48090 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated July 21, 2020, and 

effective September 15, 2020, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. 

* * * * * 

ASW OK D Ardmore, OK [Amended] 

Ardmore Municipal Airport, OK 

(Lat. 34°18′14′′ N, long. 97°01′14′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL 

within a 4.3-mile radius of Ardmore 

Municipal Airport. This Class D airspace area 

is effective during the specific dates and 

times established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Chart Supplement. 

6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as 

an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface 

Area. 

* * * * * 

ASW OK E4 Ardmore, OK [Amended] 

Ardmore Municipal Airport, OK 

(Lat. 34°18′14′′ N, long. 97°01′14′′ W) 

Ardmore VORTAC 

(Lat. 34°12′42′′ N, long. 97°10′06′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface within 1.4 miles each side of the 

Ardmore VORTAC 050° radial extending 

from the 4.3-mile radius of Ardmore 

Municipal Airport to 7.4 miles southwest of 

the airport, and within 1 mile each side of 

the 315° bearing from Ardmore Municipal 

Airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius of 

the airport to 5.3 miles northwest of the 

airport. This Class E airspace area is effective 

during the specific dates and times 

established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Chart Supplement. 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ASW OK E5 Ardmore, OK [Amended] 

Ardmore Municipal Airport, OK 

(Lat. 34°18′14′′ N, long. 97°01′14′′ W) 

Ardmore VORTAC 

(Lat. 34°12′42′′ N, long. 97°10′06′′ W) 

Ardmore Downtown Executive Airport, OK 

(Lat. 34°08′49′′ N, long. 97°07′22′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile 

radius of Ardmore Municipal Airport, and 

within 1.5 miles each side of the Ardmore 

VORTAC 050° radial extending from the 6.8- 

mile radius of Ardmore Municipal Airport to 

8.4 miles southwest of the airport, and within 

1.1 miles each side of the 315° bearing from 

the Ardmore Municipal Airport extending 

from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 7 

miles northwest of the airport, and within a 

6.5-mile radius of Ardmore Downtown 

Executive Airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 23, 

2021. 

Martin A. Skinner, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

ATO Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18360 Filed 8–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Parts 10, 11, and 15 

[Docket No. USCG–2020–0069] 

RIN 1625–AC63 

Pilots’ Medical Certificate Validity 

Period 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

extend the maximum period of validity 

of merchant mariner medical certificates 

issued to first-class pilots and masters or 

mates serving as pilot from 2 years to 5 

years. This proposed rule would reduce 

the frequency of medical certification 

application submissions to the Coast 

Guard. First-class pilots and masters 

and mates who serve as pilot on vessels 

of 1,600 gross registered tons or more 

would be required to submit the results 

of their annual physical examinations to 

the Coast Guard between medical 

certificate applications if: The mariner 

does not meet the physical ability 

requirements; the mariner has a 

condition that does not meet the 

medical, vision, or hearing 

requirements; the mariner is deemed 

‘‘not recommended’’ by a medical 

practitioner for a medical certificate; or 

upon request by the Coast Guard. The 

proposed rule will not compromise 

safety because it maintains the 

requirement for pilots to obtain annual 

physicals and because it provides the 

Coast Guard opportunity to review the 

medical examination of pilots who may 

become medically unqualified between 

medical certificate applications. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before October 26, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2020–0069 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

Collection of information. Submit 

comments on the collection of 

information discussed in section VI.D of 

this preamble both to the Coast Guard’s 

online docket and to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory (OIRA) in 

the White House Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) using their website 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Comments sent to OIRA on the 

collection of information must reach 

OMB on or before the comment due date 

listed on their website. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document, call or 

email Eric Malzkuhn, Coast Guard; 

telephone 202–372–1425, email 

eric.f.malzkuhn@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Basis and Purpose 

IV. Background 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

A. 46 CFR 10.301: Pilot Medical Certificate 

Period of Validity 

B. 46 CFR 11.709: Annual Physical 

Examination Requirements for Pilots of 

Vessels of 1,600 GRT or More 

C. 46 CFR 15.401: Employment and Service 

Restrictions Within the Pilot Credential 

D. 46 CFR 15.812, Table 1 to § 15.812(e)(1): 

Masters or Mates Serving as Pilot on 

Vessels of 1,600 GRT or More 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48091 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

The Coast Guard views public 

participation as essential to effective 

rulemaking, and will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. Your comment can 

help shape the outcome of this 

rulemaking. If you submit a comment, 

please include the docket number for 

this rulemaking, indicate the specific 

section of this document to which each 

comment applies, and provide a reason 

for each suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2020–0069 in the search box, 

and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If you cannot submit 

your material by using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this proposed rule 

for alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see DHS’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

Public meeting. We do not plan to 

hold a public meeting but we will 

consider doing so if we determine from 

public comments that a meeting would 

be helpful. We would issue a separate 

Federal Register notice to announce the 

date, time, and location of such a 

meeting. 

II. Abbreviations 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOT Department of Transportation 

DUI Driving under the influence 

DWI Driving while intoxicated 

FCP First-class pilot 

FR Federal Register 

GRT Gross registered tons 

GS General service 

MMC Merchant Mariner Credential 

MMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing and 

Documentation 

MMD Merchant Mariner’s Document 

NMC National Maritime Center 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

REC Regional Examination Center 

§ Section 

STCW Standards of Training, Certification, 

and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as 

amended 

STCW Convention International 

Convention on Standards of Training, 

Certification and Watchkeeping for 

Seafarers 

SME Subject matter expert 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USPS United States Postal Service 

III. Basis and Purpose 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to extend the maximum period of 

validity of merchant mariner medical 

certificates issued to first-class pilots 

(FCPs) and masters or mates serving as 

pilot to 5 years, which would reduce the 

frequency that they must submit a 

medical certificate application to the 

Coast Guard. Reducing the frequency of 

medical certificate applications would 

reduce the administrative burden on the 

mariner submitting the application and 

on the Coast Guard when processing the 

application and issuing the medical 

certificate. This proposed rule would 

also amend the submission 

requirements for the results of the 

statutorily required annual physical 

examination for pilots serving on 

vessels greater than 1,600 gross register 

tons (GRT). 

The legal basis of this proposed rule 

is Title 46 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.), Section 7101(c), which 

authorizes the Coast Guard to issue 

licenses to pilots who are found 

qualified as to physical fitness and 

Section 7101(c)’s other qualifications. 

Title 46 U.S.C. 7101(e)(2) further 

specifies that an individual may only be 

issued a license as pilot if they are 

found to be of sound health and have no 

physical limitations that would hinder 

or prevent them in the performance of 

a pilot’s duties. Section 7101(e)(3) also 

requires each pilot serving on vessels 

1,600 GRT or greater to have a thorough 

physical examination each year while 

holding the license. The Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) has delegated these statutory 

authorities to the Coast Guard through 

DHS Delegation No. 00170.1(92)(e), 

Revision No. 01.2, which generally 

authorizes the Coast Guard to determine 

and establish the experience and 

professional qualifications required for 

the issuance of credentials. 

Additionally, 14 U.S.C. 102(3) grants the 

Coast Guard broad authority to 

promulgate and enforce regulations for 

the promotion of safety of life and 

property on waters subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States. 

IV. Background 

The Coast Guard issues Merchant 

Mariner Credentials (MMCs) and 

medical certificates to qualified 

mariners who meet the requirements in 

title 46 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), subchapter B, parts 

10 through 13. The requirements for 

medical certification are described in 46 

CFR part 10, subpart C. Currently, as 

described in § 10.301, the medical 

certificate will be issued for various 

periods of time based upon the 

endorsements the mariner holds. For 

mariners employed or engaged on 

vessels to which the International 

Convention on Standards of Training, 

Certification and Watchkeeping for 

Seafarers (STCW Convention) applies, 

the maximum validity period is 2 years. 

For mariners serving as FCP, or masters 

or mates serving as pilot under 46 CFR 

15.812, the maximum validity period is 

2 years. For all other mariners serving 

on national MMC endorsements, the 

maximum validity period of the medical 

certificate is 5 years. Mariners may not 

be employed in a position requiring an 

MMC unless they hold a valid medical 

certificate as described in § 15.401(c). 

Under the current requirements, FCPs 

and masters or mates who are serving as 

pilot on vessels of any tonnage must 

submit the results of a physical 

examination recorded on form CG– 

719K, the ‘‘Application for Medical 

Certificate,’’ to the Coast Guard every 2 

years in order to maintain a valid 

medical certificate. 

In accordance with § 11.709, FCPs 

and masters or mates serving as pilot on 

vessels of 1,600 GRT or more are 

required to have an annual physical 

examination that meets the medical and 

physical requirements described in part 

10 subpart C. This annual physical 

examination requirement for pilots 

serving on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more 

has been in place since the enactment 

of the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 

1978 (Pub. L. 95–474) and is codified in 

46 U.S.C. 7101(e)(3). The Port and 

Tanker Safety Act was implemented as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
48092 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

a result of safety concerns related to 

increased port congestion and vessel 

traffic, increasing vessel size, and the 

unique physical and cognitive demands 

placed upon pilots in performing their 

duties. 

In 1985, the Coast Guard amended its 

regulations to require FCPs and masters 

or mates serving as pilot on vessels 

greater than 1,600 GRT to undergo 

annual physical examinations and to 

provide copies of their most recent 

physical examination to the Coast Guard 

upon request (see Volume 50 of the 

Federal Register (FR) at page 26106). In 

2006, the Coast Guard published a 

notice exercising its authority to require 

all FCPs on vessels of 1,600 GRT or 

more, and other individuals serving as 

pilot on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more, 

to submit their physical examination 

results annually (see 71 FR 56999, Sept. 

28, 2006). In 2009, the regulations were 

amended to include the annual physical 

examination submission requirement 

described in the 2006 public notice (see 

74 FR 11196, March 16, 2009). 

In 2014, the Coast Guard 

implemented a final rule titled, 

‘‘Implementation of the Amendments to 

the International Convention on 

Standards of Training, Certification and 

Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, 

(STCW Convention) and Changes to 

National Endorsements’’ (see 78 FR 

77796, December 24, 2013), which 

established the current 2-year maximum 

period of validity of mariner medical 

certificates for FCPs. That rule 

reinforced the requirement in 46 CFR 

11.709 that pilots serving on vessels of 

1,600 GRT or more must undergo 

annual physical examination, but it 

changed the submission requirement of 

the annual physical exam to every other 

year to coincide with the expiration of 

the medical certificate. 

In July 2017, the Coast Guard tasked 

the Merchant Mariner Personnel 

Advisory Committee, the Merchant 

Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, 

and the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory 

Committee with identifying regulations, 

guidance, or information collections 

that that are outdated, ineffective, or 

exceed benefits and impose 

administrative burdens or costs on the 

maritime industry (see 82 FR 32511, 82 

FR 32513, 82 FR 34909). 

These three advisory committees 

noted that they received comments 

regarding the maximum period of 

validity of medical certificates for FCPs 

and those serving as pilot on vessels of 

1,600 GRT or more. Specifically, these 

comments indicated that pilots are 

limited to a 2-year maximum period of 

validity of their medical certificate 

when the validity period is 5 years for 

all other national endorsements. The 

advisory committees concluded that the 

2-year maximum period of validity of 

the medical certificate for FCPs posed a 

burden on mariners and suggested the 

Coast Guard extend the period of 

validity to 5 years. Additionally, in July 

2018, the Coast Guard received a 

petition for rulemaking from the 

American Pilots’ Association requesting 

that we change the maximum period of 

validity of the medical certificate from 

2 years to 5 years for FCPs and those 

authorized to serve as pilot. The petition 

for rulemaking and our response are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ADDRESSES portion of the 

preamble. 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would increase 

the current 2-year maximum period of 

validity of the medical certificate for 

FCPs and masters or mates serving as 

pilot to 5 years. Mariners serving as 

pilot would be required to submit the 

results of a physical examination, 

recorded on form CG–719K, the 

‘‘Application for Medical Certificate,’’ 

every 5 years to the Coast Guard. The 

following provides a section-by-section 

discussion of the proposed changes. 

A. 46 CFR 10.301: Pilot Medical 

Certificate Period of Validity 

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 

46 CFR 10.301, which contains the 

general requirements for the issuance of 

medical certificates to mariners meeting 

the medical and physical standards. We 

propose to extend the 2-year maximum 

period of validity of the medical 

certificate for FCPs and those serving as 

pilot by deleting current § 10.301(b)(2), 

which contains the 2-year maximum 

provision. This notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) also proposes to 

move current § 10.301(b)(4), without 

change, into its own paragraph. We 

would redesignate it as § 10.301(c) and 

redesignate current § 10.301(c) as 

§ 10.301(d). 

The standard maximum periods of 

validity for medical certificates in 

§ 10.301(b)(1) for all persons employed 

or engaged onboard vessels to which the 

STCW Convention applies will remain 

the same. With this proposed rule, the 

standard maximum periods of validity 

for medical certificates in § 10.301(b) for 

all other mariners will be 5 years 

(including FCPs and mariners serving as 

pilot). As a result, like all other mariners 

holding national endorsements, FCPs 

and masters or mates serving as pilot 

would generally only have to submit a 

medical certificate application to the 

Coast Guard every 5 years. This 

proposed change would reduce the 

administrative burden on the pilots and 

the Coast Guard. 

The time required for the medical 

certificate application and evaluation 

can be lengthy if the Coast Guard 

requests amplifying information to 

support the results of the physical 

examination. There may be 

correspondence between the mariner, 

the Coast Guard, and the mariner’s 

medical practitioner that results in 

additional time for a medical certificate 

application to be approved. It is possible 

that the extra time required for the Coast 

Guard to complete the evaluation of the 

medical certificate application can 

result in a lapse in validity of an FCP 

endorsement or the ability of a master 

or mate to serve as pilot. The proposed 

change may allow more time for the 

Coast Guard to evaluate applications 

without jeopardizing the pilot’s ability 

to serve under the authority of their 

endorsement. 

This proposed rule would not change 

the regulations on medical waivers, 

limitations, and restrictions in § 10.303 

for not meeting the medical and 

physical requirements of § 10.302. If the 

medical or physical standards are not 

met, the Coast Guard may grant waivers 

with conditions, such as operational 

limitations or restrictions on the 

medical certificate. Certain conditions, 

such as a need for more frequent 

monitoring of the mariner’s medical 

condition, may result in the issuance of 

a time-limited medical certificate that 

would be valid for a shorter period than 

the maximum. Pilots holding a medical 

certificate with a 2-year validity period 

would be issued a 5-year maximum 

period of validity at their next medical 

certificate issuance, unless the 

certificate is time-limited due to a 

medical condition. 

The Coast Guard is proposing that the 

5-year medical certificate period of 

validity would apply to all pilots, 

regardless of the tonnage of the vessel 

they are serving on. The Coast Guard 

believes that this increase in the validity 

period would not result in a risk that 

compromises maritime safety, given that 

the proposed rule does not relax the 

annual examination requirement for 

FCPs or masters and mates serving as 

pilot. Instead, it is expected that the rule 

will support greater transparency 

regarding a pilot’s medical fitness 

because it includes a new requirement 

that pilots must submit the results of 

their annual examination to the Coast 

Guard for review if the medical 

practitioner determines that they no 

longer meet the medical and physical 

standards of 46 CFR, part 10, subpart C. 

Mariners who serve as pilot on vessels 

of less than 1,600 GRT are currently 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48093 

issued 2-year medical certificates and 

are required to submit the physical 

examination results with their 

application for a new medical certificate 

every 2 years. These mariners include 

pilots on less than 1,600 GRT and 

masters or mates who serve as pilots on 

vessels of less than 1,600 GRT. These 

mariners who serve exclusively as pilot 

on vessels of less than 1,600 GRT are 

not subject to the annual physical 

examination requirement in § 11.709 

and would not be subject to the new 

submission requirements in § 11.709 of 

this proposed rule. Under this proposed 

rule, pilots, masters, and mates who 

serve as pilot on only vessels less than 

1,600 GRT would be issued 5-year 

medical certificates and would submit 

the results of a physical exam to the 

Coast Guard every 5 years when 

applying for a new medical certificate. 

Even without an annual physical 

exam requirement, we believe allowing 

these mariners to have 5-year medical 

certificates like all other national 

endorsements does not pose a large risk 

to maritime safety by allowing them to 

pilot a vessel for the 5-year period. 

When masters or mates serve as pilot on 

vessels less than 1,600 GRT, it is 

typically a small fraction of their duties. 

Prior to the ‘‘Implementation of the 

Amendments to the International 

Convention on Standards of Training, 

Certification and Watchkeeping for 

Seafarers, 1978, and Changes to 

National Endorsements’’ final rule (78 

FR 77796, Dec. 24, 2013), which took 

effect on March 24, 2014, this same 

group of mariners serving as pilot on 

vessels less than 1,600 GRT were issued 

5-year medical certificates. Masters and 

mates serving as pilots on vessels less 

than 1,600 GRT were not required to 

take an annual physical exam either 

before or after the rule mentioned above. 

The Coast Guard does not have data to 

determine whether there was a change 

in the number of marine incidents 

caused by medical issues in this group 

of pilots when their medical certificates 

were issued with 5-year validity 

periods. 

B. 46 CFR 11.709: Annual Physical 

Examination Requirements for Pilots of 

Vessels of 1,600 GRT or More 

Section 11.709 contains the 

requirements for pilots of vessels 1,600 

GRT or more to undergo an annual 

physical examination. This section 

specifies when the annual physical 

examinations must be conducted, how 

the examination results are recorded, 

and how often the examination results 

are reported to the Coast Guard. 

To ensure consistency with 46 U.S.C. 

7101(e)(3), we propose to clarify the 

applicability of this section by including 

masters or mates serving as pilot on 

vessels of 1,600 GRT or more, under 

§ 15.812, in the introductory text of 

§ 11.709(b). Adding these mariners to 

§ 11.709(b) would provide additional 

clarity on the applicability of the annual 

physical examination requirements. 

Paragraph (b) of this section currently 

states that the examination results are to 

be reported to the Coast Guard every 

other year to coincide with the current 

2-year maximum period of validity of 

medical certificates. Because this 

proposed rule would extend the pilot’s 

medical certificate to a 5-year maximum 

period of validity, we also propose to 

remove the every-other-year form CG– 

719K submission requirement for pilots. 

This proposed rule would revise the 

section to state that the physical 

examination results must be submitted 

on form CG–719K to the Coast Guard 

every 5 years, in accordance with the 

medical certificate application 

requirements in §§ 10.301 and 10.304. 

In practice, pilots who meet the medical 

and physical standards in 46 CFR part 

10 would generally be required to report 

the results of the annual examination to 

the Coast Guard only when applying for 

a medical certificate, every 5 years. 

The Coast Guard recognizes that when 

medical certificates remain valid for 5 

years, as opposed to 2 years, there is a 

higher risk that someone could have a 

valid medical certificate for a significant 

time period after developing a 

disqualifying medical condition. In 

order to reduce the risk created by 

extending the validity period of the 

medical certificate, this proposed rule 

would require FCPs and masters or 

mates who serve as pilot on vessels that 

are 1,600 GRT or more to submit their 

annual physical examination results to 

the Coast Guard if any of the following 

circumstances occur: (1) The examining 

medical practitioner documents that the 

individual does not meet the physical 

ability requirements described in 

§ 10.304(c); (2) the examining medical 

practitioner documents that the 

individual has a condition that does not 

meet the general medical exam 

requirements described in § 10.304(a), 

the vision requirements described in 

§ 10.305, or the hearing requirements 

described in § 10.306; (3) the examining 

medical practitioner documents that the 

individual is not recommended for a 

medical certificate or needs further 

review by the Coast Guard; or (4) the 

Coast Guard requests the results. 

We propose requiring self-submission 

of the medical examination to the Coast 

Guard when these pilots do not meet the 

requirements for physical abilities, 

general medical examination, vision or 

hearing, or are not recommended for a 

medical certificate, so that the Coast 

Guard can further review the results of 

the medical exam. As part of the review, 

the Coast Guard may request additional 

information in the interest of mariner 

safety and full performance of the pilot’s 

duties. 

Service on vessels may be arduous 

and impose unique physical and 

medical demands on pilots. The 

submission requirements would support 

our statutory responsibility under 46 

U.S.C. 7101 to ensure that pilots are 

physically and medically fit to pilot a 

vessel. The public safety risks 

associated with the medical and 

physical condition of pilots on vessels 

are important considerations for the safe 

operation of vessels and the safety and 

well-being of the crew. As stated in 

§ 11.709(b), the pilot’s annual physical 

examination would continue to be 

recorded on form CG–719K, which 

documents physical ability, medical 

conditions, and hearing and vision 

requirements. Form CG–719K also 

documents whether a mariner is ‘‘not 

recommended,’’ which could prompt a 

submission under the proposed 

requirements in § 11.709(b)(1)–(3). The 

annual physical examination 

documentation and scope are 

unchanged and would remain the same 

under this proposed rule. 

Moreover, we propose to clarify that 

the Coast Guard can request the results 

of the physical examination as part of 

marine casualty investigations, where 

more frequent monitoring of a medical 

condition is specified in a waiver, and 

in other cases that prompt further 

review. 

As stated in § 11.701(d), the Coast 

Guard only issues FCP endorsements for 

tonnages of 1,600 GRT or more. 

Therefore, all FCPs serving under the 

authority of their FCP endorsement 

would continue to be required to 

undergo the statutorily required annual 

physical examinations and would be 

subject to the proposed submission 

requirements in § 11.709. However, as 

noted previously, masters and mates 

serving as pilot on vessels less than 

1,600 GRT would not be subject to the 

physical examination and proposed 

submission requirements in § 11.709. 

The Coast Guard does not have data to 

determine whether there was a change 

in the number of marine incidents 

caused by medical issues in masters or 

mates serving as pilot on vessels less 

than 1,600 GRT when the medical 

certificates were issued with 5-year 

validity periods. 

In § 11.709, we also propose to move 

the text specifying that each annual 

physical examination must meet the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
48094 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

requirements in 46 CFR, part 10, subpart 

C, and be recorded on form CG–719K, 

from existing paragraph (c) into 

paragraph (b). We are proposing to move 

this requirement into paragraph (b) so 

that all the information on the annual 

physical examination requirements are 

in the same paragraph. 

In conjunction with moving 

paragraph (c) into paragraph (b), this 

proposed rule would redesignate 

current § 11.709(d) as § 11.709(c), 

without change. 

This proposed rule would add a new 

paragraph 11.709(d) to clarify that 

masters or mates serving as pilot on 

vessels of 1,600 GRT or more under 

§ 15.812 may not serve on these vessels 

if they do not meet the annual physical 

examination and submission 

requirements specified in § 11.709(b). 

This new paragraph (d) would not 

change any of the current requirements 

or consequences for masters or mates 

serving as pilot on vessels of 1,600 GRT 

or more but, rather, would reiterate the 

annual physical examination 

requirements for masters or mates 

serving as pilot already required in 

§ 15.812. Masters or mates serving as 

pilot on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more 

who fail to meet the physical 

examination requirements in § 11.709 

may still operate under the authority of 

their master or mate endorsement, but 

would not be authorized to pilot a 

vessel of 1,600 GRT or more. 

C. 46 CFR 15.401: Employment and 

Service Restrictions Within the Pilot 

Credential 

This proposed rule also aligns the 

employment requirements in § 15.401 

with the proposed 5-year maximum 

period of validity of medical certificates 

for FCPs or masters or mates serving as 

pilot so that it reflects the proposed 

change made in § 10.301(b). Section 

15.401(c) states that a person may not 

employ an individual if that individual 

does not hold a valid medical 

certificate. This section currently lists 

the maximum validity period of the 

medical certificate as 2 years for FCPs 

and masters or mates serving as a pilot. 

This proposed rule would amend this 

section to say that all mariners 

(including pilots), where the STCW 

Convention does not apply, will be 

issued a 5-year medical certificate 

unless otherwise noted on the 

certificate. 

Additionally, throughout § 15.401, 

this proposed rule would remove 

obsolete terminology referring to 

licenses, certificates of registry, and 

Merchant Mariner’s Documents 

(MMDs). The Coast Guard ceased 

issuing licenses, certificates of registry, 

and MMDs in 2009 when we 

transitioned to the streamlined MMC 

with the Consolidation of Merchant 

Mariner Qualification Credentials final 

rule (see 74 FR 11195, March 16, 2009). 

All mariners now hold an MMC. 

We also propose revising 

§ 15.401(c)(1) by removing the outdated 

grandfathering clause, ‘‘[a]fter January 1, 

2017’’, because the referenced date has 

passed and the section is now 

applicable to all medical certificates 

issued to individuals serving on vessels 

where the STCW Convention applies. 

D. 46 CFR 15.812, Table 1 to 

§ 15.812(e)(1): Masters or Mates Serving 

as Pilot on Vessels of 1,600 GRT or More 

This proposed rule includes a 

correction to Table 1 to § 15.812(e)(1). 

Currently, § 15.812(b)(2) states the 

requirements for masters or mates to 

serve as pilot on vessels of not more 

than 1,600 GRT. There is no 

requirement in paragraph (b)(2) for these 

masters and mates serving on vessels 

less than 1,600 GRT to undergo an 

annual physical examination. This is 

consistent with § 11.709(a), which 

stipulates that the annual physical 

examination requirement only applies 

to individuals who pilot a vessel of 

1,600 GRT or more. However, in Table 

1 to § 15.812(e)(1), ‘‘Quick Reference 

Table for Federal Pilotage Requirements 

for U.S.-Inspected, Self-Propelled 

Vessels, Not Sailing on Register,’’ the 

requirement for a master or mate serving 

as pilot on vessels not more than 1,600 

GRT to have an annual physical exam 

was added in error. This error was 

incorporated into the table with the 

implementation of the final rule, 

‘‘Implementation of the Amendments to 

the International Convention on 

Standards of Training, Certification and 

Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, and 

Changes to National Endorsements’’ (78 

FR 77796, Dec. 24, 2013), which took 

effect on March 24, 2014. We propose to 

remove the erroneous annual physical 

exam requirement in Table 1, under the 

third column, ‘‘Non-designated areas of 

pilotage waters (between the 3-mile 

limit and start of traditional pilotage 

routes).’’ This proposed removal of text 

would align the table with the 

corresponding regulatory text in section 

§ 15.812(b)(2), as well as the 

applicability of the annual physical 

examination requirements in 

§ 11.709(a). This correction to the table 

would not change the requirements for 

these mariners, because the Coast Guard 

has not required masters or mates 

serving as a pilot on vessels with less 

than 1,600 GRT to complete an annual 

physical examination. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

A summary of our analyses based on 

these statutes or Executive orders 

follows. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’) and 13563 

(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’) direct agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not designated this proposed 

rule a significant regulatory action 

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866. Accordingly, OMB has not 

reviewed it. A regulatory analysis 

follows. 

Summary of Affected Population, Costs 

Savings, and Benefits 

This proposed rule would extend the 

maximum period of validity of 

merchant mariner medical certificates 

issued to FCPs and masters or mates 

serving as pilot from 2 years to 5 years. 

This proposed rule would reduce the 

frequency of medical certification 

application submissions to the Coast 

Guard. First-class pilots and masters 

and mates who serve as pilot on vessels 

of 1,600 GRT or more would be required 

to submit the results of their annual 

physical examinations to the Coast 

Guard between medical certificate 

applications if: (1) The mariner does not 

meet the physical ability requirements; 

(2) the mariner has a condition that does 

not meet the medical, vision, or hearing 

requirements; (3) the mariner is deemed 

‘‘not recommended’’ by a medical 

practitioner for a medical certificate; or 

(4) upon request by the Coast Guard. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48095 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE AFFECTED POPULATION, COST SAVINGS, AND BENEFITS FOR THIS PROPOSED RULE

Category Summary 

Applicability ............................................................................................... Amend 46 CFR 10.301 and 15.401 to extend the maximum period of 

validity of merchant mariner medical certificates issued to FCPs, and 

masters or mates serving as pilot, from 2 years to 5 years. 

Amend 46 CFR 11.709 by modifying the medical certificate application 

submission requirement for FCPs from 2 years to 5 years, as well as 

masters and mates who serve as pilot on vessels of 1,600 GRT or 

more. 

Affected Population .................................................................................. There are currently 3,897 mariners who hold MMC endorsements as 

FCP as of June 1 each year from 2010 to 2020. This number does 

not include masters or mates who could serve as pilot. 

The affected population for this proposed rule is 95 percent of that 

population, or 3,702 mariners (net affected population). 

Benefits ..................................................................................................... Fewer medical certificate applications would reduce NMC’s workload 

and generate cost savings to the government and to mariners. 

There could be unquantified benefits for some pilots due to a decrease 

in the likelihood of a lapse in medical certification from less frequent 

medical certificate application submissions. A lapse in medical certification can have significant costs for individual pilots and for employers, because pilots may not work under the authority of their credential without a valid medical certificate. 

Cost savings (in $2020, 7% discount rate) * ............................................ Industry cost savings: $20,098 annualized and $146,847 over a 10- 

year period of analysis. 

Government cost savings: $15,756 annualized and $110,664 over a 

10-year period of analysis. 

Total cost savings to industry and government: $36,664 annualized 

and $257,511 over a 10-year period of analysis. 

* Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

Affected Population 

The Merchant Mariner Licensing and 

Documentation (MMLD) database is 

used by the Coast Guard’s National 

Maritime Center (NMC) to issue MMCs 

and maintain records of U.S. merchant 

mariners. Based on data obtained from 

the MMLD, we determined that a total 

of 3,897 mariners hold MMC 

endorsements as FCP. This proposed 

rule would not impact FCPs holding 

medical certificates issued with waivers 

requiring more frequent reporting of 

medical examination results to the Coast 

Guard. Based on MMLD data, this group 

currently consists of 195 mariners, 

which is 5 percent of the total affected 

population of 3,897 mariners. We 

reduced the total population (3,897 

mariners) by this number (195) to obtain 

a net affected population of 3,702 

mariners who would be impacted by 

this proposed rule. 

Additionally, we determined that 

there are 89,713 (74,827 + 14,886) 

mariners who hold an MMC 

endorsement as master or mate, without 

holding an FCP endorsement, who 

could serve as pilot. Because there is no 

requirement to report when a master or 

mate serves as pilot, we are unable to 

determine how many masters or mates 

are serving as pilot; therefore, we 

limited the affected population in this 

analysis to mariners holding FCP 

endorsements and holding medical 

certificates without time-limited 

medical waivers. Table 2 presents these 

populations. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF POPULATION BY ENDORSEMENT

Population Number of 

mariners 

Total number of mariners holding an MMC endorsement as FCP and holding a medical certificate with or without time-limited 

medical waivers (total potentially affected FCP population) ............................................................................................................ 3,897 

Those mariners holding an MMC endorsement as FCP and holding a medical certificate with time-limited medical waivers (unaffected FCP population due to waiver status resulting in no change in the period of validity of the medical certificate) ............... 195 

Those mariners holding an MMC endorsement as FCP and holding a medical certificate without time-limited medical waivers 

(affected FCP population due to change in the period of validity of the medical certificate) ......................................................... 3,702 

Costs and Cost Savings 

The proposed rule would reduce the 

frequency of mariner medical certificate 

applications to the Coast Guard, 

resulting in a cost savings to both 

mariners and the government. Industry 

cost savings would be the costs avoided 

by reducing the frequency with which 

FCPs and masters or mates serving as 

pilot would have to apply for a medical 

certificate. Subsequently, fewer 

applications would reduce the NMC’s 

workload, generating cost savings for 

the government. The total 10-year 

discounted cost savings of this proposed 

rule would be $257,511 and the 

annualized total cost savings would be 

approximately $36,664, both discounted 

at 7 percent. This includes the 10-year 

industry and government savings of 

$146,847 and $110,664 respectively, 

discounted at 7 percent. 

Turnover Rate 

We did not factor mariner turnover 

into this analysis. ‘‘Mariner turnover’’ 

means the number or percentage of 

mariners leaving employment within a 

certain period of time, combined with 

the number or percentage of mariners 

obtaining employment within the same 

period of time. There are two reasons for 

not factoring in mariner turnover. First, 

the MMC serves as a certificate of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
48096 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1Pilots must still undergo annual physical 

examinations. However, those pilots who are not 

required to submit the results to the Coast Guard 

during the 5 years would simply maintain personal 

copies. 

2 Data for each year are complete because the data 

are captured and recorded each July. 

mariner identity, service, and 

qualification. In order to serve under the 

authority of an endorsement on an 

MMC, a mariner must be physically and 

medically qualified for that 

endorsement, as evidenced by holding a 

valid medical certificate. Medical 

certification is not an endorsement of 

qualification on an MMC, but, instead, 

is a separate document certifying 

medical and physical fitness to serve in 

the capacity of an endorsement listed on 

the MMC. 

The second reason mariner turnover 

is not factored into this analysis is 

because the FCP endorsement 

represents a maritime qualification that 

can lead to permanent employment with 

a pilot association. This career path is 

highly competitive, due to the rigorous, 

time-consuming, and highly specialized 

training required. As presented in table 

3, data from MMLD indicates that the 

number of mariners holding an FCP 

endorsement has declined at an annual 

average rate of 0.48 percent in the last 

11 years. We did not include mariner 

turnover because the Coast Guard 

believes it would have had a negligible 

effect in assessing the costs or cost 

savings for this regulatory analysis. The 

Coast Guard requests public comment 

on mariner turnover and, in particular, 

the number or percentage of retirements 

by mariners regulated by this proposed 

rule. Depending on data received by 

public comment, we may reconsider our 

approach to considering mariner 

turnover for the final rule. 

Industry Cost Savings 

The proposed rule would amend 

current requirements so the results of 

the annual physical examinations for 

pilots serving on vessels of 1,600 GRT 

or more would be submitted to the Coast 

Guard on form CG–719K (medical 

certificate application) every 5 years 

instead of every 2 years, unless one of 

the four conditions noted previously, 

and listed in § 11.709(b), is applicable.1

Although mariners would still be 

required to complete an annual physical 

examination, the cost savings to 

industry would include the time savings 

of the affected population not having to 

submit an application for a merchant 

mariner medical certificate every 2 

years, either by mail or in person, after 

the second year of the implementation 

of this proposed rule. 

Mariners may submit medical 

certificate applications either directly to 

the NMC via email or to a Regional 

Examination Center (REC) via email, 

fax, or mail. Additionally, applications 

may be submitted in person if submitted 

to a REC. Cost savings to industry would 

include the time saved by mariners by 

faxing, emailing, mailing, or delivering 

in-person the form CG–719K to the 

Coast Guard on a less frequent basis. 

According to data obtained from MMLD, 

95 percent of medical certificates issued 

to FCPs, or 3,702 (0.95 × 3,897), are 

renewed every 2 years. The remaining 5 

percent are renewed annually, for those 

pilots with time-limited certificates due 

to medical waivers. Since the merchant 

mariner medical certificate for FCPs and 

masters or mates serving as pilot is only 

valid for 2 years under current 

regulations, half the total number of 

FCPs and masters or mates serving as 

pilot are currently applying for a new 

medical certificate each year. 

Current data from MMLD indicates 

that 195 mariners from the affected 

population would not benefit directly 

under this proposed rule. This is the 

number of FCPs and masters or mates 

serving as pilot who have been issued 

medical certificates with a waiver, 

which require more frequent reporting 

of the results of their annual physical 

examinations to the Coast Guard. These 

mariners would still be required to 

submit the form CG–719K to the Coast 

Guard on an annual basis. 

Growth Rate of Affected Population 

We analyzed the number of endorsed 

FCPs who would experience a reduction 

in burden from only needing to submit 

their medical certificate applications 

once every 5 years, after the second year 

of the implementation of this proposed 

rule, as opposed to once every 2 years 

under current regulations. We then 

analyzed the number of endorsed FCPs 

to estimate a population growth rate for 

mariners with MMCs who would 

become newly endorsed as FCPs. Using 

11 years of data from MMLD, from 2010 

to 2020,2 which is presented in table 3, 

we found that the number of endorsed 

FCPs is declining at an average rate of 

0.48 percent per year. The highest 

number of endorsed FCPs was observed 

in 2017, while the lowest number of 

endorsed FCPs was observed in 2020. 

We used this estimated annual 

average decline of 0.48 percent as a 

constant when forecasting the endorsed 

FCP population for the next 10 years. 

This constant rate represents the average 

decline experienced by FCPs throughout 

a 10-year period of analysis. We applied 

this 0.48 percent rate of decline to both 

the affected population in current 

regulations (the baseline) and the 

affected population in this proposed 

rule to determine the number of medical 

certificate application submissions in a 

given year. Table 3 presents the MMLD 

data used to determine the estimated 

annual rate of decline for the endorsed 

FCP population. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF ENDORSED FCPS

Year 

Endorsed 

FCPs 

(a) 

Growth rate 

(%) 

(b) t = [(at-at-1)/at-1] × 100 

2010 ............................................................................................................................................... 4,259 ..................................................

2011 ............................................................................................................................................... 4,292 0.77 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................... 4,262 ¥0.70 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................... 4,237 ¥0.59 

2014 ............................................................................................................................................... 4,200 ¥0.87 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................... 4,171 ¥0.69 

2016 ............................................................................................................................................... 4,219 1.15 

2017 ............................................................................................................................................... 4,297 1.85 

2018 ............................................................................................................................................... 4,263 ¥0.79 

2019 ............................................................................................................................................... 4,217 ¥1.08 

2020 ............................................................................................................................................... 4,055 ¥3.84 

Avg ................................................................................................................................................. 4,225 ¥0.48 

Max ................................................................................................................................................ 4,297 ..................................................


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48097 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF ENDORSED FCPS—Continued 

Year 

Endorsed 

FCPs 

(a) 

Growth rate 

(%) 

(b) t = [(at-at-1)/at-1] × 100 

Min ................................................................................................................................................. 4,055 ..................................................

Current Baseline 

Table 4 illustrates the following 

discussion of our baseline analysis. In 

order to calculate the cost savings of this 

rule, and to determine our baseline 

industry costs, we first estimated the 

number of endorsed FCPs who would be 

applying for a merchant mariner 

medical certificate in any given year for 

the next 10 years, excluding those with 

medical waivers. To obtain this number, 

we took the total number of endorsed 

FCPs holding a medical certificate with 

or without time-limited medical 

waivers, 3,897, as shown in table 2. We 

then subtracted the number of endorsed 

FCPs who submit medical certificate 

applications on an annual basis due to 

time-limited restrictions, 195. We 

obtained a population of 3,702 endorsed 

FCPs who will submit their medical 

certificate applications every 5 years 

under the proposed rule. We then 

divided this number (3,702) by 2, which 

is the application rate of FCPs who are 

issued medical certificates (1 

application every 2 years) to obtain an 

annual estimate of 1,851 medical 

certificates issued (3,702 ÷ 2). However, 

the number of endorsed FCPs has 

decreased over time, at an average 

annual rate of 0.48 percent from 2011– 

2020. We incorporated this average 

annual rate of decline in order to obtain 

the expected number of endorsed FCPs 

in a 10-year period of analysis. Column 

(d) t in table 4, ‘‘Current Regulation 

Medical Certificate Applications With 

Decline,’’ captures the affected 

population after applying the annual 

average rate of decline in column (b) 

and the application rate in column (c)t. 

The equation for column (d) t is 

represented as (d) t = (c) t + ([1 + (b)] t

) for all t, where t denotes the period 

of time, and t is discrete and positive. 

Table 4 presents the number of medical 

certificate applications under the 

baseline analysis. 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

Proposed Regulation 

Table 5 illustrates the following 

discussion of our methodology for 

estimating the number of medical 

certificate applications for the affected 

population under this proposed rule. 

This is similar to the previously 

discussed ‘‘Current Baseline’’ section. 

The population and the estimated rate 

of decline are assumed to be identical 

under both the baseline scenario and the 

proposed rule. The difference in the 

methodology for the proposed rule is 

reflected in the application frequency 

for FCPs. We calculated this by taking 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP27AU21.085</GPH>

Table 4. Baseline Analysis of FCPs Mariner Medical Certificate Applications 

Year 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I Total 

Average 

Population Growth 

(a) (b) 

3,702 -0.48% 

Current Regulation 

Medical Certificate 

Applications Not 

Incorporating 

Growth 

(c), = (a) 7 2 

1,851 

1,851 

1,851 

1,851 

1,851 

1,851 

1,851 

1,851 

1.851 

1.851 

18,511 

1,851 

Current Regulation 

Medical Certificate 

Applications With 

Decline 

(d) ,= (c),x ( [1 + (b)] ') 

for all t 

1,842 

1,833 

1,825 

1,816 

1,807 

1,799 

1,790 

1,781 

1.773 

1.764 

18,030 

1,803 
48098 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

the number of FCPs expected to submit 

a medical certificate application in a 

given year, incorporating the rate of 

decline, and assume that each eligible 

remaining FCP will only submit a 

medical certificate application at 

intervals of five years, starting in year 1. 

Column (e) t reflects this periodicity; 

FCPs who submit a medical certificate 

applications in year 1 would not have 

to submit a new medical certificate 

application until year 6. FCP’s who 

submit their medical certificate 

application in year 2 would not have to 

submit their medical certificate 

application until year 7. After 

accounting for the yearly attrition 

projected for this analysis, values for 

column (e) t will be equivalent to values 

of column (d) t for t = 1,2,6,7, and 0 for 

any other period. This periodicity holds 

true for any given 10 year interval into 

the future. 

In contrast, column (f) t reflects the 

reduction in medical certificate 

applications under our proposed rule. 

For any given period t, the reduction in 

medical certificate applications is 

calculated as the difference between 

FCPs who would otherwise submit a 

medical certificate application every 

other year under current regulations, 

column (d) t, and the number of FCPs 

who no longer have to submit a medical 

certificate application during years 

3,4,5,8,9,10. Hence, column (f) t = 0 for 

t = 1,2,6,7, and column (f) t = (d) t ¥ 

(e) t for any other year. Finally, column 

(g) t reflects the number of FCPs lost to 

the industry on a given year due to the 

projected attrition. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
BILLING CODE 9110–04–C 


EP27AU21.086</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Table 5: Proposed Rule Analysis of FCPs Medical Certificate Applications 

New 

Current Current Rule Regulation Differenc

Regulation Medical Medical Medica

Medical Certificate Certificate Certifica

Year Population Growth Certificate Applications Applications Applicati

(a) (b) Applications With Growth With Growth (f) t = 0 f

Without (d), = (c), x (e), = (d), for t=l,2,6,

Growth ( [1 + (b)] ') t=l,2,6,7, and otherwi

(c) ,=(a)+ 2 for all t (e) ,= 0 (f),=(d),-

otherwise 

1 3,702 -0.48% 1,851 1,842 1,842 - 

2 1,851 1,833 1,833 - 

3 1.851 1.825 - 1 825 

4 1,851 1,816 - 1,816 

5 1,851 1,807 - 1 807 

6 1,851 1,799 1,799 - 

7 1,851 1,790 1,790 - 

8 1,851 1,781 - 1,781 

9 1,851 1,773 - 1,773 

10 1,851 1,764 - 1,764 

Total 18,511 18,030 7,264 10,766 

Average 1,851 1,803 1,816 1,794 
48100 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3A loaded hourly wage rate is what a company 

pays per hour to employ a person, not the hourly 

wage an employee receives. The loaded hourly 

wage rate includes the cost of non-wage benefits 

(health insurance, vacation, etc.). 

4https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/payleave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/GS_

h.pdf. 

5https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115thcongress-2017-2018/reports/52637- 

federalprivatepay.pdf. 

6https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/ 

oes535021.htm (see Mean Hourly Wage value, 

National estimates for this occupation box). 

7https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ 

ecec_03192020.pdf. Found in Table 2. 

8Total may not add to 100 percent due to 

rounding. 

9Total may not add to 100 percent due to 

rounding. 

Reduction in Merchant Mariner Medical 

Certificate Applications From Baseline 

to Proposed Rule 

As reflected in sum of column (f)t of 

table 5, we project an aggregate 

reduction in medical certificate 

applications of 10,766 over a 10 years 

horizon following the implementation 

of this rule. Under the proposed 

regulation, on average, FCPs would not 

have to submit 1,794 medical certificate 

applications in a given year. 

Medical Certificate Applications 

Submitted by Mail—Opportunity Cost 

of Time 

Table 6 illustrates the analysis of cost 

savings to industry as discussed in the 

following sections. We first determine 

the number of FCPs who would submit 

a medical certificate application via 

mail, previously estimated by the NMC 

at 15% of the affected population. The 

number of FCPs who no longer have to 

submit a medical application on a given 

year is reflected on column (f) t of table 

5. Therefore, column (a) t of table 6 is 

the product of reduced FCPs × 15%. We 

then estimated the reduction in hours 

under the proposed rule. 

We first calculated the reduction in 

time-burden in a given year from FCPs 

who no longer have to submit a medical 

certificate application. The reduction in 

time-burden is calculated as the product 

of the average time per medical 

certificate application submitted by mail 

for evaluation, and the number of FCPs 

who no longer have to submit a medical 

certificate application in a given year. 

For the current collection of information 

approval for CG–719 MMC application 

forms, the approval estimates the total 

time required to fill out and submit the 

medical certificate application (CG– 

719K) by mailing to be 18 minutes. 

Subject matter experts holding MMCs 

with experience submitting a medical 

certificate application estimate that, on 

average, 13 minutes is required to fill 

out the application and the remaining 5 

minutes is required to mail the 

application. Based on this data, the 

Coast Guard estimates the time required 

to submit an application by mailing at 

5 minutes, or 0.083 hours (5 ÷ 60). 

Column (f) t in table 6 is the product of 

(a) t and (b). In order to calculate the 

government cost savings from time 

saved by NMC employees having fewer 

medical certificate application to 

process, we used an estimated loaded 

hourly wage rate of $94.03.3 We derived 

the estimated wage by using the Office 

of Personnel Management’s 2020 Salary 

Table for the locality adjusted general 

service (GS) pay scale for the 

Washington, DC metropolitan area. We 

estimated that the average hourly wage 

rate for a GS–13 employee is $56.57.4 To 

account for employee benefits, we used 

a load factor of 1.66, which we 

calculated from the Congressional 

Budget Office report, ‘‘Comparing the 

Compensation of Federal and PrivateSector Employees, 2011 to 2015,’’ 5

estimated as the ratio of a typical GS– 

13 total compensation, $74.80, found in 

table 4, divided by the typical hourly 

wage of a GS–13 employee, $45.00, 

found in table 2; hence, $74.80 ÷ $45.00 

= 1.66. An employee at the GS–13 pay 

grade is assumed to be equivalent to a 

person who holds a master’s degree. 

Therefore, we estimated the loaded 

wage rate of a GS–13 employee as the 

product of the wage rate and the load 

factor, $56.57 × 1.66 = $94.03. 

We recognize that many mariners 

holding FCP endorsements are 

compensated at higher wage rates than 

what is published by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS); however, we 

used the BLS Occupational Series due 

to the lack of official records for FCP 

wages and salaries. The Coast Guard 

requests input from industry on FCP 

wages and whether our wage rate 

should be revised. 

In order to calculate the cost of time 

avoided by FCPs submitting fewer 

applications under the proposed rule, 

we used the loaded hourly wage rate per 

FCP, estimated at $64.90. We obtained 

the hourly wage rate of a mariner from 

the BLS, using Occupational Series 53– 

5021, Captains, Mates, and Pilots of 

Water Vessels (May 2020), estimated at 

$43.14.6 To determine the load factor 

per FCP, we divided the BLS total 

compensation for the transportation and 

material moving series,7 $32.27, by the 

wages and salaries for the same series, 

which is $21.45. We estimated the load 

factor as 1.50, $32.27 ÷ $21.45 = 1.50. 

Therefore, we calculated the loaded 

hourly wage rate by multiplying the 

hourly wage rate by the loaded factor, 

$43.14 × 1.50 = $64.90. 

After determining the total reduction 

in time for FCPs not submitting medical 

certificates in a given year, we estimated 

the aggregate cost of the time for all 

FCPs to submit their medical certificates 

applications to the Coast Guard. We 

estimated this amount by multiplying 

the loaded hourly wage-rate per each 

endorsed FCP, $64.90, by the total 

annual reduction in time burden. 

Therefore, the cost-time burden, column 

(g) t of table 6 is the product of column 

(d) and column (f) t. 

Shipping Costs 

Mariners may submit medical 

certificate applications either directly to 

the NMC or to a REC. Whether 

submitting to the NMC or a REC, 

applications can be submitted by email, 

fax, or mail. Additionally, if an 

application is submitted to a REC, this 

can be done in person. 

Using data from the NMC on the 

submission of medical certificate 

applications, we estimate that 

approximately 39 percent of medical 

certificate applications are submitted 

directly to the NMC. Of these 

applications, 89 percent are submitted 

by email, 6 percent are submitted by fax, 

and 5 percent are submitted by mail. 

The remaining 61 percent of medical 

certificate applications are submitted 

directly to RECs, where 52 percent of 

the applications are submitted by email, 

1 percent are submitted by fax, 22 

percent are submitted by mail, and 25 

percent are submitted in person.8

Therefore, of the total medical 

certificate applications submitted to the 

Coast Guard (to both the NMC and 

RECs), approximately 66 percent are 

submitted via email, 3 percent are 

submitted via fax, 15 percent are 

submitted via mail, and 15 percent are 

submitted in person.9

We estimated the expected cost of 

mailing applications through the U.S. 

Postal Service (USPS) in any given year 

as the product of the total number of 

medical certificate applications that 

would be submitted under this 

proposed rule, the cost of mailing a 

letter to the Coast Guard through the 

USPS using a first-class letter postage 

stamp, 55 cents, and the percentage of 

endorsed FCPs expected to submit their 

medical certificate applications through 

the mail, approximately 15.4 percent. 

Thus, column (h) t of table 6 = (a) t × 

(c). Finally, the undiscounted industry 

cost savings, column (i) t as the sum of 

the cost-time burden, column (g) t, and 

the USPS cost, column (h) t. 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

EP27AU21.087</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Table 6. Medical Applications Mailing Costs Estimates Over a 10-year Period of Analysis in $2020 

Mailed Avg. Cost Total Reduction Undiscounted Submission Per FCP in Time Cost-Time USPS 

(a)/= Time per Letter hourly Apps Burden Burden Costs Industry 

Year Reduced form Mailed Received (hrs.) (g),=(d)x (h),=(a), Cost Savings 

sub./hrs. wage (%) (i) I= (g) t + FCPsx (b) (1 oz) (d) (e) (t) t = (a) I (f)i X (c) (h), 15% (c) X (b) 

1 - 0.083 $0.55 $64.90 15% - - - - 

2 - - - - - 

3 280 23 $1,517 $154 $1,671 

4 279 23 $1,509 $154 $1,663 

5 278 23 $1,502 $153 $1,655 

6 - - - - - 

7 - - - - - 

8 274 23 $1,481 $151 $1,631 

9 272 23 $1474 $150 $1624 

10 271 23 $1,467 $149 $1,616 

Total 1,655 138 $8,950 $910 $9,860 

Average 276 23 $1492 $152 $1,643 Annualization 

* Tola ls may nol add due lo rounding 
48102 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

10https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/one-way-travel-time-to-workrises.html. 

11Table 1. Overall Speed Estimates (in MPH) by 

Road Class (Free-Flow) by Year, Fact Sheet, 

Publication No. DOT HS 811 647, August 2012 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/data_facts/. 

12https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/ 

transportation-airfare-pov-etc/privately-ownedvehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates. 

Medical Certificates Applications 

Submitted in Person—Opportunity Cost 

of Time 

Table 7 illustrates the analysis of cost 

savings to industry as discussed in the 

following sections. We first determine 

the number of FCPs who would submit 

a medical certificate application in 

person, previously estimated by NMC at 

15% of the affected population. 

Therefore, the expected number of 

medical certificate applications 

submitted in person in a given year, 

column (a) t = Reduced FCPs × 15%. We 

assume that each eligible FCP will 

commute an average of 27.6 minutes in 

each direction 10 to submit their medical 

certificate application to an REC, for an 

average total commuting time of 55.2 

minutes, column (c). We assume that 

FCPs who have a farther commute to the 

REC would submit the applications by 

mail or email. We also assume that FCPs 

will drive at an average speed of 

approximately 57 miles per hour (mph) 

based on the following calculation: 

From the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) National Traffic Speeds Survey II, 

Overall Speed Estimates (in MPH) by 

Road Class (Free-Flow) by Year, we took 

the mean speed of the three road classes 

provided: Limited access (70.5 mph), 

major arterial (53.28 mph), and minor 

arterial (47.01 mph), to obtain an 

average speed of 56.93 mph [(70.5 + 

53.28 + 47.01) ÷ 3].11 Considering the 

estimated average speed, we assume 

that 55.2 minutes of commuting time 

will be traveled in approximately 1 hour 

(55.2 minutes ÷ 57 miles per hour ≈ 0.97 

hrs.), reflected in column (b). 

In order to calculate the opportunity 

cost of having to commute to submit a 

medical certificate application to an 

REC on a less frequent basis, we use 

GSA’s Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) 

Mileage Reimbursement Rates,12 which 

is used as a proxy for the wear and tear 

incurred while commuting to an REC. 

As of January 2021, the reimbursement 

rate is $0.56 per mile, column (d). We 

then estimate the net reduction in timeburden hours if this proposed rule is 

implemented, reflected in column (e) t. 

The net reduction in time-burden is 

calculated as the product of the average 

time it would take FCPs to commute to 

and from an REC, column (b), and the 

number of FCPs that no longer have to 

submit a medical certificate on a given 

year, column (a) t. Hence, column (e) t

= (a) t and (b). Next we estimate the net 

reduction in distance (miles avoided) by 

FCPs who no longer have to drive to 

submit a medical certificate application 

on a given year. The net reduction in 

distance (miles), column (f) t, is the 

product of the average miles avoided by 

FCP who would otherwise commute to 

and from an REC, column (c), and the 

aggregate time of commuting avoided by 

FCPs in hours. Finally, we estimate the 

undiscounted cost savings of FCPs who 

no longer have to submit a medical 

certificate application in person, 

column (g) t. This column is calculated 

as the product of GSA’s reimbursement 

rate, column (d), and the aggregate 

distance (miles) avoided by FCPs on a 

given year, column (e) t. Hence, column 

(g) t = (d) × (f) t. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

EP27AU21.088</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Table 7. Opportunity Cost of Commute Avoided in Terms of Time and Reimbursement Impact 

In Person Total Time Net 

Submission Allotted for Average Time Reimburse- Reduction in Net Reduction Un discounted 

(a) 1= Driving Commuted per ment Rate Time in Time Industry Cost 

Year Reduced to/from FCP per Mile Burden (minutes) Savings (g) 1 = 

USCG Driven (hrs.) FCPsx Facilities (c) (d) (e) 1= (a) 1x (f) 1= (c) x (e) 1 (d) X (f) t 15% hrs. (b) (b) 

l - 1.000 55.2 $0.56 - - - 

2 - - - - 

3 280 280 15,481 $8,669 

4 279 279 15,406 $8,628 

5 278 278 15 333 $8 586 

6 - - - - 

7 - - - - 

8 274 274 15 114 $8 464 

9 272 272 15 041 $8 423 

10 271 271 14,969 $8,383 

Total 1 655 1,655 91344 $51,152 

Averae:e 276 276 15 224 $8 525 Annualization 
48104 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Medical Certificate Applications 

Submitted in Person—Opportunity Cost 

of Time (Compensation) 

Table 8 illustrates an analysis similar 

to table 7, but in terms of the 

compensation that FCPs would have 

otherwise forgone in order to commute 

to an REC to submit a medical certificate 

application. Based on data provided 

from each REC, we determined that, on 

average, a mariner would require 25 

minutes to arrive and enter a REC, 

considering security protocols, and exit 

the REC, column (c). It would require, 

on average, an additional 5 minutes of 

wait time to be seen by the legal 

instruments examiner at the customer 

service counter, column (d), and an 

additional 1 minute for the examiner to 

verify that the medical certificate 

application is complete and filled out 

properly, column (e). The time burden 

for FCPs would be no different than for 

any other mariner. 

To quantify the savings associated to 

mariners not using a full hour of their 

time to commute to a REC, column (b), 

we use the FCP’s loaded hourly wage 

rate, estimated at $64.90, column (f). 

The undiscounted cost savings 

associated to FCPs who no longer have 

to commute to submit a medical 

certificate application, column (g) t is 

calculated as the product of the number 

of reduced FCPs, column (a) t , the 

average commuting time to and from an 

REC, column (b), the average time to it 

takes an FCP to enter and exit an REC, 

column (c), the average time to it takes 

for an FCP to be seen by legal 

instruments examiner at the customer 

service counter, column (d), and the 

average time it takes for the examiner to 

verify that the medical certificate 

application is complete and filled out 

properly, column (e). Hence, (g) t = (a) 

t × [(b) + (c) + (d) + (e)] × (f). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

EP27AU21.089</GPH>lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Avg. Time 

In Person Avg. Avg. to be Seen Undiscounted by legal Submission Commuting Time to instruments Avg. Time Industry 

Year (a) r= Time Enter and examiner at per form FCP hourly Cost Savings 

Reduced to/from Exit the submission wage (f) (g) t = (a) t X r 

FCPsx RECs hrs. RECs customer hrs. (e) (b) + (c) + (d) 15% (b) hrs. (c) service + (e)] X (f) 

counter (d) 

1 - 1.000 0.417 0.083 0.017 $64.90 - 

2 - - 

3 280 $27,605 

4 279 $27,473 

5 278 $27,341 

6 - - 

7 - - 

8 274 $26,951 

9 272 $26,822 

10 271 $26,693 

Total 1 655 $162 885 

Average 276 $27,147 Annualization 
48106 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Total Cost Savings to Industry 

Using a 7-percent discount rate, we 

estimated the annualized cost savings 

for this proposed rule as $20,908 and 

the 10-year total as $146,847. We 

obtained this value by adding the yearly 

cost savings associated with the number 

of medical certificate applications not 

submitted in a given period (a) t and the 

number of medical certificate 

applications not delivered to the Coast 

Guard in a given period (b) t. We 

present these industry cost-savings 

amounts, discounted at 7 percent and 3 

percent, in table 9. 

Government Cost Savings 

Table 10 illustrates the following 

methodology to calculate the cost 

savings to the government. We first 

estimated the reduction in hours 

associated with the reduction in 

medical certificate application 

submission previously discussed. We 

estimated the reduction in hours as the 

product of the reduction in medical 

certificate applications and the 

estimated time it would take a GS–13 

employee at the NMC to process an 

application for a mariner medical 

certificate. Using medical certificate 

application information records 

obtained from NMC medical evaluation 

staff, we estimated that the time needed 

to evaluate a medical certificate 

application is approximately 10 

minutes, or 0.166 hours (10 ÷ 60 = 0.166 

hours). 

Using the loaded hourly wage rate of 

$94.03 for a GS–13 employee, we 

estimated that the government would 

save $15.98 ($94.03 × 0.17 hour) on each 

application it would no longer have to 

evaluate. The annual reduction in the 

number of medical certificate 

applications for the proposed rule is the 

product of the number of applications 

the government will no longer have to 

review and the hours saved by not 

having to review an additional medical 

application. Therefore, (d) t = (a) t × 

0.166 hrs. On average, the government 

would save 299 hours annually under 

the proposed rule. 

Next, we estimated the total 

undiscounted government cost savings 

in a given year. We calculated this as 

the product of the estimated loaded 

hourly wage rate for a GS–13 employee, 

$94.03, and the yearly reduction in 

hours. This captures the difference in 

the medical certificate applications 

under current regulations and the 

proposed rule. On average, the 

government would save $18,444 

annually under this proposed rule, 

discounted at 7 percent, as presented in 

table 10. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP27AU21.090</GPH>

Table 9. Total Industry Cost Savings 

U ndiscounted U ndiscounted U ndiscounted Mail In Person Discounted Discounted Year Submission Submission Industry 7% 3% 

(a), (b) t 

Savings ( c) , 

1 - - - - -

2 - - - - -

3 $1 671 $36.274 $37.945 $30 975 $34 725 

4 $1 663 $36.100 $37.763 $28 810 $33 552 

5 $1 655 $35.928 $37.583 $26 796 $32 419 

6 - - - - -

7 - - - - -

8 $1 631 $35.414 $37.046 $21 561 $29 244 

9 $1,624 $35,245 $36,868 $20,054 $28,256 

10 $1,616 $35,076 $36,692 $18,652 $27,302 

Total $9 860 $214 037 $223.897 $146.847 $185 499 

Averaee $1,643 $35,673 $37,316 $24,475 $30,917 

Annualization $20,908 $21,746 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48107 

Total Estimated Cost Savings of the 

Proposed Rule Over a 10-Year Period of 

Analysis 

Over a 10-year period of analysis, the 

total estimated cost savings of the 

proposed rule to mariners and the 

government is $257,511, discounted at 7 

percent. The annualized cost savings are 

$36,664, also discounted at 7 percent. 

Table 11 presents the total cost savings 

of this proposed rule, which is the sum 

of the undiscounted industry savings, 

and the undiscounted government 

savings. Therefore, the undiscounted 

total cost savings is the sum of the 

undiscounted industry savings and the 

undiscounted government savings. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP27AU21.091</GPH>

Table 10. Government cost savings over a 10-year period of analysis in $2020 dollars using 

7- and 3-percent discount rates 

Reduction Time Reductio 

in Medical Wage per n in Time U ndiscounted 

Year Certificate rate of evalua Burden Government Discounted Discounted 

Applicatio a GS-13 tion/h (hrs.) Cost Savings 7% 3% 

(b) r. (d),=(a) (e), = (b) x (d), ns (a), (c) X (C) 

1 - $94.03 0.17 - - - -

2 - - - - -

3 L825 304 $28,595 $23342 $26,169 

4 1,816 303 $28,459 $21,711 $25,285 

5 1,807 301 $28,322 $20,193 $24,431 

6 - - - - -

7 - - - - -

8 1,781 297 $27,918 $16,248 $22,038 

9 L773 295 $27,784 $15,113 $2L294 

10 L764 294 $27,651 $14,056 $20,575 

Total 10,766 1,794 $168,729 $110,664 $139,792 

Avera2e 1,794 299 $28,121 $18,444 $23,299 

Annualization $15,756 $16,388 
48108 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–C 

Benefits 

There are quantifiable benefits to this 

proposed rule. However, they are the 

cost savings accounted for above, 

including savings to mariners from less 

frequent submissions of medical 

certificate applications. This would 

subsequently reduce the NMC’s 

workload and generate government cost 

savings. 

In addition, there are unquantifiable 

benefits for some FCPs because they 

would be less likely to have a lapse in 

a medical certification due to the less 

frequent submission requirement. The 

Coast Guard does not have data to 

quantify the savings this would produce 

for this small percentage of affected 

FCPs, but we are aware that it may 

happen. For these pilots, economic 

losses occur when a current medical 

certificate expires prior to the time that 

a new medical certificate is approved 

and issued. Such circumstances can 

occur if the mariner has a complex 

medical history that requires frequent or 

prolonged correspondence between the 

mariner’s medical practitioner and the 

NMC. This lapse in medical certification 

can have significant costs for both 

individual pilots and for employers, 

because pilots cannot work under the 

authority of their credential without a 

valid medical certificate. By establishing 

the proposed 5-year medical certificate 

for pilots, instead of the current 2-year 

medical certificate, the likelihood of 

such lapses would decrease, would 

ensure that they do not incur additional 

medical exam costs, and would also be 

a mitigating factor against a potential 

loss of income. 

Alternatives 

When analyzing alternatives, we 

considered two factors: the period of 

validity of the medical certificate for 

FCPs; and the requirement to submit 

physical examination results to the 

Coast Guard. Under current regulations, 

the period of validity of the medical 

certificate is 2 years for FCPs, and the 

submission of physical examination 

results is correspondingly every other 

year, unless the medical certificate 

contains a waiver requiring more 

frequent submission of the physical 

examination results. 

Alternative 1. The first alternative we 

considered in this analysis was 

retaining the status quo, under which 

FCPs would continue to apply for their 

medical certificates every other year. 

The status quo would also continue to 

require FCPs to report their physical 

examination results every other year, 

unless their medical certificate contains 

a waiver requiring more frequent 

submission. As discussed previously, 

we estimated the opportunity cost of 

retaining the status quo at $36,664, 

annualized at 7 percent, or an 

undiscounted total of $257,511 over a 

10-year period of analysis. We rejected 

this alternative. Although there would 

be no additional costs to mariners or the 

government, there would also be no cost 

savings. 

Alternative 2. The second alternative 

we considered was extending the 

maximum period of validity of medical 

certifications to 5 years without interim 

self-reporting requirements, which 

would require mariners to submit the 

results of their medical examination to 

the Coast Guard if they no longer meet 

the medical standards. FCPs would only 

submit the results of the physical 

examination every 5 years with a 

medical certificate application, unless 

their medical certificate contains a 

waiver and requires more frequent 

submission. We rejected this alternative. 

The Coast Guard finds the potential for 

increased risk from mariners with 

underlying health issues operating as 

FCPs, and not self-reporting medical or 

health conditions that may impact their 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP27AU21.092</GPH>

Table 11. Total Estimated Costs Savings of NPRM over a 10-year Period of 

Analysis in $2020 Using 7- Percent and 3-Percent Discount Rates 

Un discounted Un discounted Un discounted 

Total Cost 

Year Industry Government Savings Discounted Discounted 

Cost Savings Cost Savings (c) 1 = (a)t + 7% 3% 

(a) t (b) t (b) t 

1 - - - - -

2 - - - - -

3 $37,945 $28,595 $66,541 $54,317 $60,894 

4 $37 763 $28.459 $66.222 $50 520 $58.837 

5 $37,583 $28,322 $65,905 $46,989 $56,850 

6 - - - - -

7 - - - - -

8 $37 046 $27,918 $64,963 $37 809 $51,283 

9 $36 868 $27.784 $64.652 $35 167 $49.551 

10 $36,692 $27,651 $64,343 $32,709 $47,877 

Total $223,897 $168,729 $392,626 $257,511 $325,292 

Average $37,316 $28,121 $65,438 $42,918 $54,215 

Annualization $36,664 $38,134 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48109 

piloting performance and maritime 

safety, unacceptable. We made this 

determination after considering the 

unique physical and cognitive demands 

placed on pilots in performing their 

duties, and maritime casualties that 

were directly related to a FCP’s physical 

ability to perform their duties. We 

considered casualties such as the 2003 

Staten Island Ferry allision, which 

resulted in more than $8 million in 

damages and losses, and the 2007 Cosco 

Busan incident, which resulted in more 

than $70 million in environmental 

damages and other losses. Both 

casualties were directly attributed to the 

pilot’s inability to properly manage the 

vessel due to underlying medical 

conditions that were not reported to the 

Coast Guard within the 5 year medical 

certificate validity period. The risk that 

mariners can develop new medical 

conditions within the 5 year medical 

certificate validity period is mitigated 

by the proposed self-reporting 

requirements. As evidenced by these 

maritime accidents and potential for 

extraordinary damages to the public, the 

environment, and the maritime 

industry, any potential benefit derived 

from excluding the interim selfreporting requirement on behalf of FCPs 

is not a risk deemed acceptable by the 

Coast Guard. 

Alternative 3. The third alternative we 

considered was extending the maximum 

period of validity of the medical 

certificate to 5 years, and requiring FCPs 

to submit the results of their annual 

physical examinations to the Coast 

Guard between medical certificate 

applications if: (1) The mariner does not 

meet the physical ability requirements; 

(2) the mariner has a condition that does 

not meet the medical, vision, or hearing 

requirements; (3) the mariner is deemed 

‘‘not recommended’’ by a medical 

practitioner for a medical certificate; or 

(4) upon request by the Coast Guard. 

With this third alternative, FCPs would 

apply for the medical certificates every 

5 years and would only have to report 

the results of their medical examination 

between applications if any of the 4 

conditions apply. This alternative 

mitigates the potential for increased 

safety risks identified under the second 

alternative, resulting from having 

mariners with underlying medical 

issues operating as FCPs. The potential 

for risk is increased when the Coast 

Guard does not have the opportunity to 

review the physical exams of mariners 

whose medical practitioners have 

diagnosed them with medical 

conditions that may impact their 

piloting performance. Therefore, the 

third alternative was chosen in this 

proposed rule. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered 

whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would reduce the 

burden on industry by extending the 

maximum period of validity of 

merchant mariner medical certificates 

for FCPs, and masters and mates serving 

as pilot, from 2 years to 5 years. Since 

the medical certificate is in the 

mariner’s name and not an entity’s, the 

affected mariners would receive the cost 

savings from this proposed rule. Hence, 

the changes in this proposed rule would 

affect individuals, not businesses or 

other small entities as defined by the 

Small Business Administration in 13 

CFR 121.201. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If you think 

that your business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a 

small entity and that this proposed rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact on it, please submit a comment 

to the docket at the address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In 

your comment, explain why you think 

it qualifies and how and to what degree 

this proposed rule would economically 

affect it. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 

121, we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the proposed 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 in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

proposed rule. The Coast Guard will not 

retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed 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). 

D. Collection of Information 

The Coast Guard has determined that 

this proposed rule would call for a 

change to an existing collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

3520. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), 

‘‘collection of information’’ comprises 

reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, 

posting, labeling, and other similar 

actions. The title and description of the 

information collections, a description of 

those who must collect the information, 

and an estimate of the total annual 

burden follow. The estimate covers the 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing sources of data, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection. 

The information collection associated 

with this proposed rule is the currently 

approved collection OMB Control No. 

1625–0040 (Application for Merchant 

Mariner Credential (MMC), Application 

for Merchant Mariner Medical 

Certificate, Applications for Merchant 

Mariner Medical Certificate for Entry 

Level Ratings, Small Vessel Sea Service 

Form, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing 

Form, Disclosure Statement for 

Narcotics, DWI/DUI, and/or Other 

Convictions, Merchant Mariner Medical 

Certificates, Recognition of Foreign 

Certificate), which covers all 

information collected for merchant 

mariner credentialing. The proposed 

revisions to 46 CFR 10.301 and 15.401 

would extend the maximum validity 

period of the mariner medical certificate 

for FCPs and masters or mates serving 

as pilot from 2 years to 5 years. The 

proposed change to the maximum 

validity period of the medical certificate 

for pilots would reduce the frequency 

and burden of response estimates of the 

current information collection request. 

Title: Application for Merchant 

Mariner Credential (MMC), Application 

for Medical Certificate, Application for 

Medical Certificate—Short Form, Small 

Vessel Sea Service (Optional) Form, 

DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing 

(Optional) Form, and Disclosure 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
48110 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Statement for Narcotics, Driving while 

intoxicated (DWI)/Driving under the 

influence (DUI), and/or Other 

Convictions (Optional) Form. 

OMB Control Number: 1625–0040. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: The Coast Guard currently 

collects information from merchant 

mariners with their applications for 

MMCs and merchant mariner medical 

certificates. This collection includes the 

following information requests: 

Signature of applicant and 

supplementary material required to 

show that the mariner meets the 

mandatory requirements for the 

credential or medical certificate sought; 

proof of applicant passing all applicable 

vision, hearing, medical, and/or 

physical exams; negative chemical test 

for dangerous drugs; discharges or other 

documentary evidence of sea service 

indicating the name, tonnage, 

propulsion mode and power of the 

vessels, dates of service, capacity in 

which the applicant served, and on 

what waters; and disclosure 

documentation for narcotics, DWI/DUI, 

and/or other convictions. 

Need for Information: Title 46 United 

States Code (U.S.C.) Subtitle II, Part E, 

Title 46 Code of Federal Regulation CFR 

part 10, subpart B, and International 

Convention on Standards of Training, 

Certification and Watchkeeping for 

Seafarers, 1978, as amended and the 

STCW Code, including the STCW final 

rule (Docket No. USCG–2004–17914) 

published on December 24, 2013, 

require MMC and medical certificate 

applicants to apply at one of the Coast 

Guard’s 17 RECs located nationwide or 

any other location designated by the 

Coast Guard. MMCs are established for 

individuals who are required to hold a 

credential under Subtitle II. The Coast 

Guard has the responsibility of issuing 

MMCs and medical certificates to 

applicants found qualified as to age, 

character, and habits of life, experience, 

professional qualifications, and physical 

fitness. The instruments contained 

within OMB Control No. 1625–0040 

serve as a means for the applicant to 

apply for an MMC and a medical 

certificate. 

Proposed Use of Information: The 

Coast Guard conducts this collection of 

information solely for the purposes of 

determining eligibility for issuance of an 

MMC or medical certificate, in 

accordance with applicable statutes and 

regulations. This evaluation is 

performed on occasion, meaning as 

submitted by the respondent when he or 

she applies for an MMC or medical 

certificate. In general, applicants for an 

MMC must submit the CG–719–B every 

5 years for renewal or when seeking a 

new endorsement or raise of grade, and 

applicants for a medical certificate must 

submit the CG–719K every 2 years or 

every 5 years, depending upon the type 

of credential or endorsements held and 

the applicant’s medical status. The 

Coast Guard evaluates the collected 

information to determine whether 

applicants are qualified to serve under 

the authority of the requested credential 

with respect to their medical fitness, 

their professional qualifications, and 

their safety and suitability. 

Description of the Respondents: All 

applicants for an MMC, whether 

original, renewal, duplicate, raise of 

grade, or a new endorsement on a 

previously issued MMC, are included in 

this collection. Applicants for medical 

certificates include mariners with MMC 

National, STCW, and pilot 

endorsements. The proposed change to 

the maximum validity period of the 

merchant mariner medical certificate 

from 2 years to 5 years applies only to 

FCPs and masters or mates serving as 

pilot. 

Number of Respondents: This 

proposed rule would reduce the annual 

number of respondents by 7,324 over a 

10-year period of analysis. As a result, 

the total annual respondents for this 

collection would change from 18,316 to 

10,992. 

Frequency of Response: For FCP 

endorsements, the annual average 

reduction would be 1,794. The 

responses are annual and would result 

in a reduction in the number of medical 

certificate submissions of the form CG– 

719–K from 54,800 to 44,034 (54,800 ¥ 

10,766 = 44,034). 

Burden of Response: The total hourly 

burden per response was estimated at 18 

minutes, or 0.30 hours. This proposed 

rule would reduce the aggregate burden 

of hours associated with the submission 

of the medical certification applications 

by extending the renewal period from 

every 2 years to every 5 years. 

Therefore, the total annual response 

time for submitting a new medical 

certificate would decrease by 

approximately 3,587 hours (138 hrs. via 

mail submissions + 1,654 hrs. in person 

submissions + 1,794 government hrs. 

review). However, the hourly burden 

per response would remain unchanged. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The 

Coast Guard estimates that the total 

annual burden with the proposed 

change to the medical certificate 

validity period for FCPs would be 

16,286 hours a year, which is a 154-hour 

reduction in burden from the current 

corresponding collection total of 16,440 

hours. 

As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we 

will submit a copy of this proposed rule 

to OMB for its review of the collection 

of information. We ask for public 

comment on the proposed collection of 

information to help us determine, 

among other things— 

• How useful the information is; 

• Whether the information can help 

us perform our functions better; 

• How we can improve the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the 

information; 

• Whether the information is readily 

available elsewhere; 

• How accurate our estimate is of the 

burden of collection; 

• How valid our methods are for 

determining the burden of collection; 

and 

• How we can minimize the burden 

of collection. 

If you submit comments on the 

collection of information, submit them 

to both the OMB and to the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. 

You need not respond to a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid control number from 

OMB. Before the Coast Guard could 

enforce the collection of information 

requirements in this proposed rule, 

OMB would need to approve the Coast 

Guard’s request to collect this 

information. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct 

effect on 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. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under 

Executive Order 13132 and have 

determined that it is consistent with the 

fundamental federalism principles and 

preemption requirements described in 

Executive Order 13132. Our analysis 

follows. 

It is well settled that States may not 

regulate in categories reserved for 

regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also 

well settled that all of the categories 

covered in 46 U.S.C. 7101, and 8101 

(personnel qualification and manning of 

vessels), as well as the reporting of 

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 the Supreme Court’s decision in 

United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 

S.Ct. 1135 (2000) (finding that the states 

are foreclosed from regulating tanker 

vessels). See also Ray v. Atlantic 

Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 157 (1978) 

(state regulation is preempted where 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48111 

‘‘the scheme of federal regulation may 

be so pervasive as to make reasonable 

the inference that Congress left no room 

for the States to supplement it [or 

where] the Act of Congress may touch 

a field in which the federal interest is 

so dominant that the federal system will 

be assumed to preclude enforcement of 

state laws on the same subject.’’ 

(citations omitted)). Because this 

proposed rule involves the credentialing 

of mariners under 46 U.S.C. 7101, it 

relates to personnel qualifications and, 

as a result, is foreclosed from regulation 

by the States. Therefore, because the 

States may not regulate within these 

categories, this rule is consistent with 

the fundamental federalism principles 

and preemption requirements described 

in Executive Order 13132. 

While it is well settled that States may 

not regulate in categories in which 

Congress intended the Coast Guard to be 

the sole source of a vessel’s obligations, 

the Coast Guard recognizes the key role 

that State and local governments may 

have in making regulatory 

determinations. Additionally, for rules 

with federalism implications and 

preemptive effect, Executive Order 

13132 specifically directs agencies to 

consult with State and local 

governments during the rulemaking 

process. If you believe this proposed 

rule would have implications for 

federalism under Executive Order 

13132, please call or email the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

section of this preamble. 

F. Unfunded Mandates 

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 million (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Although this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this proposed rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630 (Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights). 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed 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. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045 

(Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks). This proposed rule is not an 

economically significant rule and would 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), because it would not 

have a substantial 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. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed 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 because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and 

would not have any adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act, codified as a 

note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies 

to use voluntary consensus standards in 

their regulatory activities unless the 

agency provides Congress, through 

OMB, 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 proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

Rev. 1, associated implementing 

instructions, and Environmental 

Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. A preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration (REC) 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble. 

This proposed rule appears to meet 

the criteria for categorical exclusion 

(CATEX) under paragraphs L56 and L54 

in Table 3–1 of U.S. Coast Guard 

Environmental Planning Implementing 

Procedures (April 2019), which is 

available in the docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Paragraph L56 

pertains to regulations concerning the 

training, qualifying, licensing, and 

disciplining of maritime personnel. 

Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations 

which are editorial or procedural. This 

proposed rule involves amending the 

maximum period of validity of 

merchant mariner medical certificates 

from 2 years to 5 years for FCPs and 

masters or mates serving as pilot on 

vessels of 1,600 GRT or more. 

Additionally, the proposed rule 

includes an extension of the annual 

physical examination submission 

requirement from every other year to 

every 5 years, as long as circumstances 

do not require more frequent 

submissions of annual physical 

examination results to ensure maritime 

and public safety. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

46 CFR Part 10 

Penalties, Personally identifiable 

information, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 

46 CFR Part 11 

Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Schools, 

Seamen. 

46 CFR Part 15 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seamen, Vessels. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 46 CFR parts 10, 11, and 15 as 

follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
48112 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

PART 10—MERCHANT MARINER 

CREDENTIAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 10 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 503; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 

46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 

71; 46 U.S.C. chapter 73; 46 U.S.C. chapter 

75; 46 U.S.C. 2104; 46 U.S.C. 7701, 8903, 

8904, and 70105; Executive Order 10173; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

§ 10.301 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 10.301, remove paragraph (b)(2) 

and redesignate paragraphs (b)(3) and 

(b)(4) as paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3), 

respectively. 

PART 11—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

OFFICER ENDORSEMENTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 11 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 503; 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, 8906, 

and 70105; Executive Order 10173; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. Section 

11.107 is also issued under the authority of 

44 U.S.C. 3507. 

■ 4. Amend § 11.709 by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (c); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (d) as 

paragraph (c); 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(4); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (d); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 11.709 Annual physical examination 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Every person holding an MMC 

endorsement as first-class pilot, or a 

master or mate serving as a pilot under 

§ 15.812, must have a thorough physical 

examination each year. This annual 

physical examination must be 

completed by the first day of the month 

following the anniversary of the 

individual’s most recently completed 

Coast Guard-required physical 

examination. Each annual physical 

examination must meet the 

requirements specified in 46 CFR, part 

10, subpart C, and be recorded on the 

form CG–719K. Every five years, in 

accordance with the medical certificate 

requirements in 10.301(b), 10.302(a), 

and 10.304(d) of this chapter, the results 

of the most recent physical examination 

must be submitted to the Coast Guard. 

The results of the physical examination 

must also be submitted to the Coast 

Guard no later than 30 calendar days 

after completion of the physical 

examination in any of the following 

circumstances: 

(1) The examining medical 

practitioner documents that the 

individual does not meet the physical 

ability requirements as set forth in 

§ 10.304(c); 

(2) the examining medical practitioner 

documents that the individual has a 

condition that does not meet the general 

medical exam requirements described in 

§ 10.304(a), the vision requirements 

described in § 10.305, or the hearing 

requirements described in § 10.306; 

(3) the examining medical practitioner 

documents that the individual is not 

recommended for a medical certificate 

or needs further review by the Coast 

Guard as set forth in § 10.301(a); or 

(4) the Coast Guard requests the 

results. 

* * * * * 

(d) A master or mate may not serve as 

a pilot on a vessel 1,600 GRT or more 

under § 15.812 if the person does not 

meet the physical examination 

requirements provided in paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

PART 15—MANNING REQUIREMENTS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 15 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 3306, 

3703, 8101, 8102, 8103, 8104, 8105, 8301, 

8304, 8502, 8503, 8701, 8702, 8901, 8902, 

8903, 8904, 8905(b), 8906 and 9102; sec. 617, 

Pub. L. 111–281, 124 Stat. 2905; and 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

§ 15.401 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 15.401 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove in the first 

sentence the words, ‘‘license, certificate 

of registry, Merchant Mariner’s 

Document (MMD),’’ and remove from 

the second sentence the words ‘‘license, 

certificate of registry, MMD, or’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the 

words ‘‘After January 1, 2017, two’’ and 

add, in its place the words, ‘‘Two’’; 

■ c. Remove paragraph (c)(2) and 

redesignate paragraph (c)(3) as 

paragraph (c)(2); and 

■ d. In paragraphs (d) and (e), remove 

wherever it appears the words ‘‘MMD 

or’’. 

■ 7. In § 15.812, in Table 1 to 

§ 15.812(e)(1), revise the second row, 

which starts with ‘‘Inspected selfpropelled vessels not more than 1,600 

GRT, authorized by their COI to proceed 

beyond the Boundary Line, or operating 

on the Great Lakes’’, to read as follows: 

§ 15.812 Pilots. 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48113 

TABLE 1 TO § 15.812(e)(1)—QUICK REFERENCE TABLE FOR FEDERAL PILOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S.-INSPECTED, 

SELF-PROPELLED VESSELS, NOT SAILING ON REGISTER

Designated areas of pilotage waters (routes 

for which First-Class Pilot’s licenses or MMC 

officer endorsements are issued) 

Non-designated areas of pilotage waters (between the 3-mile line and the start of traditional pilotage routes) 

*******

Inspected self-propelled vessels not more than 

1,600 GRT, authorized by their COI to proceed beyond the Boundary Line, or operating on the Great Lakes.

First-Class Pilot, or Master or Mate may serve 

as pilot if he or she— 

1. Is at least 21 years old; 

2. Maintains current knowledge of the waters 

to be navigated; and 1

3. Has four roundtrips over the route.2

Master or Mate may serve as pilot if he or 

she— 

1. Is at least 21 years old; and 

2. Maintains current knowledge of the waters 

to be navigated.1

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * Dated: August 13, 2021. 

J.W. Mauger, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Prevention Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17806 Filed 8–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1