups, airports, transit authorities, and governments.
The average incidentals and meals reimbursement rate for the 17
current REC locations. The GSA provides rates for the continental
U.S. The Department of Defense provides rates for the non-continental U.S. These rates are part of the Federal Travel Regulation
and are frequently updated.
The average lodging reimbursement rate, including an additional 18%
lodging tax, for the 17 current REC locations. The GSA provides
rates for the continental U.S. The Department of Defense provides
rates for the non-continental U.S. These rates are part of the Federal Travel Regulation and frequently updated.
Cost of REC Time
We estimate that an applicant will
spend two hours at an REC being
fingerprinted, having their ID checked,
and possibly waiting before, during, or
after to complete these requirements.
This is the REC wait-time estimate
based on discussions with Coast Guard
REC personnel familiar with operations
and customer processing time for
applicants who currently visit an REC
for fingerprinting and ID examination.
We expect very few applicants to take
more than two hours, and many to take
less time; however, we believe two
hours to be an appropriate estimate of
the total possible time an applicant will
spend at an REC in order to calculate
conservative but reasonable costs
attributable to REC processing and
waiting time.
We estimate the cost of an applicant’s
time at the REC to be $74 (2 hours × $37
per hour cost of time = $74). The
estimated annual cost of REC time for
the baseline applicant population is
$1,723,756 ($74 per applicant × 23,294
total applicants = $1,723,756).
Travel Cost
We estimate round-trip travel, travel
to and from an REC, to take one day or
require multiple day and overnight stays
to complete. After a review of current
mariner addresses from the Coast
Guard’s NMC, we estimate that
approximately 60 percent of current
mariners live within one-day round-trip
travel to an REC, 30 percent live within
overnight round-trip travel (one night
and two days) to an REC, and 10 percent
live at a distance greater than overnight
round-trip travel (greater than one night
and two days) to an REC. These are
national percentages for all mariners
who currently have addresses on file
with the NMC.
We assume these national percentages
will most likely approximate the travel
distances to an REC for current license
and COR applicants. Therefore, we are
applying the demographic
characteristics (home of record trends)
of the current population of all
mariners, upon the future pool of
applicants for licenses and CORs. Table
5 presents a summary of the baseline
applicant population that will incur
additional cost by travel distance to
their closest REC using these national
population percentages.
TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF THE AFFECTED APPLICANTS BY REC TRAVEL DISTANCE
Round-trip
distance to
closest REC
(miles)
Distance to closest REC
(miles)
Percent of current mariner
population
within distance
(percent)
Number of
possible
license or
COR applicants within
distance 1
50 .................................................................................................................................................
100 ...............................................................................................................................................
≥200 .............................................................................................................................................
100
200
≥400
60
30
10
13,976
6,988
2,329
Total ......................................................................................................................................
........................
100
23,294
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1 Some
values may not total due to rounding.
We estimate that most mariners live
within a close proximity to an REC—
approximately 90 percent live within
same-day or one-night round-trip travel
from an REC. However, there are
mariners who live far from their closest
REC, which we consider to be greater
than overnight round-trip travel or more
than 400 miles round trip. For example,
this would include mariners in parts of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
the Great Lakes Basin and Alaska, where
a large area is served by only one or a
few RECs.
We assume for the purpose of
estimating costs that most applicants
who live within short distances to an
REC will drive round trip—this will
ensure similar application of cost
methodology across variable distances.
While there will be some applicants
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
who take public transportation or use
another mode of travel, we believe, on
average, most applicants will drive
themselves to an REC, with the
exception of those applicants who live
far from their nearest REC, which we
consider to be greater than overnight
round-trip travel.
We assume that most applicants who
live far from an REC will fly round
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
2161
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
trip—this will ensure similar
application of cost methodology for
those who will travel far distances.
While there will be some applicants
who take another mode of travel or a
combination of travel modes, we
believe, on average, most applicants will
choose to travel by plane if they live far
away.
We assume the applicants will drive
or fly during the day to complete their
round-trip travel to and from an REC.
We also assume that one-day of travel is
approximately eight hours of travel.
Table 6 presents a summary of travel
distances and time:
TABLE 6.—SUMMARY OF THE TRAVEL DISTANCES AND TIME 1
Maximum
number of
travel days to
complete
distance
Round-trip travel distance from closest REC
(miles)
Duration of travel
100 ................................................................................
200 ................................................................................
≥400 ..............................................................................
One-day Driving ...........................................................
Overnight Driving .........................................................
Overnight Air ................................................................
1
2
2
Maximum
number of
hours to
complete
8
16
16
1 The travel time is assumed to be the maximum number of days that would be necessary to complete the round-trip travel converted into
hours.
While some applicants will drive
longer distances in a single day, we
assume the maximum number of days
and hours to complete each round-trip
driving distance will provide an
appropriate estimate of time to calculate
the maximum costs attributable to
applicant travel time.
The following is an estimate of
applicant travel costs using the above
populations, unit costs, distances, and
times:
One-day Travel by Automobile
For an applicant within one-day
round-trip travel to and from an REC,
we assume the cost to include the
mileage, the opportunity cost of the time
spent traveling, and incidentals. We
assume the cost for one-day round-trip
incidentals to be $53 and the mileage
reimbursement to be $0.38 per mile.
The estimated cost per applicant for
one-day round-trip travel is $387 ((100
round-trip miles × $0.38 per mile
reimbursement rate) + (8 travel hours ×
$37 per hour cost of time) + $53 per day
incidentals = $387). The estimated
annual cost for one-day round-trip
travel for the affected applicants is
$5,408,712 ($387 per applicant × 13,976
one-day travel applicants = $5,408,712).
Overnight Travel by Automobile
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
For an applicant having to travel
overnight, we assume the cost to
include mileage, the opportunity cost of
time spent traveling, lodging, and
incidentals. We also assume the cost for
lodging and incidentals for overnight
round-trip travel to be $243 ((2 days ×
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
$53 per day incidentals) + $137 per
night lodging = $243).
The estimated cost per applicant for
overnight round-trip travel is $911 ((200
round-trip miles × $0.38 per mile
reimbursement rate) + (16 travel hours
× $37 per hour cost of time) + $243
lodging and incidentals = $911). The
estimated annual cost of overnight
round-trip travel for the affected
applicants is $6,366,068 ($911 per
applicant × 6,988 applicants =
$6,366,068).
Greater Than Overnight Travel (Travel
by Air)
We assume that applicants who live at
distances greater than 200 miles must
travel for more than one night and will
incur the maximum cost of this interim
rule. There exists no precise data to
predict or forecast with confidence the
actual or future quantity of these
applicants living at far distances from
an REC, and the combinations of days
and nights they will need to travel
round-trip to an REC. We expect these
relatively few applicants will most
likely choose another mode or
combination of modes of transportation
to travel round-trip between their home
of record and the closest REC. We
assume the cost of this travel will
consist of the airfare, airport transfers
to-and-from home and an REC, the
opportunity cost of time spent traveling,
and the round-trip travel costs
associated with overnight incidentals
and lodging.
We estimated the cost per applicant
for lodging and incidentals for overnight
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
air travel to be $243 ((2 days × $53 per
day incidentals) + $137 per night
lodging = $243). The estimated cost per
applicant for overnight air travel is
$1,185 ($250 airfare + (2 round-trip
airport transfers × $50 per transfer) + (16
travel hours × $37 per hour cost of time)
+ $243 lodging and incidentals =
$1,185). The estimated annual cost of
overnight air travel for affected
applicants is $2,759,865 ($1,185 per
applicant × 2,329 applicants =
$2,759,865).
We assume these estimates will
approximate the maximum costs
associated with travel by air. Most likely
the total travel time will be less and
involve fewer lodging and incidentals
expenses, and will not be as costly in
terms of the applicant’s time.
Total National Cost
The annual cost of this rule to the
affected applicants, consisting of the
cost of travel and time for these
applicants, is estimated to be $16
million (non-discounted). The estimated
five-year (2005–2009), discounted
present value of the total cost of this
rule to the applicants is $71 million
based on a 7% discount rate and $77
million based on a 3% discount rate. As
stated above, all currently licensed
mariners must renew their licenses and
CORs every five years. Therefore, a fiveyear period of analysis covers a
complete renewal cycle and provides an
accurate snapshot of the total cost of the
interim rule for affected applicants.
Table 7 summarizes the total annual
cost of the rule to applicants.
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
2162
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 7.—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED APPLICANTS AND ANNUAL COST 1
Number of
affected
applicants
Cost component
Annual costs
per affected
applicant
Annual cost
for all affected
applicants 2
Percent of
total annual
cost
(percent)
REC Time Cost ................................................................................................
One-day Round-trip Travel Cost ......................................................................
Overnight Round-trip Travel Cost ....................................................................
Greater Than Overnight Round-Trip Travel Cost ............................................
23,294
13,976
6,988
2,329
$74
387
911
1,185
$1,723,756
5,408,712
6,366,068
2,759,865
11
33
39
17
Total Annual Cost of the Interim Rule ......................................................
........................
........................
16,258,401
100
1 All
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
annual costs include the cost of the applicants’ time spent traveling and time spent at an REC.
2 Some values may not total due to rounding.
The primary cost to these applicants
of this interim rule is the travel cost (90
percent of the total cost), which is
driven by the mariners’ opportunity cost
of time, cost of lodging, and other per
diem factors. About one-half of the cost
of this rule to the affected applicants, as
a percentage of total annual cost, is
overnight and greater than overnight
round-trip travel, which are 39 percent
and 17 percent, respectively. However,
these two travel cost components only
apply to 40 percent of the applicants,
with greater than overnight round-trip
travel only applying to 10 percent.
These costs will impact mariners and
prospective mariners who are interested
in applying for licenses or CORs. The
cost impacts will be high for any
mariner who will have to travel to an
REC, because of the limited number of
RECs available: 17 RECs nationwide,
including two in Alaska and one in
Hawaii.
In Table 7, the cost per applicant for
time spent at an REC is relatively low
at $74 per applicant. However, if there
is any travel involved that will force an
applicant to forgo a minimal amount of
work, such as one-day round-trip travel,
then the total cost per applicant
increases 6 times to $461, which
includes the additional one-day roundtrip travel cost of $387 per mariner ($74
REC time + $387 one-day round-trip
travel = $461 for a mariner who must
travel one-day and visit an REC).
However, we believe the total cost
estimate of this interim rule to the
affected applicants is a conservative
estimate, because the REC locations,
together, can serve approximately 90
percent of applicants within a 100-mile
radius. We also used conservative
driving distances, for example, one-day
travel is 100 miles round-trip and
overnight travel is 200 miles round-trip.
The RECs are also located in or near
major maritime ports that may allow
mariners and prospective mariners to
access the REC before, during, or after
the applicants’ marine-related business
operations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
The cost of the applicants’ time,
however, will be a net loss to the
applicants. The applicants will forgo
work-time or free-time in order to
comply with this rule, and may have to
compensate by using vacation leave.
However, we do not expect there to be
a loss in business or productivity in the
maritime sector, because the work
schedules of these mariners often
involve several days off their vessels per
voyage, which they could use to visit an
REC. Owners and operators of vessels
also have several mariners they can use
in the event another mariner is not
available.
Benefits
We anticipate several qualitative
benefits from the new fingerprinting and
ID requirements established by this
interim rule. All applicants for licenses
and CORs will now have their
fingerprints taken by Coast Guard
personnel at an REC and must have
their ID checked by Coast Guard
personnel at an REC. In the past,
applicants could have had their
fingerprints taken and their identity
checked by outside entities and
submitted them by mail without a
guarantee of accuracy or validity.
The Coast Guard currently requires
applicants seeking licenses or CORs to
have their basic information on identity
and possible criminal records reviewed
so that the Coast Guard issues licenses
and CORs only to eligible applicants.
However, in the past some mariners did
not have their fingerprints taken at, nor
their identification checked by, the
Coast Guard. Under these conditions,
there was a possibility that fingerprints
and proof of ID could have been
falsified. A terrorist could then use a
falsified license or COR to portray
himself or herself as a qualified deck,
engineering, or staff officer. The
cumulative effect of the changes
described in Table 1 (see Discussion of
Rule) will be to increase the likelihood
that the Coast Guard will process
applications only from, and issue
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
credentials only to, applicants who can
prove they are who they claim to be,
and whose backgrounds can be verified
to make sure they meet security-related
requirements.
We expect this interim rule to assist
the Coast Guard in its effort to help
secure U.S. ports, waterways, marine
infrastructure, and marine-related
commercial activities and international
trade by protecting the licensing process
from abuse.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. This
rule does not require a general notice of
proposed rulemaking and, therefore, is
exempt from the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although
this rule is exempt, we have reviewed
it for potential economic impacts on
small entities.
We do not expect this rule to have a
significant impact on a large number of
small entities. This rule sets new
application requirements for mariner
licenses and CORs that will prevent
abuse and assist the Coast Guard in its
effort to help secure U.S. marine
infrastructure, commercial activities,
and the free flow of trade. We expect
this interim rule to help prevent the
interruption of U.S. business activities
that may result from the abuse of
mariner licenses and CORs.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this rule so that they can
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
better evaluate its effects on them and
participate in the rulemaking. If you
think this interim rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities
that question or complain about this
interim rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This interim rule calls for a collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Title 44, United
States Code (44 U.S.C.) sections 3501–
3520. This rule modifies the burden in
the collection previously approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under OMB Control Number
1625–0040. The fingerprint and
identification (ID) requirements
involved with the license and certificate
of registry (COR) applications are
included in the previously approved
collection.
This interim rule changes certain
requirements in Title 46, Code of
Federal Regulations (46 CFR) part 10 for
how mariners and prospective mariners
will apply for licenses and CORs.
This interim rule requires applicants
for original (new) and subsequent issue
(raise of grade, renewal, and duplicate)
licenses and CORs to have their
fingerprints taken and to have their IDs
checked at a Coast Guard Regional
Examination Center (REC). The rule
requires an applicant to appear at least
once in the application process, even if
submitting an application by mail, fax,
or other electronic means, and requires
that the Coast Guard conduct
fingerprinting and check IDs for original
and subsequent issue license and COR
transactions as provided in 46 CFR
10.105 and 10.209. The rule also
changes the list of acceptable forms of
ID that an applicant must present at an
REC as provided in 46 CFR 10.105 and
10.205, and requires that applicants
report foreign and military convictions
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
in addition to domestic convictions as
provided in 46 CFR 10.201.
The primary impacts of this rule for
license and COR applicants include the
travel to and from an REC and the time
spent at an REC in order to have their
fingerprints taken and IDs checked.
There has not been a consistent
fingerprinting or ID policy among the
RECs for license or COR applications.
Some RECs ask all license applicants to
visit the REC for fingerprinting and
some do not. Some RECs permit an
applicant to renew a license or COR
entirely by mail, since there was no
requirement to submit fingerprints for
that transaction. If an REC did require
fingerprints, candidates were allowed to
have them taken by local authorities
(sheriff, police, etc.) and submit them
with their applications. The
continuance of this practice could allow
an applicant to submit fingerprints that
are not those of the license candidate.
This interim rule creates a consistent
policy for all RECs, and the Coast Guard
will be assured that the prints submitted
for a criminal record check are those of
the applicant who appears before the
Coast Guard with appropriate ID.
As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c),
‘‘collection of information’’ comprises
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring,
posting, labeling, and similar actions.
The title and description of the
collection of information, a description
of those who must collect the
information, and an estimate of the total
annual burden follow. The estimate
covers the additional time mariners will
spend traveling to and from an REC, the
additional time mariners will spend
waiting and processing at an REC, the
changes in the list of acceptable forms
of ID that a mariner must present at an
REC, and the requirement that
applicants must now report foreign and
military convictions in addition to
domestic convictions.
We assume there are no additional
burden hours or costs associated with
the changes to the list of acceptable
forms of ID, because these forms of
legitimate IDs are widely held by the
public. We also determined that the
requirement for applicants to report
foreign and military convictions in
addition to domestic convictions is a
negligible impact because they currently
must report convictions, not specified as
foreign or military, in the application
process.
Title: Continuous Discharge Book,
Merchant Mariner Application, Physical
Examination Report, Sea Service Report,
Chemical Testing, and Entry Level
Physical Report.
OMB Control Number: 1625–0040.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2163
Agency Form Numbers: CG–719A,
CG–719B, CG–719K, CG–719S, CG–
719P, and CG–719K/E.
Summary of the Collection of
Information: In accordance with 46
U.S.C. and 46 CFR, the collection of this
information is necessary to determine
competency, character, and physical
qualifications for the issuance of Coast
Guard licenses, CORs, and merchant
mariner documents.
Summary of the Modification to the
Collection of Information: This interim
rule adds new collection of information
requirements in 46 CFR 10.105, 10.201,
10.205, and 10.209 for license and COR
applicants. These new provisions
require applicants to spend time
traveling to and from an REC, to spend
time waiting and processing at an REC,
to present ID at an REC from a list of
acceptable forms of ID, and to report
foreign and military convictions.
Need for Information: The Coast
Guard needs this information to process
applications only from, and issue
credentials only to, applicants who can
prove they are who they claim to be,
and whose backgrounds can be verified
to make sure they meet security and
safety related requirements. This
information assists the Coast Guard in
its effort to help secure U.S. ports,
waterways, marine infrastructure, and
marine-related commercial activities,
including international trade, by
protecting the licensing and COR
process from abuse.
Description of Respondents: The
previously approved collection and the
interim rule require applicants for
licenses and CORs to submit their
applications, including their
fingerprints, to an REC. However, the
interim rule further requires applicants
for original and subsequent issue
licenses and CORs to have their
fingerprints taken and their IDs checked
at an REC. It also requires applicants to
present IDs at an REC from a list of
acceptable forms of ID and to report
foreign and military convictions on the
application.
Number of Respondents: The
previously approved number of
respondents is 200,000. This rule will
not increase the number of respondents
in this collection. This rule requires the
existing population of applicants
(respondents) for original and
subsequent issue licenses and CORs to
have their fingerprints taken and their
IDs checked at an REC. Previously, the
Coast Guard also permitted respondents
in this collection to apply for some
originals and all subsequent issue
licenses and CORs entirely by mail as an
alternative to traveling to an REC.
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
2164
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Frequency of Response: The
previously approved number of
responses is 50,000 each year. This rule
will increase that number by 23,294,
which is the annual number of
applicants that were previously not
required to and chose not to appear at
an REC to have their fingerprints taken
and their IDs checked at an REC. See the
‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ section for a
discussion of the baseline population of
applicants. The total number of annual
responses will now be 73,294.
Burden of Response Time From
Revision of Collection: The burden of
response time from this rule on
applicants for licenses and CORs
includes the travel time to and from an
REC and the time spent at an REC in
order to have their fingerprints taken
and IDs checked. We assume the
applicants will drive or fly during the
day to complete their round-trip travel
to and from an REC. We also assume
that one day of travel is approximately
eight hours of travel (see Table 5 and
Table 6 of the ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’
section for a summary of travel
distances and time).
We estimate that an applicant will
spend two hours at an REC being
fingerprinted, having their ID checked,
and possibly waiting before, during, or
after to complete these requirements.
This is the REC wait-time estimate
based on discussions with Coast Guard
REC personnel familiar with operations
and customer processing time for
applicants who currently visit an REC
for fingerprinting and ID examination
(see the Cost of REC Time discussion in
the section ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’).
Estimate of Total Annual Burden
Hours: The previously approved total
annual burden is 21,875 hours. This
rule, because of the travel requirements
and REC waiting and processing time,
will increase that number by
approximately 307,481 hours (see the
‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ section for a
discussion of the time and costs of this
rule for applicants). The total number of
hours will now be 329,356.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden
Cost: There is not a total annual
operations & maintenance (O&M)
burden cost reported in the previously
approved collection (see form OMB 83–
I, Box 14.b., for this collection). Since
this rule requires applicants to travel to
and from an REC and to wait at an REC
while processing fingerprints and IDs,
there is an associated reporting cost
burden (annual O&M costs) that is
added to the collection. This cost
burden includes expenses from this rule
incurred by applicants for travel time,
lodging, incidentals, and time waiting at
an REC. This rule increases the annual
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
cost burden by approximately $16
million, which is the same as the
reported non-discounted annual cost of
the rule (see the ‘‘Regulatory
Evaluation’’ section for a discussion of
the costs of this rule for applicants). The
total annual O&M cost to be reported on
form OMB 83–I, Box 14.b., of this
collection will be $16 million.
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of
this interim rule to OMB for its review
of the collection of information. Due to
the circumstances surrounding this
interim rule, we asked for emergency
approval of our request. We received
OMB approval for this collection of
information on January 4, 2006.
We request public comment on the
collection of information to help us
determine how useful the information
is; whether it can help us perform our
functions better; whether it is readily
available elsewhere; how accurate our
estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining
burden are; how we can improve the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information; and how we can minimize
the collection burden.
If you submit comments on the
collection of information, submit them
to both OMB and the Docket
Management Facility where indicated
under ADDRESSES, by the date under
DATES.
You need not respond to a collection
of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number from
OMB. We received OMB approval for
this collection of information on January
4, 2006. The approval expires June 30,
2006.
casualties and any other category in
which Congress intended the Coast
Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s
obligations, are within the field
foreclosed from regulation by the States.
See United States v. Locke and
Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120
S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000). Since this
interim rule involves the manning of
U.S. vessels and the licensing of
merchant mariners, it relates to
personnel qualifications. Because the
States may not regulate within this
category, this rule does not present new
preemption issues under Executive
Order 13132.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order 13132, the Coast Guard certifies
that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement.
The law is well-settled that States
may not regulate in categories expressly
reserved for regulation by the Coast
Guard. The law also is well-settled that
all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C.
3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design,
construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping,
personnel qualification, and manning of
vessels), as well as the reporting of
G. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act 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.
The Act does not require an assessment
in the case of an interim rule issued
without prior notice and public
comment. Nevertheless, the Coast Guard
does not expect this rule to result in
such an expenditure. We discuss this
rule’s effects elsewhere in this
preamble.
F. Taking of Private Property
This interim rule will not affect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
H. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this interim rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This interim rule is not an
economically significant rule and does
not create an environmental risk to
health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
I. Indian Tribal Governments
This interim rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
J. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this interim rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that Order.
Although it is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866, it
affects only the issuance of credentials
to merchant mariners and therefore is
not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it
does not require a Statement of Energy
Effects under Executive Order 13211.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
K. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This interim rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
L. Environment
We have analyzed this interim rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we
believe this rule should be categorically
excluded under Figure 2–1, paragraph
(34)(c) of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This rule
updates the training, qualifying,
licensing, and disciplining of maritime
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
personnel. An ‘‘Environmental Analysis
Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are available
in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 10
Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Schools,
Seamen.
I For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46
CFR part 10 as follows:
PART 10—LICENSING OF MARITIME
PERSONNEL
1. The authority citation for part 10 is
revised to read as follows:
I
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 31 U.S.C. 9701;
46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C.
chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, and
8906; Executive Order 10173; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Section 10.107 is also issued under the
authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
2. In § 10.103, revise the definition for
‘‘Conviction’’ and add, in alphabetical
order, a definition for ‘‘Dangerous drug’’
to read as follows:
I
§ 10.103
part.
Definitions of terms used in this
*
*
*
*
*
Conviction means the applicant for a
license or certificate of registry has been
found guilty by judgment or plea by a
court of the United States, the District
of Columbia, any State, territory, or
possession of the United States, a
foreign country, or any military court, of
a criminal felony or misdemeanor or of
an offense described in section 205 of
the National Driver Register Act of 1982,
as amended (49 U.S.C. 30304).
Conviction of more than one offense at
a single trial will be considered to be
multiple convictions. If an applicant
pleads guilty or no contest, is granted
deferred adjudication, or is required by
the court to attend classes, make
contributions of time or money, receive
treatment, submit to any manner of
probation or supervision, or forgo
appeal of a trial court’s conviction, then
the applicant will be considered to have
received a conviction. A later expunged
conviction will not negate the
conviction unless it is proved to the
Coast Guard that the expungement is
based upon a showing that the court’s
earlier conviction was in error.
Dangerous drug means a narcotic
drug, a controlled substance, or a
controlled-substance analogue (as
defined in section 102 of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control
Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 802)).
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I
2165
3. Revise § 10.105 to read as follows:
§ 10.105
Applications.
(a) Applicants for licenses and
certificates of registry may apply at the
following Coast Guard Regional
Examination Centers (RECs):
Boston, MA
New York, NY
Baltimore, MD
Charleston, SC
Miami, FL
New Orleans, LA
Houston, TX
Memphis, TN
St. Louis, MO
Toledo, OH
San Pedro, CA
Oakland, CA
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Anchorage, AK
Juneau, AK
Honolulu, HI
(b) A complete application for a
license or certificate of registry, whether
original, renewal, duplicate, or raise of
grade, consists of a written application,
all applicable supplementary
documents required by this part,
fingerprints, and two forms of ID. The
written portion of the application may
be submitted by mail, fax, or other
electronic means. However, no
application is complete until the
applicant appears in person and is
fingerprinted by and provides evidence
of his or her identity to a member of the
REC staff. If the applicant is
simultaneously applying for more than
one credential, a single personal
appearance and fingerprinting will
satisfy this requirement for all pending
applications.
(c) Each applicant must present at
least two forms of identification to an
REC employee as evidence of his or her
identity. Expired or otherwise invalid
forms may not be used. At least one of
the forms of identification must contain
the applicant’s photograph. Acceptable
forms of identification include the
following:
(1) U.S. military identification card;
(2)(i) Before May 11, 2008, a U.S.
driver’s license;
(ii) On or after May 11, 2008, U.S.
driver’s license issued by a State that
meets the standards promulgated
pursuant to the REAL ID Act of 2005;
(3) U.S. passport;
(4) Official identification card issued
by a State, or local government or by a
territory or possession of the U.S. that
meets the standards promulgated
pursuant to the REAL ID Act of 2005.
(5) Official identification card issued
by the Federal Government. This
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
2166
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
includes a Federal employee’s
identification credential;
(6) Port credential, with photograph of
the applicant, issued by State or local
government port authority;
(7) Law enforcement credential, that
includes a photograph of the applicant
and is issued by a Federal, State, or
local government or by a territory or
possession of the U.S.;
(8) Merchant mariner’s document
issued after February 3, 2003;
(9) Foreign passport; or
(10) Original or a certified copy of a
birth certificate, issued by a State,
county, municipality or outlying
possession of the U.S. bearing an official
seal.
I 4. In § 10.201, revise paragraphs (a),
(b), (h) introductory text, and (h)(1) to
read as follows:
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
§ 10.201 Eligibility for licenses and
certificates of registry, general.
(a) The applicant for a license or
certificate of registry, whether original,
renewal, duplicate, or raise of grade,
must establish to the satisfaction of the
Coast Guard that he or she possesses all
the qualifications necessary (including
but not limited to age, experience,
character references and
recommendations, physical health,
citizenship, approved training, passage
of a professional examination, a test for
dangerous drugs, and when required by
this part, a practical demonstration of
skills) before the Coast Guard will issue
a license or certificate of registry.
(b) No person who has been convicted
of a violation of the dangerous drug
laws of the United States, the District of
Columbia, any State, territory, or
possession of the United States, or a
foreign country, by any military or
civilian court, is eligible for a license or
certificate of registry, except as provided
by the provisions of paragraph (h) of
this section. No person who has ever
been the user of, or addicted to, a
dangerous drug, or has ever been
convicted of an offense described in
section 205 of the National Driver
Register Act of 1982, as amended (49
U.S.C. 30304) because of addiction to or
abuse of alcohol is eligible for a license
or certificate of registry, unless he or she
furnishes satisfactory evidence of
suitability for service in the merchant
marine as provided in paragraph (j) of
this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Criminal record review. The Coast
Guard will review the criminal record of
an applicant before the issuance of a
license or certificate of registry. An
applicant conducting simultaneous
transactions for merchant mariner’s
credentials will undergo only one
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
criminal record check. Applicants must
provide written disclosure of all prior
convictions at the time of application.
(1) The Coast Guard will use the
fingerprints submitted pursuant to
§ 10.105(b) to obtain a criminal record
report. An applicant’s criminal record
report may be used to determine that an
applicant’s character and habits of life
are such that the applicant cannot be
entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities of the license or
certificate of registry. Should such a
determination be made, the application
may be disapproved. If an application is
disapproved, the Coast Guard will
advise the applicant in writing that the
reconsideration and appeal procedures
in subpart 1.03 of this chapter apply and
will, in appropriate circumstances,
notify the applicant of the reason(s) for
disapproval. The Coast Guard will not
administer a written examination until
final agency action has been made on
the applicant’s appeal.
*
*
*
*
*
I 5. In § 10.202 add paragraph (m) to
read as follows:
3, 2003 that shows that the holder is a
citizen of the U.S.;
(3) Certificate of Citizenship issued by
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services or the Immigration and
Naturalization Service;
(4) Certificate of Naturalization issued
by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services or the Immigration and
Naturalization Service; or
(5) Unexpired U.S. State Department
passport.
*
*
*
*
*
7. In § 10.207, revise paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
I
§ 10.207 Requirements for raises of grades
of licenses.
§ 10.202 Issuance of licenses, certificates
of registry, and STCW certificates or
endorsements.
(a) General. Before any person is
issued a raise of grade of license, the
applicant must present satisfactory
documentary evidence of eligibility
with respect to the applicable
requirements of §§ 10.201, 10.202, and
this section. Each applicant must submit
an application as set forth in § 10.105,
and, unless exempted under § 10.112,
submit the evaluation fee set out in table
10.109 in § 10.109.
*
*
*
*
*
*
I
*
*
*
*
(m) No license or certificate of registry
will be issued until the applicant has
passed a criminal record review as set
forth in § 10.201 of this chapter.
I 6. In § 10.205 revise paragraphs (a)
and (c) to read as follows:
§ 10.205 Requirements for original
licenses, certificates of registry, and STCW
certificates and endorsements.
(a) General. The applicant for an
original license or certificate of registry
must present satisfactory documentary
evidence of eligibility with respect to
the applicable requirements of § 10.201
through § 10.203. Each applicant must
submit an application as set forth in
§ 10.105 and, unless exempted under
§ 10.112, submit the evaluation fee set
out in table 10.109 in § 10.109.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Citizenship. Each applicant must
provide acceptable evidence of his or
her citizenship to the Coast Guard. The
Coast Guard will reject any evidence of
citizenship that we do not believe to be
authentic. ‘‘Acceptable evidence of
citizenship’’ means an original of any
one of the following documents:
(1) Original or a certified copy of a
birth certificate, issued by a State,
county, municipality or outlying
possession of the U.S. bearing an official
seal.
(2) Merchant mariner’s document
issued by the Coast Guard after February
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8. In § 10.209, revise paragraphs (a)(2)
and (e)(3)(i) introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 10.209 Requirements for renewal of
licenses, certificates of registry, and STCW
certificates and endorsements.
(a) * * *
(2) Although the written portion of
the application may be initiated by mail,
fax, or other electronic means, no
application for renewal is complete
until the applicant appears in person at
a Regional Examination Center (REC), is
fingerprinted, and provides evidence of
his or her identity in accordance with
the requirements of § 10.105.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(3) Renewal by mail, fax, or other
electronic means. (i) This paragraph sets
forth those required portions of the
application that may be submitted by
mail, fax, or other electronic means.
Although an applicant may initiate,
supplement, or complete a renewal by
mail, fax, or other electronic means, no
application for renewal is complete
until the applicant appears in person at
an REC, is fingerprinted, and provides
evidence of his or her identity in
accordance with § 10.205. The following
documents must be submitted by the
applicant, but may be submitted by
mail, fax, or other electronic means:
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: January 10, 2006.
Thomas H. Collins,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.
[FR Doc. 06–369 Filed 1–11–06; 12:20 pm]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
Practice and Procedure
47 CFR Part 1
CFR Correction
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES
In Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, parts 0 to 19, revised as of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:51 Jan 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2167
October 1, 2005, on page 180, § 1.703 is
corrected in paragraph (b) by reinstating
the words ‘‘oral argument shall file a
written statement to that effect setting
forth the reasons for his interest in the
matter.’’ after the word ‘‘the’’ at the end
of the second sentence.
[FR Doc. 06–55500 Filed 1–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
E:\FR\FM\13JAR1.SGM
13JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2154-2167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-369]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 10
[USCG-2004-17455]
RIN 1625-AA85
Validation of Merchant Mariners' Vital Information and Issuance
of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Licenses and Certificates of Registry
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending the maritime personnel licensing
rules to include new security requirements when mariners apply for
original, renewal, and raise of grade licenses and certificates of
registry. This interim rule corrects omissions and ambiguities in the
Coast Guard's preexisting maritime personnel licensing regulations.
This interim rule will require all applicants for licenses and
certificates of registry to have their identity checked and their
fingerprints taken for a criminal record review by the Coast Guard. The
new requirements are similar to those that apply to applicants for
merchant mariner's documents.
DATES: This interim rule is effective January 13, 2006 and is
applicable for applications received by the Coast Guard on or after
that date. Comments and related material must reach the Docket
Management Facility on or before April 13, 2006. Comments sent to the
Office of Management and Budget on collection of information must reach
OMB on or before March 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2004-17455 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: https://dms.dot.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., 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: https://www.regulations.gov.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or RIN for this rulemaking. All comments will be posted
without change to https://www.dms.dot.gov/feddocket, including any
personal information sent with each comment. For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking
process, see the ``Public Participation in Rulemaking Process'' heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
submitted comments, go to https://www.dmt.dot.gov. You may also access
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim
rule, call Mr. Stewart Walker, Project Manager, National Maritime
Center (NMC), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-493-1022. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Andrea M. Jenkins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, Department of Transportation, telephone
202-366-0271.
For questions on submitting an application for the issuance of a
license or certificate of registry, call the nearest Coast Guard
Regional Examination Center (REC), a list of which appears in Title 46,
Code of Federal Regulations (46 CFR) section 10.105, or on the Internet
at https://www.uscg.mil/STCW/index.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 2155]]
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Background and Purpose
III. Discussion of the Rule
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
B. Regulatory Evaluation
Baseline Population
Costs
Benefits
Small Entities
Assistance for Small Entities
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Taking of Private Property
G. Civil Justice Reform
H. Protection of Children
I. Indian Tribal Governments
J. Energy Effects
K. Technical Standards
L. Environment
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 10
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the
interim rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to the
Coast Guard in developing these procedures will reference a specific
portion of the interim rule, explain the reason for any recommended
change, and include data, information, or authority that support such
recommended change. See ADDRESSES above for information on how to
submit comments. All comments received will be posted, without change,
to https://dms.dot.gov and will include any personal information you
have provided. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting to solicit
comments on this interim rule. However, you may submit a request for
one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES
explaining why a hearing would be beneficial. If the Coast Guard
determines that a public hearing would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.
Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your
name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-
2004-17455), 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 by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period in the drafting of the
final rule.
Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time and conduct a simple search using
the docket number. 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.). Because the Coast
Guard currently maintains comments on its regulations on the Docket
Management System for the Department of Transportation (DOT), please
review DOT's Privacy Act Statement, published in the Federal Register
on April 11, 2000 at 65 FR 19477, or visit https://dms.dot.gov for the
handling of public comments under the Privacy Act.
II. Background and Purpose
A brief discussion of the terms used in portions of the preamble is
offered to assist in the understanding of this interim rule. The term
``credential'' encompasses the merchant mariner's document (MMD),
license, and certificate of registry (COR). This rule affects only
licenses and CORs, so in this document we use the term ``credential''
only to refer to a license or COR, and we specify if and when we mean
to include MMDs. We use the term ``original'' credential to refer to an
applicant's first license or COR; the term ``subsequent issue''
credential to refer to a raise of grade, renewal, or duplicate license
or COR; and the term ``applicant'' to refer to mariners or prospective
mariners who are applying for a license or COR.
The Coast Guard has been regulating merchant mariners for quite
some time, pursuant to an extensive statutory framework. 46 U.S.C.
2103. Title 46 U.S.C. Chapter 71 addresses licenses, certificates, and
documents and authorizes the Coast Guard to issue licenses and CORs to
applicants found qualified as to age, character, habits of life,
experience, professional qualifications, and physical fitness. Mariners
who serve as officers must possess licenses or CORs to serve on board
U.S.-flagged merchant vessels. 46 U.S.C. 8103. The license or COR
functions as proof of a mariner's qualifications and competency,
specifying each class for which the holder is qualified. 46 U.S.C.
7101. Licenses and CORs for individuals on documented vessels may be
issued only to citizens of the United States. 46 U.S.C. 7102. A license
or COR is valid for five years, and may be renewed for additional five-
year periods. 46 U.S.C. 7106. For raise of grade licenses, such as from
second mate to chief mate, a mariner must have at least one year of
service at sea, receive training, demonstrate practical skills, and
pass an examination. Raises of grade are done at the option of the
mariner, dependent on a mariner's personal initiative. Coast Guard
regulations governing the licensing and registering of mariners appear
at 46 CFR part 10.
At this time merchant mariners may be required to carry one of
three credentials. These are the MMD, license, and COR. This interim
rule affects only the mariner's license and COR.
MMDs are required for mariners who sail on vessels of at least 100
gross register tons on oceans and the Great Lakes, with some
exceptions. When MMDs are required for a vessel, all mariners on that
vessel, whether licensed or unlicensed, must hold them. When MMDs are
not required for a vessel, mariners serving as officers on the vessel
must still hold a proper license, while those not serving as officers
generally will not need to possess any Coast Guard-issued credential.
Unlike licenses and CORs, the MMD is an identity document. An MMD
shows the mariner's photograph, ID number, nationality, address, date
of birth, physical characteristics, and signature. Also, for those
mariners who do not need to carry a license, the MMD is used to show
that the mariner has undergone a safety and security check, and to show
any additional qualifications or endorsements in the Deck, Engine or
Steward's Department, and any additional endorsements such as
Lifeboatman or Tankerman Person-in-Charge.
The license is not an identity document. A license is a certificate
that is issued for a term of five years and demonstrates a mariner's
qualifications and competency to serve as a Deck
[[Page 2156]]
Officer, Engineer Officer, Pilot, or Radio Officer.
CORs are similar to licenses, but are used only for staff officers
in purser and medical positions. Medical positions require that the
candidate also hold a valid State license. The COR, like the license,
is not used for identification purposes. It is a certificate that shows
that the mariner is qualified to perform one or more specialized job
functions.
The purpose of this interim rule is to amend 46 CFR part 10 to
strengthen the security of the licensing process by increasing the
likelihood that licenses and CORs are issued only to eligible mariners.
To do this, the Coast Guard will now require mariners to appear at a
Regional Exam Center (REC) to provide fingerprints, and allow REC staff
to evaluate the information provided on the mariner's application at
the REC. We will use the information provided to conduct a criminal
record review in accordance with applicable law and regulations.
III. Discussion of the Rule
The Coast Guard is revising its merchant mariner credentialing
regulations with respect to licenses and CORs. MMDs are not affected by
this rule because on January 6, 2004, the Coast Guard published an
interim rule in the Federal Register, entitled ``Validation of Merchant
Mariners' Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant
Mariner's Documents (MMDs)'' (69 FR 526) to require appearance at a
Coast Guard REC for the purposes of presenting identification and
having fingerprints taken for original, renewal, and raise of grade
MMDs. This rulemaking is meant to implement similar requirements for
licenses and CORs. Similar to the MMD rulemaking, the Coast Guard is
phasing in these requirements over a five-year period to reduce the
burden on both mariners and Coast Guard resources.
There are approximately 200,000 credentialed mariners in the United
States. The MMD interim rule mentioned above affected approximately
half of this population. This rulemaking will affect the remaining
population. All of our substantive changes will increase the likelihood
that the Coast Guard will process applications only from, and issue
credentials only to, applicants who can prove they are who they claim
to be, and whose backgrounds can be verified to make sure they meet
security-related requirements. In addition to our substantive changes,
we corrected minor stylistic and grammatical errors in 46 CFR part 10
only when making a substantive change within the same section.
The substantive changes to 46 CFR part 10 are discussed in Table 1,
below. This table lists the problem with the preexisting regulations in
column 1, then in column 2 it lists the change that was made and why.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the authority of
the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002, is developing a program that can
be used to control access to secure areas in vessels, facilities, and
ports. (See 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(12); 46 U.S.C. 70105.) This program
includes a system-wide transportation worker identification card which
is currently under development. DHS is developing this program through
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard, and
other Federal agencies, including others within DHS. The Coast Guard
will work with TSA to ensure that the regulations for obtaining
licenses and CORs are consistent with this initiative to minimize
future impacts on mariners.
Table 1.--Former and New Provisions of 46 CFR Part 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Rule New Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition for ``conviction'' We revised the definition of
specified that an applicant convicted ``conviction'' to include
of certain crimes was ineligible for foreign or military court
licensing, but did not include foreign convictions, as these may be
or military court convictions. (Sec. relevant to a determination of
10.103). an applicant's character and
habits of life; convictions
for certain crimes by those
courts now will count against
an applicant. (Sec. 10.103).
An applicant who fails a chemical test The regulation now defines
for dangerous drugs was ineligible for ``dangerous drug,'' using the
licensing, but the regulation did not same definition that appears
define a ``dangerous drug.'' (Sec. in 46 CFR 16.105. 46 CFR
10.103). 16.105 is part of the Coast
Guard's regulations on
chemical testing of merchant
mariners. This correction of
an omission conforms our
regulations in parts 10 and
16. (Sec. 10.103).
Applicants for renewals could conduct All applicants must appear at a
the entire renewal process by mail. Coast Guard Regional Exam
(Sec. 10.105, Sec. 10.209). Center (REC) to be
fingerprinted by, and show
identification (ID) to, an REC
employee. This personal
appearance requirement allows
the Coast Guard to see that
the fingerprints and ID
actually belong to the
applicant, thereby reducing
the chance of fraud. (Sec.
10.105, Sec. 10.209).
The Coast Guard allowed applicants to All fingerprints must be taken
provide fingerprints taken by an at an REC, by an REC employee.
outside entity. (Sec. 10.201). Allowing mariners to submit
fingerprints that were taken
elsewhere left the Coast Guard
with no assurance that the
fingerprints actually belonged
to the applicant. (Sec.
10.105, Sec. 10.201).
Applicants for original and subsequent Applicants must appear at an
issue credentials had to show proof of REC and present two acceptable
their age and citizenship, but were forms of ID. The requirement
not required to show ID. (Sec. of two IDs provides the Coast
10.201). Guard with an adequate amount
of documentation to be
reasonably confident that
applicants are who they say
they are. (Sec. 10.105).
[[Page 2157]]
No list of acceptable forms of ID was A list of acceptable forms of
presented in the regulation. (None). ID is now presented in the
regulation. As the requirement
for ID is new, this list
notifies the mariners as to
what forms will be acceptable.
The forms of ID that are
listed are more easily
verifiable by REC employees
and more difficult to falsify.
Additionally, on May 11, 2005,
Congress enacted the REAL ID
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13),
which establishes a process
for promulgating standards for
the issuance of driver's
licenses and ID cards. The
statute states that after May
11, 2008 Federal agencies will
be prohibited from accepting
for any official purpose IDs
issued by States and
territories that do not comply
with this Act. Because of
this, acceptable driver's
licenses and ID cards are
limited to those issued by
States and territories that
meet the requirements of the
Act. As the requirements of
the Act do not become
mandatory until May 11, 2008,
IDs from all States will be
acceptable at least until that
date, so long as their
validity can be verified by an
REC employee. (Sec. 10.105).
An applicant's qualifications could The application can now be
only be approved by the Officer in approved by any officer
Charge, Marine Inspection, (OCMI). specified by Coast Guard
(Sec. 10.201). policy. This reduces the
likelihood of unreasonable
delays in approving an
applicant's qualifications.
(Sec. 10.201).
Applicants could prove citizenship The Coast Guard began issuing
through any Merchant Mariner's new MMDs utilizing more tamper-
Document (MMD) issued by the Coast resistant cards on February 3,
Guard. (Sec. 10.205). 2003. Only valid MMDs issued
after that date may be used to
document citizenship and
identity. (Sec. 10.205).
Applicants could use any of the The Coast Guard is no longer
following atypical proofs of their accepting atypical proofs of
citizenship: Baptismal certificates; citizenship. We believe
parish records; statements of a verifying atypical proofs of
physician's attendance at a birth; citizenship is best left in
delayed certificates of birth; reports the jurisdiction of government
from the Census Bureau which showed agencies that specialize in
the earliest available record of age document verification and
or birth; affidavit(s) from a parent, citizenship like the U.S.
other relative, or two or more Citizenship and Immigration
responsible citizens; school records; Services (USCIS) or the
immigration records; and insurance Department of State. Thus, we
policies. (Sec. 10.205). have aligned acceptable proof
of citizenship with commonly
used documents listed on the
USCIS's Eligibility for
Employment (I-9) form. By
doing so, we maintained
acceptance of commonly used
documents, including birth
certificates, Certificates of
Citizenship, Certificates of
Naturalization, and passports.
These documents are issued by
government agencies and are
more difficult to alter than
the previously accepted
atypical proofs of
citizenship. (Sec. 10.205).
There was no requirement for a criminal Criminal record reviews and
record review or fingerprint fingerprints are required of
submission for renewals. (Sec. all applicants each time an
10.201). application is made, including
renewals. No credential will
be issued until the applicant
has passed a criminal record
review. This is to increase
the likelihood that
credentials are only given to
those mariners whose character
and habits of life are such
that the applicant can be
entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities of the
license or COR. (Sec.
10.201).
Criminal record reviews were not Criminal record reviews are now
mandatory in the language of the required for all applicants--
regulation for all original and regardless of whether they are
subsequent issue applicants. (Sec. original or subsequent issue
10.201). applications. The Coast Guard
will not issue any credential
until the applicant has passed
a criminal record review. This
is to increase the likelihood
that credentials are only
given to those mariners whose
character and habits of life
are such that the applicant
can be entrusted with the
duties and responsibilities of
the license or COR. (Sec.
10.201).
In section 10.201(a), the Officer in We revised 10.201(a) to allow
Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) had others in the Coast Guard to
to be satisfied as to an applicant's make eligibility
eligibility for a license or COR. determinations. This change
(Sec. 10.201). was made to streamline
internal Coast Guard
administrative procedures.
(Sec. 10.201).
Applicants were not required to provide Every time that a mariner
new fingerprints and/or ID when applies for a new credential
seeking a raise of grade or renewal they must provide a set of
credential. (Sec. 10.209). fingerprints and two
acceptable forms of ID. While
the likelihood that an
individual's fingerprints will
change is low, it is
imperative that the Coast
Guard determine if a mariner
is who he or she says he or
she is before issuing a
credential. This information
will be used for
identification purposes as
well as to update any criminal
record history. (Sec.
10.105, Sec. 10.209).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
Implementation of this rule as an interim rule with a request for
public comment after the effective date of the rule is based upon the
``good cause'' exception found under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Coast Guard has determined that
delaying implementation of this rule to await public notice and comment
is unnecessary, impracticable and contrary to the public interest for
the following reasons:
In the interests of marine safety and seamen's welfare, the Coast
Guard was given general superintendence of merchant marine personnel by
46 U.S.C. 2103 and 46 U.S.C. chapter 71. In 2002, Congress found that
U.S. ports are susceptible to large-scale acts of terrorism that could
cause a large loss of life or economic disruption, that ``ports are
often a major locus of Federal crime,'' (Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002, section 101, Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064) and
that it
[[Page 2158]]
is in the best interest of the United States to increase port security.
A Coast Guard-issued license authorizes its holder to serve in the
capacity of vessel's officer, allowing him or her to assume positions
of responsibility in the command and control of merchant marine
vessels. The harm that can be caused by persons who wrongfully obtain
licenses with the intention of committing crimes or terrorist acts
jeopardizes mariner safety and welfare, as well as national security.
Our goal is to protect the licensing process from abuse. As discussed
above, the Coast Guard has identified several omissions and ambiguities
in the former rule that could facilitate licensing abuse. This interim
rule corrects those omissions and clarifies those ambiguities to
promote maritime safety and security within the United States.
Further, delay or suspension of the existing merchant mariner
licensing process pending completion of notice and comment and
publication of a final rule could have a severe impact on the
professional lives of individual mariners, who are required to carry
valid licenses to work on board certain U.S.-flag vessels, and could
interfere with maritime commerce, which relies on the ready
availability of licensed personnel.
The delay of this rule would set up ``a situation in which the
interest of the public would be defeated,'' as well as impede the ``due
and timely execution'' of an important Coast Guard function; see
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 236 F.3d 749 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The Coast Guard therefore finds
delay of the implementation of this rule to allow for prior notice and
comment to be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
The Coast Guard also finds good cause, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3),
for this interim rule to take effect immediately. The Coast Guard finds
that, for the reasons previously discussed, it would be impracticable
and contrary to the public interest to subject this interim rule to
prior notice and public comment, or to delay its taking effect.
Although we have good cause to publish this rule without prior
notice and comment, we value public comments. As a result, we are
soliciting public comments on this interim rule and may revise the
final rule in response to those comments.
B. Regulatory Evaluation
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'', 58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993, requires a determination whether a regulatory
action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order. This rule has been identified as significant under
Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by OMB.
This interim rule changes certain requirements in 46 CFR part 10
for how mariners and prospective mariners will apply for licenses and
CORs.
This interim rule requires applicants for original (new) and
subsequent issue (raise of grade, renewal, and duplicate) licenses and
CORs to have their fingerprints taken at an REC and to have their IDs
checked at an REC. The rule requires an applicant to appear at least
once in the application process, even if submitting an application by
mail, fax, or other electronic means, and requires that the Coast Guard
conduct fingerprinting and check IDs for original (new) and subsequent
issue (raise of grade, renewal, and duplicate) license and COR
transactions. The primary costs of this rule to applicants for licenses
and CORs include the travel cost to an REC and the time spent at an REC
in order to have their fingerprints taken and IDs checked. Currently,
there is no consistent fingerprinting or identification policy among
the RECs for license or COR applications. Some RECs asked all license
applicants to visit an REC for fingerprinting, and some do not. All
RECs allowed an applicant to renew a license or COR entirely by mail,
since there was no requirement to submit fingerprints for that
transaction. This interim rule will create one consistent policy at all
RECs.
The following sections discuss the baseline population of
applicants and the portion of this population that will incur
additional costs, the estimated cost per applicant, and the estimated
national costs and benefits.
Baseline Population
The average annual population of applicants who apply for a license
or a COR is 30,142 mariners and prospective mariners. This population
includes 9,384 applicants for original (new) licenses, 20,627
applicants for subsequent issue (raise of grade, renewal, and
duplicate) licenses, and 131 applicants for CORs. This population
includes all applicants with or without a valid MMD at the time of the
license or COR application. Table 2 presents the average annual
applicant population by transaction type.
Table 2.--Summary of Average Annual Applicant Population by Transaction Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants for Applicants for
Current credential status of applicant original subsequent Applicants for Total
licenses issue licenses all CORs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants who currently have an MMD............ 2,038 7,302 131 ..............
Applicants who DO NOT currently have an MMD..... 7,346 13,325 .............. ..............
-----------------
Total Affected Population................... 9,384 20,627 131 30,142
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average annual population is based on field information and
data received from the Coast Guard's NMC and the Coast Guard's Maritime
Personnel Qualifications Division. The period of analysis is inclusive
from year 2005 through year 2009. We use a five-year period because all
currently licensed mariners must renew their licenses and CORs once
every five years. Therefore, this five-year period will cover a
complete license and COR renewal cycle, which will give an accurate
snapshot of the total cost of the interim rule for mariners to comply
with the new application requirements.
The subset of the population that will incur additional costs from
this rule is comprised of those applicants who currently apply for
licenses and CORs who do not have their fingerprints taken at an REC
and do not have their IDs checked at an REC. These applicants must now
incur an additional cost for travel to an REC to have their
fingerprints taken and to have their IDs checked.
Not all applicants will incur additional costs from this interim
rule. The subset of the population that will not incur additional costs
includes applicants who currently visit an REC to have their
fingerprints taken and their
[[Page 2159]]
IDs checked. These applicants are currently complying with what this
rule requires by visiting an REC to have their fingerprints taken and
their IDs checked. Prior to this interim rule, some RECs asked
applicants to visit an REC to have fingerprints taken and IDs checked
as a part of the application process for licenses; other RECs did not.
Some applicants also traveled to RECs to have their fingerprints taken
because of their close proximity to an REC.
Based on information from the Coast Guard's RECs, we estimate that
40 percent of the applicants for original licenses and 15 percent of
the applicants for subsequent issue licenses currently travel to an REC
for the purposes of having their fingerprints taken and IDs checked.
Therefore, we do not include these applicants in the cost analysis.
There could be other applicants who do not incur additional costs,
such as applicants who simultaneously apply for both MMDs and licenses.
These applicants may have chosen to apply for both credentials at the
same time to minimize cost and to synchronize the expiration dates for
both of their credentials. Since these applicants will be applying for
an MMD and a license at the same time, they will make one appearance at
an REC to have their fingerprints taken and to have their IDs checked.
These applicants would be regulated and processed under the regulations
for MMDs published on January 6, 2004, which currently require
applicants to have their fingerprints taken and their IDs checked at an
REC. 69 FR 526. Therefore, these applicants do not incur additional
costs by this rule.
However, it is difficult to estimate what percentage of these
applicants is simultaneously applying for credentials after the
publication of the regulations for MMDs. We do not adjust our analysis
for these mariners, and therefore our estimates may be conservative
because we possibly have counted some of the applicants twice, once
under the MMD interim rule, and once under this interim rule. Based on
discussions with Coast Guard staff and REC officials, we believe that
this number will be relatively small.
Accordingly, the estimated total annual quantity of applicants who
will incur an additional cost (referred to as the baseline population)
by this rule is 23,294 applicants for licenses and CORs. This baseline
population is estimated as the total affected population less the
subset of the affected population that does not incur additional costs.
Table 3 presents the summary of the annual baseline population that
will incur additional costs under this interim rule.
Table 3.--Summary of Average Annual Baseline Population by Transaction Type That Will Incur Additional Costs \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants for Applicants for
Current credential status of applicant original subsequent Applicants for Total
licenses issue licenses all CORs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants who currently have an MMD............ 1,223 6,207 131 ..............
Applicants who DO NOT currently have an MMD..... 4,408 11,326 .............. ..............
-----------------
Total Affected Population \2\............... 5,630 17,533 131 23,294
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This baseline population is adjusted to reflect the percentage of current applicants who already travel to
have their fingerprints taken at an REC. These are the totals in Table 2 less a 40 percent reduction in
original applicants and less a 15 percent reduction in subsequent issue applicants.
\2\ Some values may not total due to rounding.
Costs
The costs of this rule include (1) the cost of applicants' time at
an REC, and (2) the cost of applicants' travel to and from an REC. For
all costs, we assume an applicant's wage rate as a proxy for the
opportunity cost of the work time or free time forgone due to a
mariner's visit to an REC and travel to and from an REC. We also assume
maximum government per diem reimbursement rates as proxy unit costs for
travel expenses. Table 4 presents the basic unit cost assumptions and
sources that we used in this analysis of the interim rule.
Table 4.--Summary of Basic Unit Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Unit cost Source reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity Cost of Applicant $37/hour......... This wage rate is
Time. conservatively based
on the 90th
percentile wage
estimate (the
highest) from the
2002 National
Occupation
Employment and Wage
Statistics for
Captains, Mates, and
Pilots of Water
Vessels published by
the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. This
wage rate best
applies to licensed
officers because
they typically earn
higher wages than
other mariners.
Driving Mileage............... $0.375/mile 2004 Privately Owned
(rounded to Vehicle (POV)
$0.38/mile). Reimbursement Rates
for Automobiles in
Amendment 2003-6 of
the Federal Travel
Regulation,
published December
15, 2003, and
effective January 1,
2004, by the General
Services
Administration
(GSA). 68 FR 69618.
Round-trip Air-Fare........... $250/trip........ This airfare is based
on industry research
of current airfare
price levels and the
2002 price index for
airline fares in the
Statistical Abstract
of the United
States: 2003, 123rd
Edition, issued
December 2003, by
the U.S. Census
Bureau.
[[Page 2160]]
Round-trip Airport Transfer... $50/transfer..... This round-trip
airport transfer
cost is based on
research of the
average private and
public transfer
costs, including
taxi or car rental
costs associated
with U.S. airports
and regional
destinations. It is
not a mathematic or
rigorous estimate,
but an average
transfer cost based
on information
available from
associations and
trade groups,
airports, transit
authorities, and
governments.
Incidentals and Meals......... $53/day.......... The average
incidentals and
meals reimbursement
rate for the 17
current REC
locations. The GSA
provides rates for
the continental U.S.
The Department of
Defense provides
rates for the non-
continental U.S.
These rates are part
of the Federal
Travel Regulation
and are frequently
updated.
Lodging....................... $137/night....... The average lodging
reimbursement rate,
including an
additional 18%
lodging tax, for the
17 current REC
locations. The GSA
provides rates for
the continental U.S.
The Department of
Defense provides
rates for the non-
continental U.S.
These rates are part
of the Federal
Travel Regulation
and frequently
updated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of REC Time
We estimate that an applicant will spend two hours at an REC being
fingerprinted, having their ID checked, and possibly waiting before,
during, or after to complete these requirements. This is the REC wait-
time estimate based on discussions with Coast Guard REC personnel
familiar with operations and customer processing time for applicants
who currently visit an REC for fingerprinting and ID examination. We
expect very few applicants to take more than two hours, and many to
take less time; however, we believe two hours to be an appropriate
estimate of the total possible time an applicant will spend at an REC
in order to calculate conservative but reasonable costs attributable to
REC processing and waiting time.
We estimate the cost of an applicant's time at the REC to be $74 (2
hours x $37 per hour cost of time = $74). The estimated annual cost of
REC time for the baseline applicant population is $1,723,756 ($74 per
applicant x 23,294 total applicants = $1,723,756).
Travel Cost
We estimate round-trip travel, travel to and from an REC, to take
one day or require multiple day and overnight stays to complete. After
a review of current mariner addresses from the Coast Guard's NMC, we
estimate that approximately 60 percent of current mariners live within
one-day round-trip travel to an REC, 30 percent live within overnight
round-trip travel (one night and two days) to an REC, and 10 percent
live at a distance greater than overnight round-trip travel (greater
than one night and two days) to an REC. These are national percentages
for all mariners who currently have addresses on file with the NMC.
We assume these national percentages will most likely approximate
the travel distances to an REC for current license and COR applicants.
Therefore, we are applying the demographic characteristics (home of
record trends) of the current population of all mariners, upon the
future pool of applicants for licenses and CORs. Table 5 presents a
summary of the baseline applicant population that will incur additional
cost by travel distance to their closest REC using these national
population percentages.
Table 5.--Summary of the Affected Applicants by REC Travel Distance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
current Number of
Round-trip mariner possible
Distance to closest REC (miles) distance to population license or COR
closest REC within applicants
(miles) distance within
(percent) distance \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.............................................................. 100 60 13,976
100............................................................. 200 30 6,988
>=200........................................................... >=400 10 2,329
-----------------
Total....................................................... .............. 100 23,294
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some values may not total due to rounding.
We estimate that most mariners live within a close proximity to an
REC--approximately 90 percent live within same-day or one-night round-
trip travel from an REC. However, there are mariners who live far from
their closest REC, which we consider to be greater than overnight
round-trip travel or more than 400 miles round trip. For example, this
would include mariners in parts of the Great Lakes Basin and Alaska,
where a large area is served by only one or a few RECs.
We assume for the purpose of estimating costs that most applicants
who live within short distances to an REC will drive round trip--this
will ensure similar application of cost methodology across variable
distances. While there will be some applicants who take public
transportation or use another mode of travel, we believe, on average,
most applicants will drive themselves to an REC, with the exception of
those applicants who live far from their nearest REC, which we consider
to be greater than overnight round-trip travel.
We assume that most applicants who live far from an REC will fly
round
[[Page 2161]]
trip--this will ensure similar application of cost methodology for
those who will travel far distances. While there will be some
applicants who take another mode of travel or a combination of travel
modes, we believe, on average, most applicants will choose to travel by
plane if they live far away.
We assume the applicants will drive or fly during the day to
complete their round-trip travel to and from an REC. We also assume
that one-day of travel is approximately eight hours of travel. Table 6
presents a summary of travel distances and time:
Table 6.--Summary of the Travel Distances and Time \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum number
Round-trip travel distance from closest REC of travel days Maximum number
(miles) Duration of travel to complete of hours to
distance complete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100........................................... One-day Driving................. 1 8
200........................................... Overnight Driving............... 2 16
>=400......................................... Overnight Air................... 2 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The travel time is assumed to be the maximum number of days that would be necessary to complete the round-
trip travel converted into hours.
While some applicants will drive longer distances in a single day,
we assume the maximum number of days and hours to complete each round-
trip driving distance will provide an appropriate estimate of time to
calculate the maximum costs attributable to applicant travel time.
The following is an estimate of applicant travel costs using the
above populations, unit costs, distances, and times:
One-day Travel by Automobile
For an applicant within one-day round-trip travel to and from an
REC, we assume the cost to include the mileage, the opportunity cost of
the time spent traveling, and incidentals. We assume the cost for one-
day round-trip incidentals to be $53 and the mileage reimbursement to
be $0.38 per mile.
The estimated cost per applicant for one-day round-trip travel is
$387 ((100 round-trip miles x $0.38 per mile reimbursement rate) + (8
travel hours x $37 per hour cost of time) + $53 per day incidentals =
$387). The estimated annual cost for one-day round-trip travel for the
affected applicants is $5,408,712 ($387 per applicant x 13,976 one-day
travel applicants = $5,408,712).
Overnight Travel by Automobile
For an applicant having to travel overnight, we assume the cost to
include mileage, the opportunity cost of time spent traveling, lodging,
and incidentals. We also assume the cost for lodging and incidentals
for overnight round-trip travel to be $243 ((2 days x $53 per day
incidentals) + $137 per night lodging = $243).
The estimated cost per applicant for overnight round-trip travel is
$911 ((200 round-trip miles x $0.38 per mile reimbursement rate) + (16
travel hours x $37 per hour cost of time) + $243 lodging and
incidentals = $911). The estimated annual cost of overnight round-trip
travel for the affected applicants is $6,366,068 ($911 per applicant x
6,988 applicants = $6,366,068).
Greater Than Overnight Travel (Travel by Air)
We assume that applicants who live at distances greater than 200
miles must travel for more than one night and will incur the maximum
cost of this interim rule. There exists no precise data to predict or
forecast with confidence the actual or future quantity of these
applicants living at far distances from an REC, and the combinations of
days and nights they will need to travel round-trip to an REC. We
expect these relatively few applicants will most likely choose another
mode or combination of modes of transportation to travel round-trip
between their home of record and the closest REC. We assume the cost of
this travel will consist of the airfare, airport transfers to-and-from
home and an REC, the opportunity cost of time spent traveling, and the
round-trip travel costs associated with overnight incidentals and
lodging.
We estimated the cost per applicant for lodging and incidentals for
overnight air travel to be $243 ((2 days x $53 per day incidentals) +
$137 per night lodging = $243). The estimated cost per applicant for
overnight air travel is $1,185 ($250 airfare + (2 round-trip airport
transfers x $50 per transfer) + (16 travel hours x $37 per hour cost of
time) + $243 lodging and incidentals = $1,185). The estimated annual
cost of overnight air travel for affected applicants is $2,759,865
($1,185 per applicant x 2,329 applicants = $2,759,865).
We assume these estimates will approximate the maximum costs
associated with travel by air. Most likely the total travel time will
be less and involve fewer lodging and incidentals expenses, and will
not be as costly in terms of the applicant's time.
Total National Cost
The annual cost of this rule to the affected applicants, consisting
of the cost of travel and time for these applicants, is estimated to be
$16 million (non-discounted). The estimated five-year (2005-2009),
discounted present value of the total cost of this rule to the
applicants is $71 million based on a 7% discount rate and $77 million
based on a 3% discount rate. As stated above, all currently licensed
mariners must renew their licenses and CORs every five years.
Therefore, a five-year period of analysis covers a complete renewal
cycle and provides an accurate snapshot of the total cost of the
interim rule for affected applicants. Table 7 summarizes the total
annual cost of the rule to applicants.
[[Page 2162]]
Table 7.--Summary of Affected Applicants and Annual Cost \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost
Number of Annual costs for all Percent of
Cost component affected per affected affected total annual
applicants applicant applicants \2\ cost (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REC Time Cost................................... 23,294 $74 $1,723,756 11
One-day Round-trip Travel Cost.................. 13,976 387 5,408,712 33
Overnight Round-trip Travel Cost................ 6,988 911 6,366,068 39
Greater Than Overnight Round-Trip Travel Cost... 2,329 1,185 2,759,865 17
-----------------
Total Annual Cost of the Interim Rule....... .............. .............. 16,258,401 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All annual costs include the cost of the applicants' time spent traveling and time spent at an REC.
\2\ Some values may not total due to rounding.
The primary cost to these applicants of this interim rule is the
travel cost (90 percent of the total cost), which is driven by the
mariners' opportunity cost of time, cost of lodging, and other per diem
factors. About one-half of the cost of this rule to the affected
applicants, as a percentage of total annual cost, is overnight and
greater than overnight round-trip travel, which are 39 percent and 17
percent, respectively. However, these two travel cost components only
apply to 40 percent of the applicants, with greater than overnight
round-trip travel only applying to 10 percent.
These costs will impact mariners and prospective mariners who are
interested in applying for licenses or CORs. The cost impacts will be
high for any mariner who will have to travel to an REC, because of the
limited number of RECs available: 17 RECs nationwide, including two in
Alaska and one in Hawaii.
In Table 7, the cost per applicant for time spent at an REC is
relatively low at $74 per applicant. However, if there is any travel
involved that will force an applicant to forgo a minimal amount of
work, such as one-day round-trip travel, then the total cost per
applicant increases 6 times to $461, which includes the additional one-
day round-trip travel cost of $387 per mariner ($74 REC time + $387
one-day round-trip travel = $461 for a mariner who must travel one-day
and visit an REC).
However, we believe the total cost estimate of this interim rule to
the affected applicants is a conservative estimate, because the REC
locations, together, can serve approximately 90 percent of applicants
within a 100-mile radius. We also used conservative driving distances,
for example, one-day travel is 100 miles round-trip and overnight
travel is 200 miles round-trip. The RECs are also located in or near
major maritime ports that may allow mariners and prospective mariners
to access the REC before, during, or after the applicants' marine-
related business operations.
The cost of the applicants' time, however, will be a net loss to
the applicants. The applicants will forgo work-time or free-time in
order to comply with this rule, and may have to compensate by using
vacation leave. However, we do not expect there to be a loss in
business or productivity in the maritime sector, because the work
schedules of these mariners often involve several days off their
vessels per voyage, which they could use to visit an REC. Owners and
operators of vessels also have several mariners they can use in the
event another mariner is not available.
Benefits
We anticipate several qualitative benefits from the new
fingerprinting and ID requirements established by this interim rule.
All applicants for licenses and CORs will now have their fingerprints
taken by Coast Guard personnel at an REC and must have their ID checked
by Coast Guard personnel at an REC. In the past, applicants could have
had their fingerprints taken and their identity c