Proposed Rule2023-06472
Electronic Submission of Mariner Course Completion Data
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 5, 2023
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard proposes to require Coast Guard-approved training providers to electronically submit student course completion data to the Coast Guard within 5 business days of completing a Coast Guard-approved course. The National Maritime Center would use this information to validate mariner course completion as part of an application for a Merchant Mariner Credential. In addition, the Coast Guard proposes to replace gendered titles for certain officer and rating endorsements in keeping with Coast Guard policy of using gender- neutral language. We expect these proposed changes to lessen the probability of credentials being issued to mariners who have not met the professional requirements for their endorsements and to appropriately conform terms that should be gender-neutral.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29013-29035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06472]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 30, 35 and 39
[Docket No. USCG-2021-0097]
RIN 1625-AC75
Electronic Submission of Mariner Course Completion Data
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to require Coast Guard-approved
training providers to electronically submit student course completion
data to the Coast Guard within 5 business days of completing a Coast
Guard-approved course. The National Maritime Center would use this
information to validate mariner course completion as part of an
application for a Merchant Mariner Credential. In addition, the Coast
Guard proposes to replace gendered titles for certain officer and
rating endorsements in keeping with Coast Guard policy of using gender-
neutral language. We expect these proposed changes to lessen the
probability of credentials being issued to mariners who have not met
the professional requirements for their endorsements and to
appropriately conform terms that should be gender-neutral.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 5, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0097 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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
[[Page 29014]]
Guard's online docket and to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
using their website <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. 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 Mr. Brian T. Eichelberger, Office of Merchant Mariner
Credentialing, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1450, email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6527170c040b4b314b200c060d000907001702001725101606024b080c09"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7436061d151a5a205a311d171c111816110613110634010717135a191d18">[email protected]</span></a>.
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
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
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 eRulemaking Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. To do
so, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, type USCG-2021-0097 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) web page. That FAQ page also explains how to subscribe
for email alerts that will notify you when comments are posted or if a
final rule is published. 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
in response to this document, see the Department of Homeland Security'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
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
ICR Information collection request
MRN Mariner reference number
MMC Merchant Mariner Credential
MMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation
MTAD Marine Training and Assessment Data
NMC National Maritime Center
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
QSS Quality Standard System
RA Regulatory analysis
STCW International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification, and Watchkeeping, 1978, as amended
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
III. Basis and Purpose
The legal basis of this rulemaking is Title 46 of the United States
Code (U.S.C.), Sections 7101(b) and 7301(b), which authorize the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to
prescribe regulations relating to issuing Merchant Mariner Credentials
(MMCs) for officer and rating endorsements. The Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has delegated the rulemaking
authority under 46 U.S.C. 7101(b) and 7301(b) to the Coast Guard
through 46 U.S.C. 2104 and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No.
01.3, paragraph (II)(92)(e). Additionally, 14 U.S.C. 102(3) grants the
Coast Guard broad authority to issue and enforce regulations to promote
safety of life and property on waters subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States, which includes establishing the experience,
professional qualifications, and processes required for issuing
credentials.
This proposed rule would require Coast Guard-approved training
providers to submit students' course completion data electronically to
the Coast Guard within 5 business days of the course ending. This
action would lessen the probability of issuing MMCs to mariners who
have not met the professional requirements for their endorsements and
improve the efficiency of the credentialing process. In addition, the
proposed rule would replace gendered titles for certain officer and
rating endorsements to align with the Coast Guard's policy of using
gender-neutral language.
IV. Background
The Coast Guard issues MMCs to mariners who have met the regulatory
requirements for individual endorsement(s), as described in title 46 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Professional requirements for an MMC endorsement generally include sea
service, completion of Coast Guard-approved training, and having a met
a standard of competence through practical demonstration and completion
of a written examination.
Title 46 CFR 10.209(a) states that for any application for an MMC,
whether for an original, renewal, duplicate, raise of grade, or new
endorsement on a previously issued MMC, the applicant must establish
that they satisfy all the requirements for the MMC and endorsement(s)
sought before the Coast Guard will issue the MMC. When an individual
submits a Form CG-719B Application for an MMC to the Coast Guard,
supporting documentation must be included to establish that they have
met the requirements for individual MMC endorsement(s). Supporting
documentation for an MMC application may include evidence of sea
service, course or program completion certificates, and documentation
of having met a required standard of competence as appropriate for the
endorsement requested.
The National Maritime Center (NMC), in accordance with the
requirements of
[[Page 29015]]
46 CFR part 10, subpart D, approves training required for MMC
endorsements. As described in 46 CFR 10.402, the Coast Guard may
approve training designed to fulfill or substitute for MMC
requirements, including a portion of required sea service, an
examination required by the Coast Guard, professional competency
requirements, or other regulatory requirements.
The general standards for Coast Guard-approved courses and programs
are found in 46 CFR 10.403. Coast Guard-approved training providers are
required to maintain physical or electronic records of all students who
took a course for at least 5 years after the completion of the course.
Although Coast Guard-approved training providers are required to
maintain these student records, there is no requirement for them to
submit a student's course completion data to the Coast Guard. The NMC
receives approximately 55,000 MMC applications annually. Coast Guard
evaluators at the NMC review applications for MMCs to determine whether
the mariner has met the regulatory requirements for the endorsement(s)
that they are seeking. The NMC uses the Merchant Mariner Licensing and
Documentation (MMLD) database to maintain records of U.S. merchant
mariners and issue MMCs to qualified mariners.
Validation of data has been a longstanding challenge for the
mariner credentialing program. In 2011, Transport Canada conducted an
independent evaluation of how the United States implemented the
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and
Watchkeeping, 1978 as amended (STCW). The evaluation noted that the
Coast Guard could not provide evidence of having established sufficient
procedures and controls to ensure the authenticity and validity of
documents submitted as part of an MMC application package. In 2016,
Transport Canada conducted another independent evaluation of how the
United States implemented STCW and restated the lack of verification
controls to ensure the validity and authenticity of documents submitted
as part of an MMC application package.
In 2019, as part of an ongoing investigation surrounding mariner
examinations, the Coast Guard discovered that over an extended period,
numerous mariners had submitted fraudulent course completion
certificates to the NMC as part of their MMC application. As of June
2021, the Coast Guard identified 428 mariners involved in course
certificate fraud since 2016.\1\ In the absence of available procedures
and resources to validate the authenticity of course completion
certificates, the NMC accepted fraudulent certificates submitted by
mariners as part of an MMC application package as evidence of
completing required training for an MMC endorsement. As a result, the
Coast Guard-issued these mariners endorsements that they were not
professionally qualified to hold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Email communication with Mariner Credentialing Fraud Task
Force from July 20, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While training providers are required to retain course completion
data, they are not required to submit the data to the Coast Guard. The
Coast Guard typically reviews those records only as part of an audit of
Quality Standard Systems (QSS) of Coast Guard-approved training
providers under 46 CFR 10.410(g), as well as Coast Guard administrative
visits and inspections under 46 CFR 10.403(a)(9). The Coast Guard is
proposing to require Coast Guard-approved training providers to submit
course completion data electronically to the Coast Guard within 5
business days of the course's completion. This data would be used to
verify that mariners have met the regulatory training requirements for
the MMC endorsements requested, and reduce opportunities for fraudulent
information being accepted as part of an MMC application package.
The titles of MMC endorsements are prescribed in 46 CFR 10.109.
This proposed rule would make non-substantive changes to 46 CFR parts
10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 30, 35, and 39 to ensure the titles of certain
officer and rating endorsements are gender-neutral to align with the
Coast Guard's policy of removing gendered language from its rules and
regulations. This policy is demonstrated by final rules published in
2002 and 2012 that made technical amendments to the CFR in order to
remove gendered language.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The rule published on September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61276) made
changes to 46 CFR part 401 to change any use of the word ``he'' to
``the individual.'' The rule published on October 1, 2012 (77 FR
59768) changed the definition of ``Secretary of Homeland Security''
in 46 CFR part 401, to include ``he or she'' and ``his or her''
rendering it gender-neutral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would amend 46 CFR 10.403 to require Coast
Guard-approved training providers to submit data on Coast Guard-
approved courses conducted and mariners completing the courses to the
NMC.
The information would be submitted electronically, in a manner
specified by the Coast Guard, within 5 business days of completing a
Coast Guard-approved course. Mariners submitting course completion data
to the Coast Guard as part of their MMC application and Coast Guard-
approved training providers submitting course completion data
electronically to the Coast Guard would attest, under criminal penalty,
that the records are accurate to the best of their knowledge and that
no false entries or statements were made. See 18 U.S.C. 1001. The NMC
would use this information to validate that mariners have completed the
training required for the MMC endorsement requested. This action would
lessen the probability of the Coast Guard accepting a fraudulent course
completion certificate as part of an application for an MMC and improve
the efficiency of the credentialing process.
The proposed 5-business day window to submit course completion data
would ensure that a mariner's application would not be delayed because
the NMC is waiting for training providers to submit the course
completion data. Delaying the evaluation of an application and issuance
of an MMC may result in loss of employment for a mariner, which is in
conflict with NMC's mission to issue credentials to fully qualified
mariners in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
Although the Coast Guard would electronically receive course
completion data, Coast Guard-approved training providers should
continue to issue course completion certificates to their students.
Mariners would still be responsible for including their course
completion certificates as supporting documentation with their MMC
application package. This would allow Coast Guard evaluators to
validate the information submitted by the mariner with their MMC
application against the information submitted electronically by the
training provider.
Under this proposed rule, training providers would be required to
submit the name of the training provider, the training provider's Coast
Guard-issued provider code, the title of the Coast Guard-approved
course or program, the Coast Guard-issued course code, the dates the
training provider held the course, and the name of the approved
instructor. This information would allow the Coast Guard to validate
that a course was approved by the Coast Guard, conducted by an approved
instructor, and the dates the course was conducted. The proposed
electronic submission would also require the student's full name as it
appears on their MMC or other valid Government-issued identification,
and their Coast Guard-issued mariner reference number
[[Page 29016]]
(MRN), or their date of birth and place of birth if they do not
currently have an MRN.\3\ This information is critical should the Coast
Guard need to verify whether a student attended a certain course or
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Coast Guard handles personally identifiable information
(PII) according to the DHS Handbook for Safeguarding Sensitive PII.
A privacy impact assessment for the Merchant Mariner Licensing and
Documentation System can be found online at <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsuscgpia-015-merchant-mariner-licensing-and-documentation-system">https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsuscgpia-015-merchant-mariner-licensing-and-documentation-system</a>. The applicable System of Records Notice (SORN)
is DHS/USCG-030 Merchant Seamen's Records, 74 FR 30308 (June 25,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard seeks comments regarding how course completion data
from Coast Guard-approved courses can be submitted electronically to
the Coast Guard. Submitting copies of course completion certificates by
email, sending data files or spreadsheets listing required information,
or adding data through a direct system entry or forms have been used or
suggested as methods. The Coast Guard seeks specific information
(example: data file type) and recommendations of how Coast Guard-
approved training providers would submit this data. Information
received through public comments will be used to determine the most
effective method for training providers to submit course completion
data to the Coast Guard. If a final rule is published, the Coast Guard
will provide guidance to specify the submission process.
The Coast Guard has a voluntary program for submitting course
completion data electronically through Homeport.\4\ Currently,
approximately 30 Coast Guard approved training providers voluntarily
submit information to the Coast Guard using Homeport. This process is
more fully discussed in the regulatory analysis of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Homeport is the Coast Guard's enterprise internet portal for
the maritime community and can be accessed at <a href="https://homeport.uscg.mil/">https://homeport.uscg.mil/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard recognizes that Homeport may be limited in the
volume of submissions it can support as we move from voluntary to
mandatory electronic submission of course completion data. The Coast
Guard is currently in the process of replacing MMLD with a more secure,
agile, and user-friendly system that provides better service to the
maritime industry. This new system has yet to be developed, and the
best way for training providers to comply with the proposed
requirements to electronically submit course completion data continues
to be through Homeport. When the new system is developed and fully
operational, the Coast Guard will publish a document announcing that in
the Federal Register and detailing the new system and best practice for
compliance. The new system is not being created specifically for the
electronic submission of mariner course completion data, so the cost of
the new IT system will not be included in this proposed rule's cost
analysis.
The Coast Guard understands that instant compliance upon
publication of the final rule finalizing the new system may not be
feasible for many training providers submitting mariner course
completion data. For that reason, in this rulemaking the Coast Guard
seeks public input regarding what a reasonable length of time would be
needed to allow course providers to modify their procedures following
publication of a final rule, as well as what kind of adjustments
training providers would be required to make in order to pivot from
current practices to compliant practices. The Coast Guard is taking
comment on whether or not a ``phased-in'' applicability or multiple
phased in applicability period(s) is necessary for training providers
to modify their procedures to meet the proposed requirements set forth
in this NPRM. If a final rule is published before the implementation of
a system to replace MMLD, the Coast Guard will work with course
providers to ensure they can submit course completion data using the
existing Homeport process. The Coast Guard also seeks comments from
training providers explaining what alternative approaches they might
use in the event of IT issues. Public comments may include new
information about any aspect of the proposed rule that would require a
revision of the cost analysis. If that occurs, the Coast Guard will
update it and publish a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(SNPRM) with the revised cost analysis, so that the public can
ascertain the new cost of the proposed rule. An SNPRM will also begin a
new period of public comments, so the Coast Guard can receive
additional comments, including feedback on the revised cost analysis of
the proposed rule. As any potentially impactful information from public
comments are not known at this time, it is impossible to incorporate
that information into the current cost analysis.
This NPRM also proposes to amend 46 CFR parts 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
16, 30, 35, and 39 to ensure the names of certain officer and rating
endorsements are gender-neutral. If a final rule is published, the
Coast Guard will update any other regulations using the historical
endorsement titles through future rulemakings. In this initiative, the
Coast Guard specifically proposes to change the following endorsement
titles as described in table 1:
Table 1--Proposed Nomenclature Changes to 46 CFR Parts 10, 11 12, 13,
15, 16, 30, and 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current CFR Nomenclature change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apprentice mate (steersman)............... Apprentice mate towing.
Crewman................................... Crew.
Fireman................................... Boiler technician.
Hospital corpsman......................... Medical technician.
Lifeboatman............................... Lifeboat operator.
Pumpman................................... Pump technician.
Seaman.................................... Seafarer.
Tankerman................................. Tank vessel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a final rule is issued, the Coast Guard would no longer issue
endorsements using the current endorsement titles. Mariners would not
have to submit an application to have the endorsements titles changed
on their MMC. The endorsement titles would be updated at the next
credential transaction when an application is submitted to the Coast
Guard.
The Coast Guard is proposing to change the name of the Able Seaman
endorsement to Able Seafarer. To differentiate in 46 CFR
10.231(c)(6)(ii) between the already established STCW endorsements of
Able Seafarer-Deck and Able Seafarer-Engine and the proposed Able
Seafarer endorsements, the endorsements would be referred as national
Able Seafarer.
In addition, in some provisions of 46 CFR part 12, the legacy names
of endorsements would not be changed to the proposed names.
Specifically, Sec. Sec. 12.501(b)(2) 12.607(b), 12.613(c), and
12.615(c) reference endorsements that would have been held before 2017
and would have been held with the legacy name.
Finally, the Coast Guard is proposing to remove the expired
grandfathering provisions in 46 CFR 13.603(e), 13.605(e), 13.607(e),
13.609(b), and 13.611(b). These provisions provided a method for
mariners who held valid national tankerman endorsements issued before
March 24, 2014 to qualify for original STCW tanker cargo operations
endorsements. Any national tankerman endorsements issued before March
24, 2014 would have expired as of March 23, 2019; therefore, the
grandfathering provisions have expired and mariners who wish to obtain
original STCW tanker cargo endorsements must meet the requirements of
the applicable section.
VI. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and
[[Page 29017]]
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 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. OMB has not reviewed this rule. Table 2 shows
the summary of the estimated impacts of this proposed rule. A
regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
Table 2--Summary of the Impacts of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population.......... Approximately 236 Coast Guard-approved
training providers out of a total
population of 326 providers.
Cost to Industry over 10 Between $242,490 and $1,327,767.
Years (2021 dollars, 7%
discount rate).
Cost to Government over 10 $371,894.
Years (2021 dollars, 7%
discount rate).
Unquantified Benefits........ The proposed rule would reduce the
probability of mariners obtaining an MMC
without meeting the regulatory training
requirements, which in turn would reduce
fraud and improve safety onboard
vessels. The rule serves the Coast Guard
mission of Maritime Prevention, which
requires the Coast Guard to prevent
marine casualties and property loss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population
The affected population for this proposed rule includes training
providers approved by the NMC who offer training to meet the regulatory
requirements for MMC endorsements. From 2010 to 2019, NMC reports that
the number of Coast Guard-approved training providers ranged from a low
of 299 training providers in 2010 to a high of 340 training providers
in 2016, with an average of 326 training providers. The number of
courses approved by the Coast Guard ranged from a low of 2,835 courses
in 2010 to a high of 3,252 courses in 2017, for an average of 3,115
courses that were approved by the Coast Guard in a given year. The
number of Coast Guard-approved courses offered by each training
provider varies greatly depending on demand for the course, instructor
availability, etc. Many providers may offer a single course, while some
providers offer as many as 107 courses. The average number of courses
per training provider is 6 courses, and there is a mode of 1 course
offered per training provider.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of how many Coast Guard-approved
courses each training provider has in a given year. The first bar shows
that 164 training providers have between 1 and 7 approved courses. The
NMC does not track how many times a training provider offers each of
their approved courses; it is possible that a training provider with
only one Coast Guard approved course offers that course multiple times
in a year. The analysis for this proposed rule focuses on the number of
student records submitted rather than the number of courses offered, in
order to best account for the unknown frequency in course offerings.
[[Page 29018]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.055
All course approvals are valid for 5 years per 46 CFR 10.407(e) and
are not contingent on the frequency a Coast Guard-approved training
provider may offer a course. The NMC receives mariner course completion
data in two ways: as part of a mariner's MMC application, or through a
training provider's electronic submission to the Coast Guard through
Homeport. Applicants submit course completion certificates as evidence
that they have met the regulatory training requirement for the MMC
endorsement(s) they are requesting. As part of the evaluation of an MMC
application, Coast Guard evaluators verify that a course completion
certificate from a Coast Guard-approved training provider is submitted
for each course required to obtain the requested endorsement, and NMC
adds the course completion data to the mariner's record within MMLD
manually.
In 2010, a secondary method to receive course completion data was
established. Coast Guard approved training providers could now
voluntarily submit course completion data electronically to the Coast
Guard through Homeport, the Coast Guard's enterprise internet portal
for the maritime community. Homeport's secure, role-based environment
brings together Coast Guard personnel, members of the maritime
community, and other designated individuals allowing them to share
information quickly. The course completion data provided through
Homeport is added to a database known as MTAD (Mariner Training and
Assessment Data) and is then uploaded to individual mariner records in
MMLD.
From 2010 to 2020, an average of 68,783 course completion records
were submitted to the Coast Guard annually, of which an average of
12,498 course completion records were submitted by training providers
electronically through Homeport. All other records were submitted by
mariners as part of their application for an MMC. If a final rule is
published, training providers will be submitting all the data
electronically through Homeport. This proposed rule would require
training providers to electronically submit course completion data
directly to NMC. To validate the course completion data provided with a
mariner's MMC application package, Coast Guard evaluators would match
information submitted electronically by the training provider to the
documentation provided by the mariner with their MMC application.
The Homeport Submissions column shows the number of student records
that training providers submitted electronically through Homeport over
a 10-year period, and can be considered the pilot program for the
rulemaking. The cost estimate of the proposed rule includes the annual
cost of submitting course completion data through Homeport over a 10-
year period.
Table 3--Number of Student Records Submitted Electronically Annually
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (homeport
Year Homeport submissions & MMC
submissions applications)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................... 1,555 47,320
2011............................... 3,011 55,250
2012............................... 7,018 61,853
2013............................... 12,348 70,770
2014............................... 14,151 79,391
2015............................... 17,640 81,202
2016............................... 21,903 86,891
2017............................... 19,090 70,723
2018............................... 20,499 76,014
2019............................... 12,596 70,710
[[Page 29019]]
2020............................... 7,664 56,486
------------------------------------
Average........................ 12,498 68,783
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to Industry
The cost of submitting course completion data through Homeport from
2010 to 2020 was $269,946, for an average of $24,541 per year. This has
an annualized cost of $22,787 at the 7% discount rate. This cost may be
considered the pilot program of the proposed rule and is not included
in the cost analysis, as those training providers who already submit
course completion data through Homeport have been included in the
industry cost below. The cost of the pilot program is detailed in Table
4.
Table 4--Cost of Submissions Through Homeport, 2010-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to
Year MTAD submit Wage of submitter Yearly cost 3% 7%
(hours) (hourly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................. 1,555 0.04 $49.09............. $3,053 $4,226 $6,426
2011............................. 3,011 0.04 49.09.............. 5,912 7,945 11,630
2012............................. 7,018 0.04 49.09.............. 13,781 17,981 25,336
2013............................. 12,348 0.04 49.09.............. 24,247 30,715 41,661
2014............................. 14,151 0.04 49.09.............. 27,787 34,175 44,620
2015............................. 17,640 0.04 49.09.............. 34,638 41,360 51,982
2016............................. 21,903 0.04 49.09.............. 43,009 49,859 60,322
2017............................. 19,090 0.04 49.09.............. 37,485 42,190 49,135
2018............................. 20,499 0.04 49.09.............. 40,252 43,984 49,310
2019............................. 12,596 0.04 49.09.............. 24,734 26,240 28,318
2020............................. 7,664 0.04 49.09.............. 15,049 15,500 16,102
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average...................... 12,498 ......... Total........... 269,946 314,176 384,843
--------------------------------------------------------
Annualized...... ............ 23,816 22,787
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding.
The main industry cost of the proposed rule for training providers
is the additional time they would spend submitting course completion
data to NMC: there are approximately 326 providers, who would submit an
annual average of 68,783 records. Additionally, training providers
would have to register for an account to use Homeport.
Cost to the government is detailed in the ``Cost to the Federal
Government'' section. The initial cost to training providers would be
the cost of time spent to register for a Homeport account so that they
can submit course completion data. According to an NMC Subject Matter
Expert (SME) familiar with Homeport, they estimate it would take a
training provider 20 minutes to establish a Homeport account. All 326
providers would need to establish an account and given the wages for
the personnel who would register the account, we find that the cost to
industry would be a one-time total of $5,334.
Table 5--The Cost to Training Providers To Establish a Homeport Account
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of training providers Time to complete Wages Total cost
A B.................................. C A*B*C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
326........................................ .33 hours (20 minutes)............. $49.09/hour $5,334
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate the time cost for submitting records electronically, we
surveyed training providers that currently use Homeport. Under the
limits of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), we
contacted eight providers and received four complete responses back,
three of which quantified the time required to submit data through
Homeport. If you have comments or questions concerning the sample,
data, or assumption, please submit them identified by docket number
USCG-2021-0097 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
It is assumed that if the Coast Guard implements a new IT system,
training providers would spend the same amount of time submitting
course completion data through the new IT system as they do submitting
through Homeport.
The key questions asked as part of the survey were:
<bullet> ``Excluding time already spent on issuance of conventional
paper course completion certificates, what is the minimum additional
amount of time you estimate it takes to enter data into Homeport for
each course?''
[[Page 29020]]
<bullet> ``What is the maximum additional amount of time you
estimate it takes to enter data into Homeport for each course?''
Using an average of the three survey responses, we estimate the
time to submit each student record to be approximately 0.0114 hours
(0.68 minutes) on the lower end and 0.0688 hours (4.13 minutes) on the
higher end. Assuming that each course has an average of 20 students,
the total hours of submission per course would be a range of .228 hours
and 1.376 hours. The loaded mean hourly wage rate of submitters is
approximately $49.09 for 2021, derived from an unloaded mean hourly
wage rate of $32.51 for Training and Development Specialists \5\ and a
load factor of 1.51.\6\ Applying the loaded hourly wage rate to the
burden range, we estimate a total cost range of approximately $0.56 to
$3.38 per student record. We estimate that training providers would
submit 68,783 student records electronically annually, equal to the 10-
year average number of student records manually entered to MMLD. Table
6 shows the calculation of the total cost to training providers of this
proposed rule when we multiply the hourly burden per student record by
the number of new records submitted electronically. We then multiply
this amount by the wage of submitters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The 2021 mean hourly wage rate of $32.51 is for Training and
Development Specialists. <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes131151.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes131151.htm</a>.
\6\ We calculated the load factor by dividing total compensation
by wages and salaries, (56.56/37.42) = a load factor of 1.51. Bureau
of Labor Statistics' National Compensation Survey, September 2021.
``Table 4. Civilian workers, by industry group: employer costs per
hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percentage of
total compensation--Educational Services,'' epage 112. <a href="https://www.bls.gov/web/ecec/ececqrtn.pdf">https://www.bls.gov/web/ecec/ececqrtn.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29021]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.056
We estimate the total discounted cost of the proposed rule on the
lower end, as shown in Table 7. The total 10-year discounted cost would
be approximately $237,156 at the 7% discount rate, and the annualized
costs to be approximately $33,766 at the 7% discount rate.
[[Page 29022]]
Table 7--Estimated Cost to Training Providers of the Proposed Rule: Low Estimate, 10 Years
[2021 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Total cost 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... $33,766 $32,782 $31,557
2............................................................... 33,766 31,827 29,492
3............................................................... 33,766 30,900 27,563
4............................................................... 33,766 30,000 25,760
5............................................................... 33,766 29,127 24,074
6............................................................... 33,766 28,278 22,499
7............................................................... 33,766 27,455 21,028
8............................................................... 33,766 26,655 19,652
9............................................................... 33,766 25,879 18,366
10.............................................................. 33,766 25,125 17,165
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 337,656 288,028 237,156
-----------------------------------------------
Annualized.................................................. .............. 33,766 33,766
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding.
We also estimated the total discounted cost of the proposed rule on
the higher end, as shown in Table 8. The total 10-year discounted cost
would be approximately $1,322,433 at the 7% discount rate. We estimate
the annualized costs to be about $188,285 at the 7% discount rate.
Table 8--Estimated Costs to Training Providers of the Proposed Rule: High Estimate, 10 Years
[2021 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Total cost 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... $188,285 $182,801 $175,967
2............................................................... 188,285 177,476 164,455
3............................................................... 188,285 172,307 153,696
4............................................................... 188,285 167,289 143,642
5............................................................... 188,285 162,416 134,244
6............................................................... 188,285 157,686 125,462
7............................................................... 188,285 153,093 117,254
8............................................................... 188,285 148,634 109,583
9............................................................... 188,285 144,305 102,414
10.............................................................. 188,285 140,102 95,714
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 1,882,848 1,606,107 1,322,433
-----------------------------------------------
Annualized.................................................. .............. 188,285 188,285
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding.
The total cost to training providers of the proposed rule over a
10-year period includes both the one-time cost of establishing a
Homeport account ($5,334) and the cost of electronically submitting
course data over 10 years, including a low estimate ($337,656) and a
high estimate ($1,882,848). The 7% discount cost of the rule over 10
years is between $237,156 and $1,322,433.
Therefore, the total cost of the rule to training providers is
between $342,990 and $1,888,182, with a mean of $1,115,586. The total
discounted cost over 10 years, is between $242,490 and $1,327,767, with
a mean of $785,129.
Cost to the Federal Government
The cost to government includes the cost of Coast Guard personnel
to verify training provider accounts on Homeport, and the wages of
personnel who would verify course completion data in MMLD for the
amount of time they would perform that work.
In order for a training provider to be able to electronically
submit course completion data through Homeport, they must first
establish a user account by registering on the site. User accounts must
be verified by Coast Guard personnel at the NMC before they can be
ready for use. According to a NMC SME familiar with Homeport, it would
take a GS-07 approximately 20 minutes to verify a Homeport user
account. NMC personnel would need to verify the Homeport user accounts
for all 326 training providers.
Wages for civilian federal employees are calculated by taking the
wages for a federal employee in their locality, with their grade, at a
step of 5 (which is considered an average). For a GS-07 employee in the
national capital region, this is $26.69 per hour as of January 2021. To
account for the total cost of the position, wages must be multiplied by
a load factor, which found by taking the total compensation for federal
employees and dividing by average wages for federal employees.\7\ The
calculation creates a load factor of 1.69, and when multiplied by the
hourly
[[Page 29023]]
wage, the total wages for a GS-07 employee becomes $45.11 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Congressional Budget Office, Comparing the Compensation of
Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015 (April 2017),
<a href="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637">www.cbo.gov/publication/52637</a>.
``Federal and Private-Sector Total Compensation, by Workers'
Educational Attainment'': Federal Government, All Levels of
Education. Page 16.
``Federal and Private-Sector Wages, by Workers' Educational
Attainment'': Federal Government, All Levels of Education. Page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total cost of verification would be a one-time cost of $4,902,
as detailed in Table 9.
Table 9--Cost to Government of Verifying Homeport User Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to verify a new homeport user
Number of training providers account GS-07 wages Total cost
A B.................................... C A*B*C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
326.......................................... 20 minutes (.33 hours)............... $45.11/hour $4,902
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The course completion data that the training provider submits
through Homeport is added to the MTAD database and is automatically
matched to the mariner's profile in the MMLD using the individual's
MRN. If a mariner does not have an MRN, such as when they are
completing courses in anticipation of applying for their first MMC, the
course data appears in MMLD as an unmatched entry because it does not
match to an existing MRN. This situation prompts manual review by
personnel at NMC.
The mariner provides their Social Security number as required on
Form CG-719B, and they are issued an MRN after they apply for their
first MMC. The MRN is used by the Coast Guard to identify them in all
future credentialing transactions, and all records are matched to the
MRN rather than the Social Security number. Students may voluntarily
submit their Social Security number to a training provider as a means
of identifying them with their records.
However, records may not match due to a misspelling or other error
in data entry. If neither a Social Security number nor an MRN are
provided, the certificate would remain unmatched to a mariner's record
in MMLD until it can be matched manually. The need for manual review to
match records in MMLD represents a cost to the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard estimates that manually matching records in MMLD
would require 3 hours per week at the GS-7 level and 0.5 hours per week
at the GS-13 level for the current 18 percent of course completion
records entered into the MMLD. This number would need to be projected
at an additional 82 percent when all Coast Guard-approved training
providers submit course completion data to the NMC. The projected total
cost to the Coast Guard would be an additional 17 hours per week at the
GS-7 level, and 2.5 hours per week at the GS-13 level. There would be a
total annual burden of 1,014 hours--884 hours for a GS-7 and 130 hours
for a GS-13.
Total wages for GS-07 employees are $45.11 per hour, and total
wages for GS-13 are $95.16 per hour.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ GS-07 Step 5: 26.69 x 1.69 = 45.11 per hour, GS-13 Step 5:
56.31 x 1.69 = 95.16 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find the cost of the proposed rule to the federal government
over a 10 year period, we must first multiply the wages of personnel by
the hours they would work verifying course completion data in a given
year. For GS-07 personnel, they would work for 884 hours at the rate of
$45.11 per hour, totaling to $39,877. For GS-13 personnel, they would
work for 130 hours at the rate of $95.16 per hour, totaling to $12,371.
Combining these figures, the proposed rule would cost the federal
government $52,248 over 10 years. If we divided this amount by the
total hours of verification, we find the weighted average wage of
$51.53. The details of this cost, and the discounted cost at 3% and 7%,
are provided in Table 10.
Table 10--Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule to the Federal Government: 2022 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total time Weighted
Year (hours) average wage Total annual 3% Discount 7% Discount
A B A*B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 1,014 $51.53 $52,251 $50,730 $48,833
2............................... 1,014 51.53 52,251 49,252 45,638
3............................... 1,014 51.53 52,251 47,817 42,653
4............................... 1,014 51.53 52,251 46,425 39,862
5............................... 1,014 51.53 52,251 45,073 37,255
6............................... 1,014 51.53 52,251 43,760 34,817
7............................... 1,014 51.53 52,251 42,485 32,540
8............................... 1,014 51.53 52,251 41,248 30,411
9............................... 1,014 51.53 52,251 40,046 28,421
10.............................. 1,014 51.53 52,251 38,880 26,562
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. 522,514 445,715 366,992
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized...................... .............. .............. .............. 52,251 52,251
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding.
Currently, when a mariner submits a course completion certificate
as part of an application, evaluators at NMC enter that data into the
mariner's profile in MMLD. Under the proposed rule, rather than
spending time entering course completion data, evaluators would verify
that the information submitted by the mariner matches the data
submitted
[[Page 29024]]
by the training provider. We do not anticipate there would be a
difference in time between entering course completion data and
verifying a course completion certificate. Therefore, we do not
estimate a cost for verification.
The Coast Guard would not realize cost savings from reduced fraud
investigations because it must still investigate accusations of fraud.
The additional records generated by this proposed rule would aid in
completing investigations accurately and in a timely manner, but would
not reduce the number of investigations the Coast Guard must conduct
annually.
The total cost to the government is the one-time cost of
verification at $4,902 and the 10-year operating cost of $522,514, for
a total cost of $527,416. The total cost at a 7% discount over 10 years
(including the one-time cost of account verification) would be
$371,570.
Net Total Cost of the Proposed Rule
Table 11 shows the net cost of the proposed rule using the lower
estimated cost, and Table 12 shows the net cost of the proposed rule
using the higher estimated cost.
Table 11--Net Costs of the Proposed Rule: Low Estimate, 2022 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to
training Total net cost
Year providers Cost to govt. (low) 3% Discount 7% Discount
(low)
A B A + B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... $33,766 $52,251 $86,017 $83,512 $80,390
2............................... 33,766 52,251 86,017 81,079 75,131
3............................... 33,766 52,251 86,017 78,718 70,215
4............................... 33,766 52,251 86,017 76,425 65,622
5............................... 33,766 52,251 86,017 74,199 61,329
6............................... 33,766 52,251 86,017 72,038 57,317
7............................... 33,766 52,251 86,017 69,940 53,567
8............................... 33,766 52,251 86,017 67,903 50,063
9............................... 33,766 52,251 86,017 65,925 46,788
10.............................. 33,766 52,251 86,017 64,005 43,727
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. 860,170 733,742 604,147
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized...................... .............. .............. .............. 86,017 86,017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding.
Table 12--Net Costs of the Proposed Rule: High Estimate, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to
training Total net cost
Year providers Cost to govt. (low) 3% Discount 7% Discount
(low)
A B A + B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... $188,285 $52,251 $240,536 $233,530 $224,800
2............................... 188,285 52,251 240,536 226,728 210,093
3............................... 188,285 52,251 240,536 220,124 196,349
4............................... 188,285 52,251 240,536 213,713 183,504
5............................... 188,285 52,251 240,536 207,488 171,499
6............................... 188,285 52,251 240,536 201,445 160,279
7............................... 188,285 52,251 240,536 195,578 149,794
8............................... 188,285 52,251 240,536 189,881 139,994
9............................... 188,285 52,251 240,536 184,351 130,836
10.............................. 188,285 52,251 240,536 178,981 122,276
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. 2,405,358 2,051,819 1,689,423
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized...................... .............. .............. .............. 240,536 240,536
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding.
The annualized cost of the rule, discounted at 7% over a 10-year
period of time, would be between a low estimate of $604,147 and a high
estimate of $1,689,423. Adding in the one-time cost for creating a
Homeport account for training course providers ($5,334) and the one-
time cost for verifying a Homeport account by the government ($4,902)
for both the high and low estimates, we find that the total net cost of
the rule is between a low estimate of $614,383 and a high estimate of
$1,699,659.
Benefits
The Coast Guard has identified that approximately .12% of student
course completion data submissions had been fraudulent from 2016 to
June 2021. The primary benefit of this proposed rule is prevention of
fraud and a reduction of the potential for a mariner to be issued an
MMC endorsement they are not qualified to hold. Ensuring mariners have
met the requirements for their MMC endorsements would decrease
shipboard operational risk . This would improve safety onboard vessels.
The proposed rule also serves the Coast
[[Page 29025]]
Guard mission of Maritime Prevention, which requires the Coast Guard to
prevent marine casualties and property loss.
Currently, a mariner course completion data can be verified by
having Coast Guard personnel call the training provider to confirm the
mariner's reported course completion information matches the records of
the provider, and then evaluate any discrepancies. This has been done
sporadically when evaluating mariners MMC applications, and instances
in which verification was not completed have allowed for a degree of
fraud for mariners submitting false or inaccurate documentation
supporting their MMC application. Under the proposed rule, both the
mariner and the training provider would submit their course completion
data to the Coast Guard. The mariner would submit course completion
data with their application for an MMC and the training provider would
submit course completion data through Homeport. NMC evaluators would
verify that data submitted by the mariner matches data submitted by the
training providers. If any discrepancies are found, an investigation
may then be initiated, to determine the nature of the discrepancy, if
any fraudulent data was submitted and whether or not the mariner should
be issued the credential.
Alternatives Considered
1. No action. We rejected this alternative because potentially
issuing credentials to unqualified mariners not only puts the Coast
Guard at risk, but also poses a risk to the marine transportation
system, other mariners, and the marine environment through increased
likelihood of marine casualties and related damages associated with
unqualified personnel.
2. Coast Guard-provided serial numbers for training certificates.
Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would provide training
providers with a list of serial numbers to use on the course completion
certificates they issue to students. We rejected this alternative
because to implement this alternative, the Coast Guard would need to
develop an electronic system to track certificate serial numbers. Prior
attempts at adding new capabilities to the MMLD have been unsuccessful.
Implementing this alternative would require additional human resources
to develop and manage a secondary system to track certificate numbers
and increase application evaluation times due to the need to access
multiple databases to verify data. None of these requirements are
feasible in the immediate near-term.
This alternative also does not align with current Coast Guard
initiatives to replace MMLD and transition to an electronic system for
the application and issuance of MMCs. Due to the safety concerns
associated with the results of investigations of mariner fraud, the
Coast Guard is pursuing this proposed rule to mitigate opportunities
for the NMC to accept fraudulent certificates as part of an MMC
application.
3. Training providers submit course completion data to the NMC
(preferred alternative). This is the selected alternative because it
achieves the Coast Guard's desired benefit of providing the ability for
the NMC evaluators to verify the course completion data submitted by an
MMC applicant while also taking advantage of existing programs to have
training providers submit records electronically. This NPRM limits the
cost of the proposed rule because it would not require adding new
functionality to the MMLD. We analyzed the costs and benefits of this
alternative in the regulatory analysis of 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.
The impact of this proposed rule on each training provider would
vary by how many Coast Guard-approved courses a training provider
offers in any given year, and how many student records a training
provider submits to the Coast Guard. Larger training providers that
offer many courses, and thus manage more student records, would have a
larger burden from the proposed rule, but they also have larger
revenues. Conversely, smaller training providers that manage fewer
student records would have a smaller burden under this proposed rule,
but may have less revenue to mitigate the burden. To assess the
potential burden on small entities, we took a random sample of the
total population of Coast Guard-approved training providers and
multiplied the cost per course by the number of courses each training
provider offered in a year.
Of the 236 training providers that this proposed rule would affect,
we took a random sample of 173 companies to achieve a 95 percent
confidence interval. We found 147 of the companies in the random sample
that had known revenues or employee information; 100 had both measures
while 47 had only known employee information. The sample represented 59
different North American Industry Classification System codes,
including schools, professional training centers, and specific trades
reflecting the range of courses required to obtain mariner credentials
and associated endorsements.
Out of a sample of 173 companies (training providers), we found 166
small entities overall that could potentially be affected by this
proposed rule.\9\ Among the sample of 173 companies, we found 74 are
small entities based on a revenue size standard, and 11 are small
entities based on an employee size standard. There was insufficient
information to determine the size of 81 companies, so the Coast Guard
assumed that they are small entities. Overall, we found 166 small
entities that could potentially be affected by this proposed rule.
Table 13 presents the number of small entities based on employee size
standard, revenue size standard, or other information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The definitions for small entities was based on the July
2022 SBA Small Business Size Standards, <a href="https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20July%2014%202022_Final-508.pdf">https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20July%2014%202022_Final-508.pdf</a>, accessed Dec. 3rd, 2022.
Table 13--Number of Small Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small entities by revenue standard......................... 74
Small entities by employee standard........................ 11
Entities assumed to be small with insufficient information. 81
------------
[[Page 29026]]
Total small entities................................... 166
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of entities in sample............................... 173
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual impact of this proposed rule on each entity would be
proportional to the number of courses offered. Here, we use the number
of courses rather than the number of students because the number of
Coast Guard-approved courses was known, but the number of students per
training provider was not. To estimate the impact, we multiply the
number of Coast Guard-approved courses offered by the estimated time
burden per course in hours (see Table 6), and then multiply by the
loaded hourly wage rate of the submitters. For example, if a training
provider offered 2 Coast Guard-approved courses, their burden would be
approximately $22.39 on the lower end (2 courses x 0.228 hours x
$49.09) and approximately $135.00 on the higher end (2 courses x 1.375
hours x $49.09). For the lower cost to represent more than 1% of
revenues, an entity would need to have annual revenues less than or
equal to $2,244, or $13,530 on the higher end.
The mode of courses offered by small entities is 1: most small
entities only offer 1 course. The mean of courses offered by small
entities is 9.22.
Table 14--Number of Courses and Cost of Rule by Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percentage of Cost of rule, Cost of rule,
Number of courses small entities small entities low estimate high estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................ 49 29 $11.19 $67.50
2............................................ 17 10 22.39 135.00
3............................................ 13 8 33.58 202.50
4............................................ 16 10 44.77 270.00
5............................................ 11 7 55.96 337.49
6............................................ 3 2 67.16 404.99
7............................................ 6 4 78.35 472.49
8............................................ 4 2 89.54 539.99
9............................................ 9 5 100.73 607.49
10........................................... 6 4 111.93 674.99
11........................................... 2 1 123.12 742.49
12........................................... 5 3 134.31 809.99
13........................................... 1 1 145.50 877.48
14........................................... 2 1 156.70 944.98
16........................................... 1 1 179.08 1,079.98
18........................................... 2 1 201.47 1,214.98
19........................................... 1 1 212.66 1,282.48
20........................................... 3 2 223.85 1,349.98
>20 *........................................ 16 10 358.16 2,159.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
* Estimates for the ``over 20 courses'' category uses a mean of 32 courses as a representative sample.
Of the small entities for whom we found revenue data, over the 10-
year period of analysis, one small entity would experience an impact of
greater than 1 percent of its total annual revenues on the lower end,
and 6 small entities would experience an impact of greater than 1
percent of its total annual revenues on the higher end. Table 15 shows
the number of small entities with a greater than 1 percent impact on
their annual revenues as the percentage of the total population of
small entities that we found through our analysis. While this impact is
0.60 percent at the low end and 3.01 percent at the high end of the
population of small entities, this is not a substantial number of small
entities out of the entire population of 303 training providers that
offer at least one course.
Table 15--Estimated Initial and Annual Impact of the Proposed Rule on
Small Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Higher
Category estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of small entities where impact is 1 6
greater than 1% of revenues..................
Percentage of small entities where impact is 0.60% 3.01%
greater than 1% of revenues..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 16 shows the number of small entities that would be affected
by the proposed rule as a percentage of the small entities' total
annual revenues.
[[Page 29027]]
Table 16--Estimated Initial and Annual Percentage Revenue Impact of the
Proposed Rule on Small Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Higher
Category estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact <1% of revenues........................ 91 87
Impact 1 to 2% of revenues.................... 0 2
Impact 2 to 3% of revenues.................... 1 1
Impact 3 to 4% of revenues.................... 0 1
Impact greater than 4% of revenues............ 0 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence, we found that 99 percent of the small entities would fall
into the 0 to 1 percent category using the lower estimate, and 96
percent of them would fall into the 0 to 1 percent category using the
higher estimate. 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 call or email 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
This proposed rule would call for a 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 hour 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 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires the Coast Guard to
consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection
burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the
Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not collect or sponsor the
collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection
requirement, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This action contains proposed amendments to the existing
information collection requirements previously approved under OMB
Control Number 1625-0028. This ICR governs all of the information
collected for training provider approvals, including information
required to evaluate and approve the initial course, review of these
materials by the NMC, and ongoing recordkeeping requirements for each
student taking a course. The proposed rule increases the hour burden of
recordkeeping for each Coast Guard-approved course but does not
increase the number of responses (number of Coast Guard-approved
courses).
The hour burden of the ICR represents the total annual burden per
Coast Guard-approved course, assuming that each Coast Guard-approved
course is offered 12 times with 20 students in each class. The current
hour burden is 40 hours for each Coast Guard-approved course, or 0.1667
hours for each student record. Since the regulatory analysis for the
proposed rule used a range for the estimated burden, we use the higher
end of the range to provide a conservative estimate of the increase in
recordkeeping burden. This proposed rule would increase the hour burden
per student record by 0.0688 from 0.1667 to 0.2355 hours. This creates
a total increase of about 16.32 hours in the hour burden per response,
from 40 hours per course (0.1667 x 20 students x 12 courses) to about
56.33 hours for each course (0.2347 x 20 students x 12 courses).
The title and description of the information collection, a
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden follow. The estimates cover the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection. The current OMB-approved number of responses is 2,757.
Title: Course Approval and Records for Merchant Mariner Training
Schools.
OMB Control Number: 1625-0028.
Summary of the Collection of Information: This ICR governs all of
the information collected for training provider approvals (including
information required to evaluate and approve the course and any
information regarding the STCW QSS manual) review of these materials by
the NMC, and ongoing recordkeeping requirements for each student taking
a course.
Need for Information: Title 46 of the CFR, 10.402 specifies the
information that must be submitted for the Coast Guard to evaluate and
approve each course. Title 46 of the CFR, section 10.403 specifies
recordkeeping requirements that a Coast Guard-approved training
provider offering courses must meet for each student taking each
course. The Coast Guard is obligated under the STCW Convention to
validate the training completed by mariners and to ensure that the
approved training is monitored under a QSS.
Proposed Use of Information: NMC personnel review submitted
information to ensure training courses and programs
[[Page 29028]]
meet minimum standards for Coast Guard approval. Members of the public,
including U.S. merchant mariners, attend Coast Guard-approved courses
to meet regulatory requirements or to enhance their ability to perform
their jobs. The agency uses the information to enforce regulations, and
to compare existing courses with new international standards for
specific training. The recordkeeping requirements help the Coast Guard
monitor the performance of schools with Coast Guard-approved courses.
Description of the Respondents: Training providers approved to
provide maritime courses or programs.
Number of Respondents: The OMB-approved number of respondents for
this collection of information remains 329, who offer 3,183 courses
annually. However, this proposed rule would affect 236 training
providers who offer 2,255 courses annually with an estimated 55,789
student records submitted.
Frequency of Response: When a training provider requires course
approval from the Coast Guard and after concluding an approved course.
Training providers submit student records yearly based on the courses
offered and the number of students completing those courses.
Burden of Response: The total burden per response is 56.33 hours
per course, which would increase from the previously approved number of
40 hours per course.
Estimate of Annual Hour Burden: The proposed rule would increase
the estimated annual burden by 36,824 hours (16.33 hours/course times
2,255 affected courses).
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--
<bullet> How useful the information is;
<bullet> Whether the information can help us perform our functions
better;
<bullet> How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of
the information;
<bullet> Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
<bullet> How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
<bullet> How valid our methods are for determining the burden of
collection; and
<bullet> 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 7301
(personnel qualifications of officers and ratings serving on board
merchant vessels) 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), which found that the states are foreclosed from regulating
tanker vessels). See also Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151,
157, 98 S.Ct., 988 (1978), which found that state regulation is
preempted where ``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 merchant mariner officers and ratings
under 46 U.S.C. 7101 and 7301 respectively, it relates to personnel
qualifications for vessels subject to a pervasive scheme of Federal
regulation and is therefore foreclosed from regulation by the States.
Because the States may not regulate within these categories, this
proposed rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles
and preemption requirements 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 CONTACT 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
[[Page 29029]]
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 is
not likely to have a significant 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 DHS 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 et seq.), 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 supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This proposed
rule would be categorically excluded under paragraphs L54 and L56 of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations that are editorial or procedural.
Paragraph L56 pertains to regulations concerning training, qualifying,
licensing, and disciplining maritime personnel.
This proposed rule involves establishing a new procedure for
issuing MMCs to mariners who have met the regulatory requirements for
the individual endorsements as described in 46 CFR parts 11 and 12.
Under this new procedure, Coast Guard-approved training providers would
be required to electronically submit student course completion data to
the Coast Guard within 5 business days of a course ending. The NMC
would use this information to validate mariner course completion
certificates submitted as part of an application for an MMC. 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 12
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools,
Seamen.
46 CFR Part 13
Cargo vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
46 CFR Part 15
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 16
Drug testing, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation.
46 CFR Part 30
Cargo Vessels, Foreign relations, Hazardous materials
transportation, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Seamen.
46 CFR Part 35
Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Occupational
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
46 CFR Part 39
Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Hazardous materials transportation,
Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 46 CFR parts 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 30, 35, and 39
as follows:
Title 46--Shipping
PART 10--MERCHANT MARINER CREDENTIAL
0
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,
2104, 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. chapter 73; 46 U.S.C.
chapter 75; 46 U.S.C. 7701, 8903, 8904, and 70105; Executive Order
10173; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
PART 10--[Amended]
0
2. Amend part 10 by, removing the following references wherever they
appear and adding, in their place:
0
a. ``crewman'' to read ``crewmember'';
0
b. ``Fireman'' to read ``Boiler technician'';
0
c. ``fireman'' to read ``boiler technician'';
0
d. ``Hospital corpsman'' to read ``Medical technician'';
0
e. ``hospital corpsman'' to read ``medical technician'';
0
f. ``Lifeboatman'' to read ``Lifeboat operator'';
0
g. ``lifeboatman'' to read ``lifeboat operator'';
0
h. ``Pumpman'' to read ``Pump technician'';
0
i. ``seaman'' to read ``seafarer''; and
0
j. ``seamen'' to read ``seafarers''.
0
3. Amend Sec. 10.107 paragraph (b) by:
0
a. Removing in the definition for ``Apprentice mate (steersman) of
towing vessels'', the word ``(steersman)'';
0
b. Removing in the definition for ``Directly supervised/direct
supervision (only when referring to issues related to tankermen)'', the
word ``tankermen'' and adding, in its place, the words ``tank vessel
endorsements'';
0
c. Removing in the definition for ``Participation'', the word
``tankerman'' and adding, in its place, the words ``tank vessel
endorsements'';
0
d. Removing in the definition for ``Qualified rating'' the words
``tankerman'' and adding, in its place, the words ``tank vessel'';
0
e. Removing the term ``Restricted tankerman endorsement'';
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order the term ``Restricted tank vessel
endorsement'';
[[Page 29030]]
0
g. Removing in the definition for ``Simulated transfer'', the word
``tankerman'' and adding, in its place, the words ``tank vessel
endorsements'';
0
h. Adding in alphabetical order the terms for ``Tank Barge PIC'',
``Tank vessel assistant'', ``Tank vessel engineer'', ``Tank vessel
PIC''; and
0
i. Removing the term ``Tankerman assistant'', ``Tankerman engineer'',
``Tankerman PIC'' and ``Tankerman PIC (Barge)''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 10.107 Definitions in subchapter B.
* * * * *
Restricted tank vessel endorsement means a valid tank vessel
endorsement on a merchant mariner credential restricting its holder as
the Coast Guard deems appropriate. For instance, the endorsement may
restrict the holder to one or a combination of the following: A
specific cargo or cargoes; a specific vessel or vessels; a specific
facility or facilities; a specific employer or employers; a specific
activity or activities (such as loading or unloading in a cargo
transfer); or a particular area of water.;
* * * * *
Tank Barge PIC means a person holding a valid ``Tank Barge PIC''
endorsement on his or her MMC. See 46 CFR part 13, subpart C.
* * * * *
Tank vessel assistant means a person holding a valid ``Tank vessel-
Assistant'' endorsement on his or her MMC. See 46 CFR, part 13, subpart
D.;
* * * * *
Tank vessel engineer means a person holding a valid ``Tank vessel-
Engineer'' endorsement on his or her MMC. See 46 CFR part 13, subpart
E.
* * * * *
Tank vessel PIC means a person holding a valid ``Tank vessel-PIC''
endorsement on his or her MMC. See 46 CFR part 13, subpart B.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec. 10.109 paragraphs (a)(9) and (10) and (c)(1) through
(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 10.109 Classification of endorsements.
(a) * * *
(9) Apprentice mate towing
(10) Apprentice mate towing
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Tank vessel--PIC.
(2) Tank Barge--PIC.
(3) Restricted Tank vessel--PIC.
(4) Restricted Tank Barge--PIC.
(5) Tank vessel assistant.
(6) Tank vessel engineer.
* * * * *
Sec. 10.223 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 10.223 paragraph (c)(3)(iii) by removing the words
``tankerman rating'' and adding, in their place, the words ``tank
vessel''.
Sec. 10.225 [Amended]
0
6. Amend Sec. 10.225 paragraph (b)(3)(iii) by removing the words
``tankerrating'' and adding, in their place, the words ``tank vessel''.
Sec. 10.227 [Amended]
0
7. Amend Sec. 10.227 paragraphs (e)(7) and (i)(4) by removing the word
``tankerman'' and adding, in its place, the words ``tank vessel''.
Sec. 10.231 [Amended]
0
8. Amend Sec. 10.231 by:
0
a. Removing in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) by the words ``tankerman rating''
and adding, in their place, the words ``tank vessel''.
0
b. Adding in paragraph (c)(6)(ii) the word ``national'' before the word
``able'' and removing the word ``tankerman'' and adding in its place
the words ``a tank vessel endorsement''.
Sec. 10.239 [Amended]
0
9. Amend Sec. 10.239 the heading for Table 1 by removing the word
``tankerman'' and adding, in its place, the words ``tank vessel''.
0
10. Amend Table 1 to Sec. 10.302(a) by revising entry ``(12)
Tankerman'' to read as follows:
Sec. 10.302 Medical and physical requirements.
* * * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 10.302(a)--Medical and Physical Requirements for Mariner Endorsements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
Credential Vision test Hearing test General Demonstration
medical exam of physical
ability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(12) Tank vessel endorsement.............. Sec. Sec. 10.306 Sec. 10.304(a) Sec. 10.304(c)
10.305(b)
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 10.305 [Amended]
0
11. Amend Sec. 10.305 paragraph (b) by removing the word ``tankerman''
and adding, in its place, the words ``tank vessel endorsement''.
0
12. Amend Sec. 10.403 by:
0
a. Removing in paragraph (a)(6) the words, ``Effective March 24, 2014,
keep'' and adding, in its place, the word ``Keep''; and
0
b. Removing in paragraph (a)(6)(iii), the word ``attendance.'' and
adding, in its place, the words ``attendance, which includes their full
name, Coast Guard issued Mariner Reference Number or date of birth and
place of birth if they do not have a Mariner Reference Number.''.
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(7), (8), and (9) as paragraphs (a)(8),
(9), and (10), respectively; and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (a)(7).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 10.403 General Standards.
(a) * * *
(7) For each student who successfully completes an approved course
or program, in a manner specified by the Coast Guard, the school must
electronically submit to the Coast Guard, within 5 business days of
completion, the specified information. By submitting records
electronically to the Coast Guard, the submitter attests that they are
accurate to the best of their knowledge and no false entries or
statements were made under penalty of 18 U.S.C. 1001.
(i) The name of the school and Coast Guard-issued course provider
code.
(ii) The title of the approved course or program, the Coast Guard-
issued course code, and the dates the course was held.
(iii) The name of the Coast Guard approved instructor who conducted
the course.
[[Page 29031]]
(iv) The name of the student as it appears on their MMC or valid
Government-issued identification, along with their Coast Guard-issued
Mariner Reference Number or date of birth and place of birth if they do
not have a Mariner Reference Number.
* * * * *
PART 11--REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICER ENDORSEMENTS
0
13. 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, 8903,
8904, and 70105; Executive Order 10173; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1,
Revision No. 01.3. Section 11.107 is also issued under the authority
of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
PART 11--[Amended]
0
14. Amend part 11 by, removing the following references wherever they
appear, and adding in their place:
0
a. ``fireman'' to read ``boiler technician'';
0
b. ``Hospital corpsman'' to read ``Medical technician'';
0
c. ``seaman'' to read ``seafarer'';
0
d. ``Seaman's'' to read ``Seafarer's''; and
0
e. ``seaman's'' to read ``seafarer's''.
Sec. 11.201 [Amended]
0
15. Amend Sec. 11.201 by:
0
a. Removing in paragraphs (e)(2)(vii) the word ``(steersman)'';
0
b. Removing in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) the words ``(steersman) of the
vessels'' and adding, in its place, the word ``towing''; and
0
c. Removing in paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) the word ``(steersman)''.
Sec. 11.463 [Amended]
0
16. Amend Sec. 11.463 by:
0
a. Removing in the section heading the word ``(steersman); and
0
b. Removing in paragraphs (a)(4), (5), (e)(1)(ii), (e)(2)(ii), and
(e)(3)(ii) the word ``(steersman)'' and replacing it with the word
``towing''.
0
17. In Sec. 11.464 amend the Table 1 in paragraph (c) by revising the
entry ``Route endorsed'' to read as follows:
Sec. 11.464 Requirements for national endorsements as master of
towing vessels.
(c) * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 11.464(c)--Requirements for National Endorsement as Master of Towing Vessels
[Limited]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOS \2\ on T/V as
Route endorsed Total service \1\ limited apprentice TOAR or an TOS on particular
mate towing approved course route
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Service is in months.
\2\ TOS is time of service.
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec. 11.465 by:
0
a. Removing in paragraph (a) the word ``(steersman)'';
0
b. Revising in Table 1 to paragraph (a) the entry for ``Route
endorsed''; and
0
c. Revising paragraph (g).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 11.465 Requirements for national endorsements as mate (pilot) of
towing vessels.
(a) * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 11.465(a)--Requirements for National Endorsement as Mate (Pilot \1\) of Towing Vessels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 days of
observation and
TOS \3\ on T/V as TOS on particular TOAR \5\ or an training while Subordinate route
Route endorsed Total service \2\ apprentice mate route approved course holding master authorized
towing \4\ (limited) and pass
an examination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For all inland routes, as well as Western Rivers, the endorsement as pilot of towing vessels is equivalent to that as mate of towing vessels. All
qualifications and equivalencies are the same.
\2\ Service is in months unless otherwise indicated.
\3\ TOS is time of service.
\4\ Time of service requirements as an apprentice mate of towing vessels may be reduced by an amount equal to the time specified in the approval letter
for a completed Coast Guard-approved training program.
\5\ TOAR is a Towing Officer Assessment Record.
* * * * *
(g) An approved training course for mate (pilot) of towing vessels
must include formal instruction and practical demonstration of
proficiency either onboard a towing vessel or at a shoreside training
facility before a designated examiner, and must cover the material
(dependent upon route) required by Table 2 to Sec. 11.910 of this part
for apprentice mate, towing vessels on ocean and near-coastal routes;
apprentice mate, towing vessels on Great Lakes and inland routes; or
apprentice mate, towing vessels on Western Rivers routes.
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Sec. 11.466 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Removing in paragraph (a) the word ``(steersman)'';
0
c. Revising the heading to Table 1 to paragraph (a) and the entries for
``(1) APPRENTICE MATE (STEERSMAN)'' and ``(2) APPRENTICE MATE
(STEERSMAN) (LIMITED)''; and
0
d. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 11.466 Requirements for national endorsements as apprentice mate
of towing vessels.
(a) * * *
[[Page 29032]]
Table 1 to Sec. 11.466(a)--Requirements for National Endorsement as Apprentice Mate of Towing Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOS on
Endorsement Route endorsed Total service TOS \2\ on T/V particular Pass examination
\1\ route \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) APPRENTICE MATE (TOWING) OCEANS (O)..... 18 12 3 YES.
NEAR-COASTAL 18 12 3 YES.
(NC).
GREAT LAKES.... 18 12 3 YES.
INLAND (GL-I).. 18 12 3 YES.
WESTERN RIVERS .............. 12 3 YES.
(WR).
(2) APPRENTICE MATE TOWING NOT APPLICABLE. 18 12 3 YES.
(LIMITED).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Service is in months.
\2\ TOS is time of service.
\3\ The examination for apprentice mate is specified in subpart I of this part.
* * * * *
(b) Those holding a license or endorsement as apprentice mate of
towing vessels may obtain a restricted endorsement as apprentice mate
towing (limited). * * *
Sec. 11.903 [Amended]
0
20. Amend Sec. 11.903 paragraphs (a)(19) and (20) by removing the word
``(steersman)''.
0
21. In Table 1 to Sec. 11.910 revise entries 8 and 9 to read as
follows:
Sec. 11.910 Subjects for deck officer endorsements.
* * * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 11.910--Codes for Deck Officer Endorsements
Deck Officer Endorsements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
8. Apprentice mate, towing vessels, Great Lakes, and inland routes.
9. Apprentice mate, towing vessels, Western Rivers.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 12--REQUIREMENTS FOR RATING ENDORSEMENTS
0
22. The authority citation for part 12 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110, Chapter
73, 7503, 7505, 7701, and 70105; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1,
Revision No. 01.3.
PART 12 [Amended]
0
23. Amend part 12 by, removing the following references wherever they
appear, and adding in their place:
0
a. ``Crewman'' to read ``Crewmember'';
0
b. ``crewman'' to read ``crewmember'';
0
c. ``Fireman'' to read ``Boiler technician'';
0
d. ``fireman'' to read ``boiler technician'';
0
e. ``lifeboatman'' to read ``lifeboat operator'';
0
f. ``Pumpman'' to read ``Pump technician'';
0
g. ``pumpman'' to read ``pump technician'';
0
h. ``seaman'' to read ``seafarer'';
0
i. ``seaman's'' to read ``seafarer's'';
0
j. ``seamen'' to read ``seafarers''; and
0
k. ``tankerman'' to read ``tank vessel endorsement'';
Sec. 12.401 [Amended]
0
24. Amend Sec. 12.401 by:
0
a. Removing in paragraph (a), the words ``or merchant mariner document
(MMD)''; and
0
b. Removing in paragraph (d)(2), the words ``After March 24, 2014,
any'' and adding, in their place, the word ``Any''.
PART 13--CERTIFICATION OF TANKERMEN
0
25. The authority citation for part 13 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3703, 7317, 8105, 8703, 9102; DHS
Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
PART 13--[Amended]
0
26. Revise the heading to part 13 to read as follows:
PART 13--CERTIFICATION OF TANK VESSEL PERSONNEL
0
27. Amend part 13 by, removing the following references wherever they
appear, and adding in their place:
0
a. ``Tankerman'' to read ``Tank Vessel'';
0
b. ``tankerman'' to read ``tank vessel'';
0
c. ``Tankerman-PIC (Barge)'' to read ``Tank Barge-PIC''; and
0
d. ``tankerman-PIC (barge)'' to read ``tank barge-PIC''.
Sec. 13.107 [Amended]
0
28. Amend Sec. 13.107 by removing the word ``endorsement'' from the
section heading and adding, in its place, the word ``endorsements''.
Sec. 13.111 [Amended]
0
29. Amend Sec. 13.111 by removing the word ``endorsement'' from the
section heading and adding, in its place, the word ``endorsements''.
0
30. Revise Sec. 13.117 to read as follows:
Sec. 13.117 Re-issuance of expired tank vessel endorsements.
Whenever an applicant applies for re-issuance of any tank vessel
endorsement more than 12 months after expiration of the previous
endorsement, the applicant must meet the requirements for an original
endorsement.
0
31. Revise Sec. 13.119 to read as follows:
Sec. 13.119 Expiration of endorsement.
A tank vessel endorsement is valid for the duration of the merchant
mariner credential on which the endorsement appears.
[[Page 29033]]
Sec. 13.123 [Amended]
0
32. Amend Sec. 13.123 by removing the word ``endorsement'' from the
section heading and adding, in its place, the word ``endorsements''.
Sec. 13.201 [Amended]
0
33. Amend Sec. 13.201 paragraph (c)(3) by removing the words ``a
license''.
Sec. 13.203 [Amended]
0
34. Amend Sec. 13.203 paragraph (c) introductory text by removing the
words ``MMD or''.
Sec. 13.303 [Amended]
0
35. Amend Sec. 13.303 paragraph (c) introductory word by removing the
words ``MMD or''.
Sec. 13.305 [Amended]
0
36. Amend Sec. 13.305 by removing the word ``shore-based tankermen''
and adding, in its place, the word ``shore-based PICs''.
Sec. 13.401 [Amended]
0
37. Amend Sec. 13.401 paragraph (d) by removing the word ``license''.
Sec. 13.403 [Amended]
0
38. Amend Sec. 13.403 paragraph (a) introductory text by removing the
words ``MMD or''.
Sec. 13.501 [Amended]
0
39. Amend Sec. 13.501 paragraph (c)(3) by removing the word
``license''.
Sec. 13.503 [Amended]
0
40. Amend Sec. 13.503 paragraph (b) by removing the words ``MMD or''.
Sec. 13.603 [Amended]
0
41. Amend Sec. 13.603 by removing paragraph (e).
Sec. 13.605 [Amended]
0
42. Amend Sec. 13.605 by removing paragraph (e).
Sec. 13.607 [Amended]
0
43. Amend Sec. 13.607 by removing paragraph (e).
Sec. 13.609 [Amended]
0
44. Amend Sec. 13.609 by removing paragraph (b).
Sec. 13.611 [Amended]
0
45. Amend Sec. 13.611 by removing paragraph (b).
PART 15--MANNING REQUIREMENTS
0
46. 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 DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
PART 15--[Amended]
0
47. Amend part 15 by, removing the following references wherever they
appear, and adding in their place:
0
a. ``Lifeboatman'' to read ``Lifeboat operator'';
0
b. ``lifeboatman'' to read ``lifeboat operator'';
0
c. ``lifeboatman's'' to read ``lifeboat operator's'';
0
d. ``Lifeboatmen'' to read ``Lifeboat operators'';
0
e. ``lifeboatmen'' to read ``lifeboat operators'';
0
f. ``pumpman'' to read ``pump technician'';
0
g. ``seaman'' to read ``seafarer'';
0
h. ``Seamen'' to read ``Seafarers''; and
0
i. ``seamen'' to read ``seafarers''.
Sec. 15.403 [Amended]
0
48. In Sec. 15.403 paragraph (a), remove the words ``or MMD''.
Sec. 15.404 [Amended]
0
49. In Sec. 15.404 paragraph (h), remove the words ``MMD or''.
Sec. 15.840 [Amended]
0
50. In Sec. 15.840 paragraph (c), removing the word ``ratings'' and
adding, in its place, the word ``rating''.
0
51. Revise Sec. 15.860 to read as follows:
Sec. 15.860 Tank Vessel endorsements.
(a) The OCMI enters on the COI issued to each manned tank vessel
subject to the regulations in this chapter the number of crewmembers
required to hold valid MMCs with the proper tanker vessel endorsement.
Table 1 to Sec. 15.860(a) of this section provides the minimum
required for tank vessel endorsements aboard manned tank vessels. Table
2 to Sec. 15.860(a) of this section provides the tank vessel
endorsements required for personnel aboard tankships.
Table 1 to Sec. 15.860(a)--Minimum Requirements for Tank Vessel Personnel Aboard Manned Tank Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tank vessel-
Tank vessels Tank vessel- Tank vessel Tank vessel PIC or tank
PIC assistant engineer barge-PIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tankship Certified for Voyages Beyond Boundary
Line:
Over 5,000 GRT.............................. 2 3 2 ..............
5,000 GRT or less........................... 2 .............. \1\ 2 ..............
Tankship Not Certified for Voyages Beyond \2\ 2 .............. .............. ..............
Boundary Line..............................
Tank Barge.................................. .............. .............. .............. \2\ 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If only one engineer is required, then only one tank vessel-engineer is required.
\2\ If the total crew complement is one or two persons, then only one tank vessel-PIC is required.
\3\ If the total crew complement is one or two persons, then only one tank vessel-PIC or tank vessel-PIC (barge)
is required.
Table 2 to Sec. 15.860(a)--Tank Vessel Endorsements Required for Personnel Aboard Tankships
[Endorsement for the classification of the bulk liquid cargo or residues carried]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tank vessel Tank vessel
Tankship certified for voyages beyond boundary line Tank vessel-PIC engineer assistant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master............................................... X
Chief Mate........................................... X
Chief Engineer....................................... X or X
First Assistant Engineer............................. X or X
Cargo Engineer....................................... X or X
Credentialed Officer Acting as PIC of Transfer of X
Liquid Cargo in Bulk................................
Credentialed Officer or Crewmember Not Directly X
Supervised by PIC...................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29034]]
(b) For each tankship of more than 5,000 GRT certified for voyages
beyond the boundary line as described in part 7 of this chapter--
(1) At least two tank vessel-PICs or restricted tank vessel-PICs
must be carried;
(2) At least three tank vessel-assistants must be carried; and
(3) At least two tank vessel-engineers must be carried.
(c) For each tankship of 5,000 GRT or less certified for voyages
beyond the boundary line, as described in part 7 of this chapter
(1) At least two tank vessel-PICs or restricted tank vessel-PICs
must be carried; and
(2) At least two tank vessel-engineers must be carried, unless only
one engineer is required, in which case at least one tank vessel-
engineer must be carried.
(d) For each tankship not certified for voyages beyond the boundary
line, as described in part 7 of this chapter, if the total crew
complement is--
(1) One or two, at least one tank vessel-PIC or restricted tank
vessel-PIC must be carried; or
(2) More than two, at least two tank vessel-PICs or restricted Tank
vessel-PICs must be carried.
(e) For each tank barge manned under Sec. 31.15-5 of this chapter,
if the total crew complement is--
(1) One or two, at least one tank vessel-PIC, restricted tank
vessel-PIC, tank barge-PIC, or restricted tank barge-PIC must be
carried; or
(2) More than two, at least two tank vessel-PICs, restricted Tank
vessel-PICs, tank barge-PICs, or restricted tank barge-PICs must be
carried.
(f) The following personnel aboard each tankship certified for
voyages beyond the boundary line, as described in part 7 of this
chapter, must hold valid MMCs, endorsed as follows:
(1) The master and chief mate must each hold a tank vessel-PIC or
restricted tank vessel-PIC endorsement.
(2) The chief, first assistant, and cargo engineers must each hold
a Tank vessel-engineer or tank vessel-PIC endorsement.
(3) Each credentialed officer acting as the PIC of a transfer of
liquid cargo in bulk must hold a tank vessel-PIC or restricted tank
vessel-PIC endorsement.
(4) Each officer or crewmember who is assigned by the PIC duties
and responsibilities related to the cargo or cargo-handling equipment
during a transfer of liquid cargo in bulk, but is not directly
supervised by the PIC, must hold a tank vessel-assistant endorsement.
(g) The endorsements required by this section must be for the
classification of the liquid cargo in bulk or of the cargo residue
being carried.
(h) All individuals serving on tankships certified for voyages
beyond the boundary line, as described in part 7 of this chapter, must
hold an appropriate STCW endorsement, as follows:
(1) For tank vessel-PIC, an STCW endorsement as Advanced Oil Tanker
Cargo Operations, Advanced Chemical Tanker Cargo Operations, or
Advanced Liquefied Gas Tanker Cargo Operations, as appropriate.
(2) For tank vessel-Assistant, an STCW endorsement as Basic Oil and
Chemical Tanker Cargo Operations, or Basic Liquefied Gas Tanker Cargo
Operations, as appropriate.
(3) For a tank barge-PIC, an STCW endorsement as Advanced Oil
Tanker Cargo Operations, Advanced Chemical Tanker Cargo Operations, or
Advanced Liquefied Gas Tanker Cargo Operations, as appropriate,
including endorsements with a limitation for non-self-propelled
vessels.
(4) For a tank vessel-engineer, an STCW endorsement as Advanced Oil
Tanker Cargo Operations, or Advanced Chemical Tanker Cargo Operations,
as appropriate, including endorsements with a limitation to maintenance
and repair of cargo equipment.
PART 16--CHEMICAL TESTING
0
52. The authority citation for part 16 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 7101, 7301, and 7701; DHS
Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
0
53. Revise Sec. 16.220 paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 16.220 Periodic testing requirements.
(a) * * *
(4) The first endorsement as an able seafarer, lifeboat operator,
qualified member of the engine department, or a tank vessel
endorsement; or
* * * * *
PART 30--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
54. The authority citation for part 30 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; DHS Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
0
55. Revise Sec. 30.10-71 to read as follows:
Sec. 30.10-71 Tank Vessel Endorsements--TB/ALL.
The following ratings are established in part 13 of this chapter.
The terms for the ratings identify persons holding valid endorsements
for service in the ratings issued under that part:
(a) Tank vessel-PIC.
(b) Tank barge-PIC.
(c) Restricted tank vessel-PIC.
(d) Restricted tank barge-PIC.
(e) Tank vessel-Assistant.
(f) Tank vessel-Engineer.
PART 35--OPERATIONS
0
56. The authority citation for part 35 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 6101,
70011, 70034; 49 U.S.C. 5103, 5106; Executive Order 12234, 45 FR
58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Executive Order 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1,
Revision No. 01.3.
0
57. Revise Sec. 35.30-5 to read as follows:
Sec. 35.30-5 Fires, matches, and smoking--TB/ALL.
(a) General. In making the determinations required under paragraphs
(b), (c), and (d) of this section the senior deck officer on duty, who
must be a credentialed officer or have an appropriate tank vessel
endorsement, must exercise their skill and experience with due regard
to attendant conditions and circumstances, including consideration for
location of shore side facilities, maintenance of mobility, provision
for fire protection, state or change of winds, tides, sea, weather
conditions, forces of nature, and other circumstances generally beyond
human control.
(b) Boiler fires. Boiler fires are normally permitted during cargo
transfer operations: Provided, that before loading Grades A, B, and C
cargoes, the senior deck officer on duty, who must be a credentialed
officer or have an appropriate tank vessel endorsement, must make an
inspection to determine whether in their judgment boiler fires may be
maintained with reasonable safety during the loading operation.
(c) Smoking. Smoking is prohibited on the weather decks of tank
vessels when they are not gas-free or are alongside docks. At other
times and places the senior deck officer on duty, who must be a
credentialed officer or have an appropriate tank vessel endorsement,
must designate when and where the crew may smoke: Provided, that before
loading Grade A, B, or C cargo the master or senior deck officer on
duty must make an inspection to determine if and where, in their
judgment, smoking may be permitted with reasonable safety during the
loading operation.
(d) Matches. The use of other than safety matches is forbidden
aboard tank vessels at all times.
[[Page 29035]]
Sec. 35.35-1 [Amended]
0
58. Amend Sec. 35.35-1 paragraph (a)(1) by:
0
a. Removing the word ``Tankerman-PICs'' wherever it appears, and
adding, in its place, the words ``Tank vessel-PIC''; and
0
b. Removing the word ``Tankerman-Assistants'' and adding, in its place,
the words ``Tank vessel-Assistants''.
PART 39--VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEMS
0
59. The authority citation for part 39 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 3715(b),
70011, 70034; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277;
DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
0
60. Revise Sec. 39.5003 paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 39.5003 Additional requirements for multi-breasted loading using
an inboard barge vapor collection system--B/CLBR.
* * * * *
(c) Persons holding an appropriate tank vessel endorsement trained
in and familiar with multi-breasted loading operations, must be onboard
each barge during transfer operations. The tank barge (PIC) serves as
the barge person-in-charge (PIC). During transfer operations, the barge
PICs must maintain constant communication with each other as well as
with the facility PIC.
* * * * *
Dated: March 24, 2023.
Amy M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-06472 Filed 5-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 5, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.