Proposed Rule2024-04351
Mariner Credentialing Program Transformation
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
March 14, 2024
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard's Mariner Credentialing Program issues merchant mariner credentials and medical certificates, approves training courses and programs, and approves other qualifications such as a Qualified Assessor and a Designated Examiner. Under this rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to allow for the electronic submission of information required for credentialing to allow for the future implementation of a new information technology system to support the mariner credentialing process. The Coast Guard also proposes to require the electronic payment of mandatory fees for merchant mariner credentials through Pay.Gov, to remove the requirement for prospective mariners to take an oath before an authorized official, and to change the requirements for the Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariners. Finally, the Coast Guard proposes technical amendments to update addresses and websites, to remove antiquated terminology, and to amend language to use gender-neutral terms.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 51 (Thursday, March 14, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 51 (Thursday, March 14, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18706-18741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04351]
[[Page 18705]]
Vol. 89
Thursday,
No. 51
March 14, 2024
Part II
Department of Homeland Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
46 CFR Parts 1, 10, 11, et al.
Mariner Credentialing Program Transformation; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 18706]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16
[Docket No. USCG-2021-0834]
RIN 1625-AC86
Mariner Credentialing Program Transformation
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard's Mariner Credentialing Program issues
merchant mariner credentials and medical certificates, approves
training courses and programs, and approves other qualifications such
as a Qualified Assessor and a Designated Examiner. Under this
rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to allow for the electronic
submission of information required for credentialing to allow for the
future implementation of a new information technology system to support
the mariner credentialing process. The Coast Guard also proposes to
require the electronic payment of mandatory fees for merchant mariner
credentials through Pay.Gov, to remove the requirement for prospective
mariners to take an oath before an authorized official, and to change
the requirements for the Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariners.
Finally, the Coast Guard proposes technical amendments to update
addresses and websites, to remove antiquated terminology, and to amend
language to use gender-neutral terms.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 13, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0834 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">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 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. Charles J. Bright, CG-MMC-1, Coast Guard; telephone
202-372-1046, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#43002b22312f26306d096d01312a242b3703363020246d2e2a2f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f3b09b92819f9680ddb9ddb1819a949b87b386809094dd9e9a9f">[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 Decision-Making Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. To do so, go
to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, type USCG-2021-0834 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="http://www.regulations.gov">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="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> Frequently Asked Questions web
page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments
that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> will include any personal information you
have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in
response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records
notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
Public meeting. We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we
will consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a
meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register
notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.
II. Abbreviations
ACH Automated Clearing House
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CBO Congressional Budget Office
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG-MMC Coast Guard Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing
CG-719B Application for Merchant Mariner Credential
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EFT Electronic Funds Transfer
Form CG-718A Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner
FR Federal Register
FRED Federal Reserve Economic Data
GS General Schedule
GSA General Services Administration
ICR Information Collection Request
IT Information Technology
MCP Mariner Credentialing Program
MMC Merchant Mariner Credential
MMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMC National Maritime Center
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPM Office of Personnel Management
RA Regulatory analysis
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
REC Regional Exam Center
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard
III. Basis and Purpose
The legal basis of this proposed rule is title 46 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 7101(b) and 7301(b), which authorize the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish the
experience and professional qualifications required for the issuance of
merchant mariner licenses and documents. The DHS Secretary has
delegated the rulemaking
[[Page 18707]]
authority under 46 U.S.C. 7101 and 7301 to the Coast Guard through DHS
Delegation No. 00170.1(II)(92)(e) and (f), Revision No. 01.3.
Additionally, 14 U.S.C. 102(3) grants the Coast Guard broad authority
to issue and enforce regulations for the promotion of safety of life
and property on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, which includes establishing the experience and professional
qualifications required for the issuance of credentials.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to revise title 46 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), subchapter A, part 1, and subchapter B,
parts 10-16, to allow for the electronic submission of information to
the Coast Guard for the issuance of a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC)
and the supporting administrative processes, including requiring the
payment of mandatory fees through the federal government-recognized
system, <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. The Coast Guard also proposes removing the requirement
for prospective mariners to take an oath before an authorized official
and changing requirements for the completion and issue of a Certificate
of Discharge to Merchant Mariner (Form CG-718A). In addition, the Coast
Guard proposes technical amendments, such as updating addresses and
websites, removing antiquated terminology, and adopting gender-
inclusive language by replacing gender-specific terms.
IV. Background
The Coast Guard's Mariner Credentialing Program (MCP) issues MMCs
and Medical Certificates to applicants who have met the regulatory
criteria established in 46 CFR subchapter B. This includes the
evaluation of individual qualifications and medical fitness,
administering examinations and issuing the MMC. In addition, the MCP
also conducts supporting processes, such as approving mariner training
courses and programs; approving course instructors; conducting course
oversight and auditing; and approving Qualified Assessors (QA) and
Designated Examiners (DE).\1\ The National Maritime Center (NMC) and
its field units, called Regional Exam Centers (REC) and Monitoring
Units (MU), conduct these MCP processes, which have traditionally
relied on handwritten applications, mailed correspondence, and
recordkeeping in paper-based files. It was not until the early 1990s
that the Coast Guard implemented its Merchant Mariner Licensing and
Documentation (MMLD) database to partially automate the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Qualified Assessor and Designated Examiner are as defined in
46 CFR 10.107 and 10.405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MMLD is a database used by the NMC to issue MMCs, medical
certificates and manage mariner information. MMLD is internal to the
Coast Guard and does not allow for direct interaction with maritime
stakeholders. Even with the addition of MMLD, all aspects of the MCP
rely heavily on the paper-based submittal of information. This includes
the submission of handwritten, paper forms, such as Form CG-719B,
Application for Merchant Mariner Credential, CG-719K, Application for
Medical Certificate, and supporting documentation, as well as
conducting paper-based examinations that are mailed to mariners, or
administered in person, by the Coast Guard. In recent years, the Coast
Guard has accepted Adobe Acrobat versions of the paper applications and
information through emails to improve customer service and efficiency
during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this still requires the transfer
of the mariner's information from emailed documentation by manual entry
of all information into the MMLD database for reviewing and processing.
This process is time-consuming, inefficient, and does not provide
effective customer service. These inefficiencies also make the Coast
Guard susceptible to fraudulent activities related to accepting
documents that cannot be validated and may contain falsified
information or incorrect data. For example, if a mariner submits a
training course completion or sea service document, it is difficult to
validate this information against the course provider completed course
information submitted to the Coast Guard or vessel information such as
propulsion type or registered tonnage.
The Coast Guard is working to replace MMLD with a more
technologically advanced, secure, agile, and user-friendly system that
would reduce risk and improve customer service to mariners and the
maritime industry. The anticipated replacement system will be web-
based, allowing for direct virtual interaction between the Coast Guard
and maritime industry stakeholders. Currently over 50 percent of MMC
applications submitted are incomplete, resulting in delays to request
and receive the missing information. The replacement system would aim
to eliminate these delays and would allow for more efficient
processing, tracking, and feedback on the status of the credential or
medical certificate. In addition, system users would be able to
electronically provide required information directly to the Coast Guard
for review or approval. These users would include maritime training
providers, maritime employers, and other entities submitting required
information on behalf of the mariner, such as course completion data,
documentation of sea service, or assessments of competency. This would
increase the ability to validate and protect information and reduce the
likelihood of fraud from the falsification of such mariner records. As
the primary source of consolidated data on merchant mariners and their
qualifications, this would also support national defense requirements
by allowing for accurate data analysis of merchant mariners needed to
support contingency operations.
The future MCP system would enable the electronic submission of
information for the processing of credentials and other qualifications
and approvals, as well as reconciling the collection of mandatory fees
through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. Allowing for the electronic submission of certain data
and requiring electronic payments requires a regulatory update to 46
CFR part 1 of subchapter A and parts 10-16 of subchapter B. While the
development and testing of the new system will take time, these
regulatory changes are required to set the conditions for the
implementation of the new system's capabilities.
Mariners must pay mandatory fees for the Coast Guard evaluation of
an MMC application, administration of an examination, and issuance of
an MMC. The Coast Guard is not proposing to change the amount of any of
the mandatory fees. Regulations establish the amount and method for the
payment of fees; specifically, 46 CFR 10.219(d)(3) allows for payments
by cash, check, money order, or credit card. Accepting cash, checks,
and money orders as payments is costly and inefficient, often creating
issues with fee reconciliation for mariners. Cash must be converted to
a money order, checks and money orders must be deposited via standard
mail to the Federal Lockbox, and all deposits must be reconciled. The
Coast Guard currently does not have an efficient way to track mandatory
fees, particularly cash and money orders, in MMLD or the Coast Guard
financial management system. This has led to overpayments and
underpayments of mandatory fees, delays in processing refunds, and
delays in issuing mariner credentials when proper fees have not been
received. There are also no automated mechanisms to identify the need
for a refund. Instead, a refund usually occurs only after it is
requested by the individual receiving services. These inefficiencies
typically delay refunds to individuals.
[[Page 18708]]
Requiring electronic payment via <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> would allow for more
efficient processing of mandatory fees, including easier
reconciliation, refunds, and protection of financial information, and
would eliminate the burden of Coast Guard personnel handling non-
electronic forms of payment. From 2015 to 2019, most payments of
mandatory fees affected by this proposal were made electronically
through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>.\2\ Cash payments were not accepted during the COVID-19
pandemic. Only a few cash payments have been received since 2019 and
this trend is anticipated to continue.\3\ Credit or debit card (or a
purchased credit card) and check payments, via bank automated clearing
house (ACH) payments, would still be accepted as a means of payment
through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Approximately 80 percent of payments received from 2015-2019
were through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. This increased to over 90 percent during the
years from 2020-2022.
\3\ The number of cash payments recorded by the Coast Guard: CY
2020--31, CY2021--2, and CY2022--19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, this proposal would align Coast Guard regulations with
U.S. Treasury regulations on the management of federal agency receipts,
disbursements, and the operation of cash management. Specifically, 31
CFR part 206 prescribes regulations for promoting efficient, effective
cash management through improved billing, collection, deposit, and
payment of funds. These objectives seek to improve funds' availability
and the efficiency and effectiveness with which funds are transferred.
Specifically, 31 CFR 206.4 establishes that all funds are to be
collected and disbursed by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) when cost-
effective, practicable, and consistent with current statutory
authority. In addition, 31 CFR 206.4(b)(1) specifies that EFT will be
adopted as the presumed collection method when fees and fines are
recurring or of large dollar amounts.
The Coast Guard also proposes to remove the requirement for
original applicants to take an oath before an authorized official and
to change the requirements for the completion and submission of Form
CG-718A. Taking the oath before an authorized official is duplicative
because the oath is part of Form CG-719B that the original applicant
must attest to when they provide their signature. Requiring an oath
before an authorized official or notary, places an undue burden on the
original applicant who may need to pay for notary services. The
signature and attestation on Form CG-719B legally binds the original
applicant to that oath without the additional requirements and
potential cost.
Form CG-718A, Certificates of Discharge, and associated processes
are used to document a mariner's time on a vessel including the
capacity the mariner sailed (3rd Mate, 2nd Engineer, etc.), date
joining the vessel, and date leaving the vessel among other
information. By reviewing and attesting to the information on Form CG-
718A, the vessel master and mariner agree to its correctness. This
information can be used to verify the mariner's time for salary, sea
service, and for other purposes. Form CG-718A process is clarified to
ensure proper information is obtained and provided to the mariner and
the Coast Guard by the vessel master and shipping company. This updates
the process from paper and carbon copy forms, allowing for updated
methods, such as electronic forms, electronic signatures, and improved
recordkeeping, in the modern-day maritime industry. The information
required for Form CG-718A would remain the same, but the method of
obtaining, processing, and retaining the Form would allow for
electronic processing by the owner, operator, Master, or Chief Engineer
of the vessel.
Finally, the Coast Guard proposes technical amendments, such as
updating addresses and websites, removing antiquated terminology, and
adopting gender-inclusive language by replacing gender specific terms.
This would align with other sections of Coast Guard regulations, where
outdated terminology has been removed or updated when provided the
opportunity to do so through rulemaking. It would also provide a
clearer understanding of Coast Guard and governmental requirements.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
This rule proposes to allow for the electronic submission of MMC
applications and supporting documents to the Coast Guard, and to
require electronic payment of mandatory fees through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. This rule
also proposes to remove the requirement for original MMC applicants to
take an oath before an authorized official or notary because the Coast
Guard has determined it is a redundant part of the original MMC
application process. This rule further proposes to amend the process
for issuing certificates of discharge for mariners after completing a
voyage to clarify the procedures and allow for electronic processing
and recordkeeping. Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to make non-
substantive changes to antiquated terminology and out-of-date website
and address information to clarify existing regulatory text in the
affected subparts of the CFR.
To prepare for the future acquisition of an information technology
(IT) system to replace the antiquated and inefficient MMLD system used
by the MCP, this rule proposes to amend 46 CFR subchapter A, part 1,
and subchapter B, parts 10-16, to allow for electronic submission of
information, in a manner specified by the Coast Guard, to obtain MMCs,
medical certificates, and the approval of mariner training courses and
programs, Qualified Assessors, and Designated Examiners. Providing for
the electronic submission of required information would streamline the
credentialing process and would prepare for the fully electronic IT
system that will be used by the MCP and industry.
This proposed rule requires electronic payment of mandatory fees
through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. Manual processing of the remaining cash, checks,
credit cards, or money orders that are still allowed requires
significant work hours by NMC and REC personnel, is difficult to
validate and protect using the current system, and does not meet the
requirements of the U.S. Treasury. Currently, applicants can make
payments in person at an REC using cash, check, credit card, or money
order. With this proposed rule, the Coast Guard would no longer
directly accept payments made using these methods at RECs. Applicants
who wish to continue to use cash or money orders could obtain a prepaid
credit card to pay fees using <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. Applicants who wish to pay via
personal check can make an ACH payment through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. As noted in IV.
Background, the Coast Guard anticipates the use of cash or money orders
to continue to decrease, based upon previous payment statistics. This
also reflects the overall public trend in the United States to make
payments using a credit card, debit card, or check. The 2019 Federal
Reserve Payments Study and subsequent updates indicate a continued
trend to using cards and ACH with the growth rate of core noncash
payments being 6.7 percent per year from 2015 to 2018, higher than the
growth rate of 5.1 percent per year from 2012 to 2015.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The 2019 Federal Reserve Payments Study, p14, <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/2019-payments-study-20191219.pdf">https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/2019-payments-study-20191219.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18709]]
Credit and debit card usage numbers declined with the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic, mostly from the lack of in-person transactions, but
general growth continued, including the percentage of ACH payments.\5\
Electronic payment would reduce the burden on Coast Guard personnel who
process non-electronic payments (cash, check, money orders) and improve
customer service to mariners by allowing for better reconciliation and
more efficient processing of payments and refunds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Developments in Noncash Payments for 2019 and 2020: Findings
from the Federal Reserve Payments Study, p7, <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/developments-in-noncash-payments-for-2019-and-2020-20211222.pdf">https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/developments-in-noncash-payments-for-2019-and-2020-20211222.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule also proposes changes to 46 CFR 14.307 regarding entries
on certificates of discharge for mariners after completing a voyage to
clarify the procedures and allow for electronic processing and
recordkeeping. The process would be clarified by requiring that each
master or person in charge must, for each individual mariner being
discharged from the vessel, prepare a Form CG-718A in accordance with
the procedures prescribed by the Coast Guard. The prescribed format may
include the current CG-718A or other means provided by the Coast Guard,
which would allow for electronic processing if available in a new MCP
system. If a Master or persons in charge of a vessel do not use a Coast
Guard-prescribed format, the mariner must be provided with all the same
information included on Form CG-718A. This ensures the vessel Master or
operating companies provide the required information to the mariner but
allows for them to use vessel or company specific means, such as a
payroll system incorporated in their vessel administrative systems.
Following each voyage, every mariner being discharged must validate the
information on Form CG-718A by signing it. The proposed change from
signing in ``permanent ink'' to ``by signing'' allows for more modern
methods such as electronic signature or document verification. Finally,
when the mariner departs the vessel, the Master or individual in charge
must give Form CG-718A to the mariner, which could be provided
electronically with the proposed changes. The proposed changes to Form
CG-718A's process creates a more modern and electronic means of
processing the document. Under this proposed rule, there would be no
change to the certificate of discharge transmission process under 46
CFR 14.311.
In addition, this proposed rule would remove the requirement to
take an oath before an authorized official while certifying an
Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (Form CG-719B). By signing
the form, an individual attests that they do ``solemnly swear or
affirm'' to abide by the requirements of the oath. This legally binds a
mariner, so no additional requirement before an authorized official is
necessary. The Coast Guard also anticipates that the future MCP system
will allow for electronic signatures and additional verification of
identity, negating the need for the requirement to take an oath before
an authorized official.
Finally, the Coast Guard proposes technical amendments to 46 CFR
parts 1 and 10 through 16 as part of this rulemaking. These amendments
would account for updates to websites and addresses, remove antiquated
language (such as ``licenses'' and ``Merchant Mariner Document (MMD),''
as those credentials are no longer issued by the Coast Guard), and make
non-substantive changes to ensure gender-neutrality throughout.
VI. Regulatory Analysis
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses
based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended
by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of 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, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. A regulatory analysis (RA)
follows.
For this regulatory analysis, the term ``applicants'' refers to all
individuals who pay mandatory fees associated with an MMC application.
The proposed changes and estimated cost savings for Sec. 10.219(d)
would affect these applicants. The phrase ``original applicants''
refers to individuals who are applying for their first MMC and
therefore are currently required to take an oath before an authorized
official. The number of original applicants is a subset of all
applicants because they must also pay fees. The proposed changes and
cost savings to Sec. 10.225(c) would affect only original applicants.
In this rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to update 46 CFR
subchapter A, part 1, and subchapter B, parts 10 through 16. The
proposed rule would:
<bullet> Require electronic payment of merchant mariner
credentialing fees in Sec. 10.219(d); \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The proposed rule affects all applicants who apply for MMCs.
Mandatory fees include evaluation, examination, and issuance fees.
The Coast Guard data does not differentiate between these fees in
the data it collects; the data the Coast Guard collected for this
analysis are for any fees where applicants may pay for any or all of
them at one time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Remove the requirement for an oath to be administered by
an official who serves as a notary public (or an authorized official
who can administer an oath) on Form CG-719B in Sec. 10.225(c);
<bullet> Allow for the electronic submission of certain documents
in Sec. Sec. 1.03-15(h)(2)(i) for appeals involving course approvals
and merchant mariner personnel issues and 10.219(i) for requests
involving no-fee MMCs;
<bullet> Consolidate, condense, and clarify regulatory text for the
processing of Form CG-718A in Sec. Sec. 14.307(a), (b), and (c) when a
mariner completes a voyage; and
<bullet> Make non-substantive, editorial changes to current
regulatory text, such as pronoun changes, address changes, the removal
of certain terms, and other minor grammatical changes.
Table 1 presents a summary of the impacts of the proposed rule.
[[Page 18710]]
Table 1--Summary of Impacts of the NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability--46 CFR subchapter A, --Requires applicants for an
part 1, and subchapter B, parts 10-16. MMC to pay evaluation,
examination, and issuance fees
electronically through
<a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>; \7\
--Removes requirement for
original applicants to take an
oath before an authorized
official;
--Provides the option of
electronic submission of
additional documents to
support MMC applications and
Coast Guard approvals; and
--Makes editorial changes that
clarify, remove, condense, and
add non-substantive regulatory
text.
Affected Population.................... --Applicants for MMCs; and
--Approximately 36,838
applicants,\8\ annually.
Total Cost Savings of Proposed Rule (7- Assumption 1 (Cost Savings to
percent discount rate-all estimates in applicants of MMCs):
table, $2021). Approximately $2.6 million
over 10-year period of
analysis. Annualized,
approximately $364,945.
Assumption 2 (Cost Savings to
applicants of MMCs):
Approximately $3.0 million
over 10-year period of
analysis. Annualized,
approximately $433,379.
Federal Government Cost
Savings: Approximately
$215,655 over 10-year period
of analysis. Annualized,
approximately $30,704.
Total Cost Savings of Proposed
Rule:
Assumption 1: Approximately
$2.8 million over 10-year
period of analysis.
Annualized, approximately
$395,650.
Assumption 2: Approximately
$3.3 million over 10-year
period of analysis.
Annualized, approximately
$464,084.
Unquantifiable Costs................... --There are no regulatory
provisions of the proposed
rule that would impose net
costs on individuals,
companies, or the maritime
industry.
--The proposed rule would
remove non-electronic and in-
person payments options for
applicants.
--This proposed rule would
remove requirements in Sec.
10.219(d) and Sec.
10.225(c), which would produce
net cost savings to
applicants.
Unquantifiable Cost Savings............ --Provides cost savings from
the option of electronic
submission of certain
documents in parts 1.03-
15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i).
Unquantifiable Benefits................ --Provides flexibility with
option of electronic
submission of certain
documents;
--Clarifies submission of Form
CG-718A in part 14.307; allows
for additional signature
methods and retention
procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost savings estimates in each assumption include estimates for
Sec. 10.219(d).
We discuss the economic impact of these items individually in the
cost savings section of this RA. We request public comment on the
numerical estimates and assumptions in the RA for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Readers can access the National Maritime Center's (NMC)
website and <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> to obtain information about the payment of fees
at <a href="http://www.dco.uscg.mil/nmc/fees/">www.dco.uscg.mil/nmc/fees/</a>. The Coast Guard accessed this web
page in the summer of 2022.
\8\ For this regulatory analysis, the term ``applicants'' refers
to all individual applicants who pay mandatory fees. The proposed
changes and estimated cost savings for Sec. 10.219(d) would affect
these applicants. The phrase ``original applicants'' refers to
individuals who apply for their first MMC and therefore are required
by existing regulation to take an oath before an authorized
official. The proposed changes and cost savings to Sec. 10.225(c)
would affect only original applicants. We also assume the affected
population of applicants has bank accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would generate cost savings to applicants,
including original applicants, for two proposed changes in 46 CFR
10.219(d) and 10.225(c), and for the Federal Government in Sec.
10.219(d).
For part 10.219(d), each applicant would save about $13.53 for a
credit card payment and about $11.82 for a cash payment with this
proposed rule.
For part 10.225(c), under Assumption 1, for all applicants, an
individual applicant would save about $14.95; and under Assumption 2,
for half of the applicants (6,976), each applicant who goes to a bank
branch would save about $14.95; for the other half (6,976) of the
applicants who go to a notary service, half of whom pay by credit card
(3,488) and half of whom pay by cash (3,488); each applicant who pays
by credit card would save about $25.37, and by cash, about $24.15.
First, the proposed changes in Sec. 10.219(d) would require an
applicant for an MMC to pay the required evaluation, examination, and
issuance mandatory fees by electronic means through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. Currently,
an applicant can make a payment in person at an REC using cash, check,
credit card or money order. With this proposed rule, the Coast Guard
would no longer directly accept payments made using these methods; as a
result, this proposed rule would remove the payment options made with
cash, check (in person), credit card (in person), and money order, and
payments made by standard mail. The cost savings that we estimate for
Sec. 10.219(d) are for applicants who would no longer expend the time
to visit an REC to pay the fees by cash, check, credit card, and for
payments made by check through standard mail. For the purpose of this
analysis, we analyzed payments made by cash and credit card because
they represented the majority of payments made in person at RECs. We
also analyzed check and money order payments made by applicants outside
of RECs. In addition to cash and credit card payments, applicants can
also make payments by check and money order in person at an REC.
However, the Coast Guard does not collect data to show where applicants
made these payments. For this analysis and based on Coast Guard
information from RECs, where most applicants pay by cash or credit
card, we then assumed applicants made check and money order payments by
standard mail outside of an REC.
The changes we propose to Sec. 10.219(d) would also generate cost
savings for the Federal Government for Coast Guard employees who would
no
[[Page 18711]]
longer expend the time to process in-person payment transactions at
RECs.
The cost savings associated with Sec. 10.225(c) would be from the
removal of the requirement to have an oath administered by a person
legally qualified to administer an oath, or a notary public, near an
original applicant's place of residence (in the town or city where an
original applicant resides) before an original applicant receives an
MMC.\9\ The Coast Guard does not estimate the Federal Government would
realize any cost savings associated with this proposed change. The
remaining changes of the proposed rule would not generate any costs or
cost savings to the maritime industry, individuals, or the Federal
Government. Lastly, this proposed rule would not alter any current OMB-
approved Coast Guard information collection request (ICR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A notary public is an individual who has met the
requirements to provide notary public services to the general public
in order to verify a person's identity. Currently, in the case of
Form CG-719B, when an original applicant applies for an MMC either
at an REC or near an original applicant's place of residence (either
at a bank or bank branch or where there is a notary service in the
U.S.), the original applicant must sign the form in the presence of
a notary public. The notary public must also sign the form; this
process serves as the oath for the original applicant in accordance
with the information contained in Form CG-719B. Readers can access
<a href="http://www.nationalnotary.org">www.nationalnotary.org</a> to obtain more information about notary
services in the U.S. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the
summer of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.219(d)
We estimate the total discounted cost savings for the proposed
change to Sec. 10.219(d) for applicants who pay mandatory fees at RECs
(typically by cash or credit card) and for applicants who pay by check
and money order outside of an REC through standard mail would be
approximately $1.0 million, rounded, over a 10-year period of analysis,
using a 7-percent discount rate. The cost savings are associated with
the time (transaction time) applicants would save from making in-person
payments to using <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. We estimate the annualized cost savings for
applicants who pay in-person at RECs and by cash would be approximately
$3,439 rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the
annualized cost savings for applicants who pay in-person at RECs by
credit card would be approximately $134,735, rounded, using a 7-percent
discount rate. We estimate the annualized cost savings for applicants
who pay by check and money order through standard mail would be
approximately $6,951 rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. Finally,
we estimate the total annualized cost savings of part 10.219(d) to
applicants who pay in-person at RECs and by check and money order to be
approximately $145,125 ($3,439 + $134,735 + $6,951), rounded.
We estimate the discounted cost savings to the Coast Guard for the
proposed change to Sec. 10.219(d) would be approximately $215,655 over
a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. In
addition, we estimate the annualized cost savings to the Coast Guard
for this regulatory provision would be approximately $30,704, rounded,
using a 7-percent discount rate.
Sec. 10.225(c)
In this regulatory analysis, we make two assumptions associated
with the proposed removal of the requirement to take an oath before an
authorized official in Sec. 10.225(c). These assumptions apply to
applicants who pay the mandatory fees and take an oath at a location
other than an REC or at their place of residence (for the purpose of
this regulatory analysis, we refer to individuals who are affected by
the proposed changes to Sec. 10.225(c) only as ``original
applicants''). These two assumptions are necessary, because the Coast
Guard does not have data on whether original applicants obtain an oath
through a notary public service at a bank near their place of
residence, which is (Assumption 1), where an individual can obtain an
oath for an original application along with a notary public signature,
which we assume to be free of charge; or elsewhere, other than a bank,
which is (Assumption 2), where there is a cost for the notary public
service.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Coast Guard collects information on the number of
payment transactions for original applications and for other
payments of MMC fees. For the purpose of this analysis, we assumed
each payment transaction represents one individual or mariner. There
may be more than one payment transaction for an application, but for
tractability of this analysis, we assumed a one-to-one ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, if the reader accepts Assumption 1 to be representative
of the current actions by applicants, then the cost savings the Coast
Guard estimates for this assumption would be the cost savings of the
proposed rule, in addition to the cost savings from the proposed change
to Sec. 10.219(d). If the reader accepts Assumption 2 to be
representative of the current actions by applicants, then the cost
savings the Coast Guard estimates for this assumption would be the cost
savings of the proposed rule, in addition to the cost savings from the
proposed change to Sec. 10.219(d).
Other assumptions may be made about the locations or establishments
where original applicants obtained an oath through a notary public
service, such as through legal services, at a title application
company, or other such local business services, but we believe these
assumptions capture the actions that applicants take when they apply
for MMCs. The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on these
two assumptions, and whether a third assumption should be considered
along with or instead of these two assumptions. Lastly, for the purpose
of this analysis, the Coast Guard assumes applicants have bank
accounts. We request comments from the public on the validity of this
assumption.
Assumption 1 for Sec. 10.225(c): Our first assumption is that
original applicants, who are affected by this part of the proposed
rule, can obtain an oath through a notary public service at a or bank
branch (which we assume to be free of charge) near where they
reside.\11\ Under this assumption, we estimate this proposed rule would
save original applicants (an estimated 13,951 annually, rounded) a
discounted amount of approximately $1.5 million over a 10-year period
of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. The cost savings include
the cost of the travel time for an applicant who would have traveled to
obtain a notary public, the mileage cost, and the time an applicant
would have waited at a bank to obtain a notary public. We estimate the
annualized cost savings for original applicants would be approximately
$219,820, using a 7-percent discount rate. These figures do not include
the cost savings for the proposed change to Sec. 10.219(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Coast Guard acknowledges that some banks or bank
branches may not provide a notary public service free of charge;
however, we assumed applicants with a bank account at a given bank
do not incur a cost for a notary public service if they are a member
of that bank. Readers can access these websites for more information
on notary public services at banks: <a href="https://www.bankofamerica.com/signature-services/notary/">https://www.bankofamerica.com/signature-services/notary/</a>, and <a href="https://www.citizensbank.com/learning/notary-public-services.aspx">https://www.citizensbank.com/learning/notary-public-services.aspx</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption 2 for Sec. 10.225(c): Our second assumption is that
half of the original applicants can obtain an oath through a notary
public service at a bank or bank branch near where they reside, which
we assume to be free of charge. The other half of original applicants
(an estimated 6,976 annually, rounded) can obtain this service at a
state office, an establishment that provides notary public services, or
a similar entity which charges for notary public service. Assumption 2
considers the cost savings associated with the
[[Page 18712]]
proposed removal of the oath and the notary public service for the
affected population of all original applicants, or 13,951. Under this
assumption, we assumed half of the applicants would obtain a notary
public at a bank, where it is free of charge, and half at an
establishment other than a bank, where there would be a cost for a
notary public. The cost savings for half of the original applicants who
obtain a notary public at a bank would be from the time it would take
to travel to a bank, the mileage cost, and the time to wait at a bank
for a notary public. The cost savings for the other half of original
applicants who obtain a notary elsewhere would be the same as
applicants that go to a bank with the addition of the cost savings from
not having to pay for a notary public.
With this assumption, the Coast Guard estimates the proposed rule
would save original applicants a discounted amount of approximately
$2.0 million over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent
discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings
for original applicants would be approximately $288,255, using a 7-
percent discount rate. These figures do not include the cost savings
for the proposed change to Sec. 10.219(d).
For each assumption, the Coast Guard adds the same cost savings
estimate for original applicants who would be required to pay the fees
electronically under the proposed changes to Sec. 10.219(d), or
$145,125 annualized, rounded. Specifically, for Assumption 1, the Coast
Guard estimates the total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule
to applicants would be approximately $2.6 million over a 10-year period
of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates
the total annualized cost savings of the proposed rule under this
assumption would be approximately $364,945.
For Assumption 2, the Coast Guard estimates the total discounted
cost savings of the proposed rule to applicants would be approximately
$3.0 million over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent
discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the total annualized cost
savings of the proposed rule under this assumption would be
approximately $433,379.
In addition, the Coast Guard expects this proposed rule to generate
benefits in the form of cost savings to MMC applicants. These benefits
would include:
<bullet> A simplified payment transaction through electronic means
(<a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>), saving applicants time and money; and
<bullet> Reduced time burden for original applicants who would no
longer need to obtain an oath before an authorized official, which
saves time and money.
This proposed rule would also generate unquantifiable benefits,
which would include:
<bullet> Flexibility for applicants by providing the option to
electronically submit documents including the no-fee determination of
eligibility request and the certificate of discharge; unquantifiable
cost savings for applicants who would choose the option to
electronically submit certain documents;
<bullet> Removal, addition, and clarification of regulatory text
for Form CG-718A and other non-substantive regulatory text changes.
Table 2 presents a summary of the estimated impacts of the proposed
rule.
Table 2--Summary of Impacts of the NPRM by Affected CFR Part, Subpart, and Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of proposed Estimated cost or cost
46 CFR section(s) affected rule change Economic impact savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1--Organization, General Course Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
and Methods Governing Marine Safety substantive regulatory
Functions, Subpart 1.01-- text changes, which
Organization and General Flow of includes updated
Functions: 1.01-15(e). website for merchant
mariner credentialing.
Subpart 1.03--Rights of Appeal: 1.03- Editorial; non- No estimated impact. None.
15(h)(2)(i). substantive regulatory Manner of submission
text changes. Adds would include option
option of electronic of electronic
submission for appeals submission of appeals.
for course approvals. Unquantifiable benefit
of option for
electronic submission
of appeal, current
paper-based appeal
process would still be
accepted.
Part 10--Merchant Mariner Credential, Editorial; non- No estimated impact. None.
Subpart A--General: 10.107. substantive regulatory Clarifies the
text changes. definition of
``regional examination
center or REC''; adds
definitions for
``written,''
``writing,'' and ``in
writing.''.
Subpart B--General Requirements for Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
All Merchant Mariner Credentials: substantive regulatory
10.203(b); 10.203(c); 10.205(g); text changes.
10.209(a); 10.209(d).
10.209(d)(1); 10.209((d)(2); Editorial: removes No estimated cost None.
10.209(d)(3). regulatory text for impact for removal of
applicant to retain photocopy of
photocopy of credential and
credential and submission of certain
submission of certain documents because
documents in paragraph requirement is still
(d)(2). Other non- retained in Sec. Sec.
substantive regulatory 10.227 and 10.231.
text changes in
paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(3).
10.209(i)............................ Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
10.211(f), (i), (j), (k), and (l).... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
10.213(f)............................ Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
[[Page 18713]]
10.219(d)............................ Condenses paragraphs Cost savings in time Estimated annualized
(d)(1) through (5) saved for payment cost savings of
into one paragraph; transaction for approximately $145,125
requires payments to applicants who chose to applicants; 10-year
be made electronically. to pay in person at an discounted cost
REC and would now be savings of
required to submit approximately $1.0
payment million at 7-percent
electronically. Cost discount rate. Federal
savings from mail-in Government annualized
checks. This would cost savings of
remove the in-person approximately $30,704;
option for applicants 10-year discounted
who chose to pay in cost savings of
person at an REC. approximately $215,655
at 7-percent discount
rate.
10.219(i)(1)......................... Editorial; non- No estimated impact; Unquantifiable cost
substantive regulatory manner of submission savings.
text changes. Adds would include option
option of electronic for electronic
submission of request submission.
for determination of a Unquantifiable benefit
request for a fee of option for
waiver. electronic submission
of request for
determination of
eligibility, current
paper-based request
would still be
accepted.
10.223(c)(iv)(5)..................... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
10.225(c) [Please note, the cost Removes the requirement Cost savings for Assumption 1: Estimated
savings estimates the Coast Guard for an oath to be original applicants annualized cost
presents for each assumption in this administered by any who obtain an oath savings is
subpart do not include the estimates Coast Guard designated other than through a approximately
in Sec. 10.219(d)]. individual or any designated Coast Guard $219,820; 10-year
person legally individual because it discounted cost
permitted to is free of charge at savings approximately
administer oath in an REC. Cost savings $1.5 million at 7-
jurisdiction of is from original percent discount rate.
individual's place of applicants who do not Assumption 2:
residence. Other minor need notary public Estimated annualized
non-substantive signature on Form CG- cost savings is
regulatory text 719B. between $288,255; 10-
changes. year discounted cost
savings approximately
$2.0 million at 7-
percent discount rate.
10.227(d)(4); 10.227(e)(1)(i); Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
10.227(e)(1)(iv); 10.227(e)(4) and substantive regulatory
(5); 10.227(e)(6)(ii); text changes.
10.227(g)(2)(ii); 10.227(h) and (i).
10.231(c)(5); 10.231(d)(2)........... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
10.232(a); 10.232(a)(4); 10.223(d); Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
10.223(d)(3); 10.223(d)(6). substantive regulatory
text changes.
10.233(a), (b), and (c).............. Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
10.235(c), (d), (h), and (i)......... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
10.239, table 1...................... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
Subpart C--Medical Certification: Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
10.302(a). substantive regulatory
text changes.
10.305(c), (d), and (e); 10.306(e)... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
Subpart D--Training Courses and Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Programs: 10.404(b)(1)(iv), (v), and substantive regulatory
(vii); (c)(1) and (c)(6). text changes.
10.405(a)(3); (b)(3) and (d); Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
10.409(e). substantive regulatory
text changes.
Part 11--Requirements for Officer Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Endorsements, Subpart A--General: substantive regulatory
11.101(b); 11.102(a). text changes.
Subpart B--General Requirements for Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Officer Endorsements: 11.201(a), substantive regulatory
(c)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (h), (i) and text changes.
(k); 11.211(c); 11.217(a).
Subpart C--STCW Officer Endorsements: Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
11.301(g); 11.337(a). substantive regulatory
text changes.
Subpart D--Professional Requirements Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
for National Deck Officer substantive regulatory
Endorsements: 11.401(a), (b), and text changes.
(d).
11.402(c)(2) and (3), and (d)........ Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.404(a)(2) and (b); 11.405(a); Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
11.406(a)(1) and (2), and (c); substantive regulatory
11.407(c) and (d). text changes.
11.412(a)(1) and (2), and (b)........ Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.414(a)(1)(iii).................... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.418(a)(1) and (2), and (b)........ Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.420(a)............................ Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.422(b)(4) and (c); 11.424(a)(1) Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
and (b). substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.425(a)(2), (b), and (d)........... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
[[Page 18714]]
11.426(a)(1)......................... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.427(a)(2), (b), and (d)........... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.428(b); 11.429(c)................. Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.433(a)(1) and (3); 11.435(a)(1) Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
and (2); 11.437(a)(3). substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.442(a)(1) and (2); 11.444(a)(2); Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
11.446(a)(1) and (b). substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.450(c) and (d); 11.452(a) and (b); Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
11.454(c) and (d); 11.457(a) and (b). substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.462(c) and (c)(4)(v) and (vi), and Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
(d)(4)(iv), (v), and (vi). substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.464(d), (g), and (h).............. Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.465(a), (d), and (e); 11.466(b)... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.470(b)(1) and (2), (c), (d)(1) and Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
(d)(2), and (d)(2)(i), (e), (f)(2), substantive regulatory
(g), (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(2)(i), (i), text changes.
(j)(2), and (j)(2)(i), and (k).
11.472(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)........ Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.474(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
(a)(2), and (b). substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.480(b), (d), (f), and (h)......... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.482(b), (c), and (d).............. Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.491(a)............................ Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
Subpart E--Professional Requirements Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
for National Engineer Officer substantive regulatory
Endorsements: 11.501(c), (d), and text changes.
(e).
11.502(b)............................ Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.503(a), (c)(2), (3), and (4), and Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
(d). substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.510(a)(2); 11.512(a)(1)........... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.514(a)(1) and (2)................. Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.542(a)(1) and (2), and (b)........ Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.544(a)(1) and (2), and (b)........ Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
Subpart F--Credentialing of Radio Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Officers: 11.603; 11.604. substantive regulatory
text changes.
Subpart G--Professional Requirements Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
for Pilots: 11.701(d); 11.703(d); substantive regulatory
11.705(c); 11.707(b); 11.709(b); text changes.
11.713(a) and (b).
Subpart H--Registration of Staff Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Officers and Miscellaneous substantive regulatory
Endorsements: 11.805(a) and (b); text changes.
11.807(d); 11.821(b)(2).
Subpart I--Subjects of Examinations: Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
11.903(c)(1). substantive regulatory
text changes.
11.920 table 2 title................. Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
Part 12--Requirements for Rating Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Endorsements--Subpart A--General: substantive regulatory
12.103(a). text changes.
Subpart B--General Requirements for Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Rating Endorsements: 12.201(a)(2). substantive regulatory
text changes.
Subpart C--Requirements for National Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Deck Rating Endorsements: 12.401(a) substantive regulatory
and (c)(3); 12.405(a) and (b)(2); text changes.
12.407(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(3);
12.409(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(3).
Subpart E--General Requirements for a Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Qualified Member of the Engine substantive regulatory
Department (QMED): 12.501(b)(2) and text changes.
(c)(3); 12.505(a); 12.625(a)(1);
12.627(a)(1).
Subpart G--Entry-Level National Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Ratings and Miscellaneous Ratings: substantive regulatory
12.707; 12.709(a); 12.711(a). text changes.
[[Page 18715]]
Subpart H--Non-Resident Alien Members Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
of the Steward's Department on U.S. substantive regulatory
Flag Large Passenger Vessels: text changes.
12.809(a) and (b); 12.811(b)(5)(iii)
and (e).
Part 13--Certification of Tankerman, Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Subpart A--General: 13.103(a) and substantive regulatory
13.107(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and text changes.
(f).
13.111(d)(3) and (4); 13.119; Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
13.120(a), (b), (c), and (d); substantive regulatory
13.127(a)(4) and (5). text changes.
Subpart B--Requirements for Tankerman- Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
PIC Endorsement: 13.201(c) and substantive regulatory
(c)(3). text changes.
13.203(a), (b), and (c)(2); 13.205... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
Subpart C--Requirements for Tankerman- Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
PIC (Barge) Endorsement: 13.301(c) substantive regulatory
and (c)(3); 13.303(a) and (c)(2); text changes.
13.305.
Subpart D--Requirements for Tankerman- Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Assistant Endorsement: 13.401(c), substantive regulatory
(d), and (e). text changes.
13.405(a), (b), and (b)(2)........... Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
substantive regulatory
text changes.
Subpart E--Requirements for Tankerman- Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Engineer Endorsement: 13.501(c) and substantive regulatory
(c)(3); 13.503(a); 13.505(a). text changes.
Part 14--Shipment and Discharge of Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Merchant Mariners, Subpart A-- substantive regulatory
General: 14.205; 14.207(a). text changes.
Subpart C--Discharge of Merchant Removes regulatory text No estimated impact. None.
Mariners: 14.307(a), (b), and (c). in paragraph (a), Removal and
which includes the consolidation of
number of copies of information in current
Form CG-718A and other paragraphs (a), (d),
mariner information. and (e) into proposed
Removes paragraphs (d) paragraphs (a), (b),
and (e) and and (c) is currently
consolidates required on Form CG-
regulatory text 718A.
changes into
paragraphs (b) and (c).
Subpart D--Oceanographic Research Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
Vessels: 14.403(a)(1) and (2); substantive regulatory
14.405(c) and (d). text changes.
Part 16--Chemical Testing, Subpart B-- Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
General: 16.201(c) and (f). substantive regulatory
text changes.
16.210(b); 16.220(a)(1), (3), and Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
(5), and (c); 16.230(b)(1) and (c). substantive regulatory
text changes.
Subpart E--Management Information Editorial; non- No estimated impact.... None.
System: 16.500(b). substantive regulatory
text changes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population
The affected population of this proposed rule are applicants for an
MMC (includes original applications) who pay MMC fees in person at an
REC or outside of an REC through standard mail. Based on historical
data from the NMC, the Coast Guard analyzed information on applicants
who paid mandatory fees electronically through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> over a 7-year
period from 2015 to 2021. Based on payment data from the NMC, one
payment transaction represents one applicant for all transactions. The
Coast Guard did not include 2022 in the dataset because at the time of
the writing of this analysis it was not a complete data year. Under
this assumption, we assumed an applicant makes one trip to an REC and
pays for all transactions at that time instead of taking time to make
multiple trips and paying separately for transactions. For applicants
who paid fees in person at RECs, the Coast Guard used a 5-year data
period from 2015-2019 because after 2019, in-person transactions became
very sporadic at RECs due to COVID-19 pandemic protocols and the data
are not representative of the transactions over this period of time.
The Coast Guard then established two population groups. For Sec.
10.225(c) of this proposed rule, the Coast Guard defined the population
as original applicants who paid mandatory fees by money order, check,
and through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>, which gave us the number of applicants who took
the oath outside of an REC and obtained a notary public service near
where they reside. This is for individuals who applied for an original
MMC only. As an annual average, the NMC recorded approximately 13,951
payment transactions for original applications between 2015 and 2021.
For Sec. 10.219(d) of this proposed rule, the Coast Guard defined
part of the population as applicants who paid the fees by cash or
credit card in person at RECs for original applications, which gave us
an estimated the number of individuals who likely took the oath at
RECs, where it is free of charge.\12\ As an annual average, the NMC
recorded approximately 1,206 in-person payment transactions for
original applications between 2015 and 2019. For all other fees paid by
applicants other than original applicants, the NMC recorded an annual
average of 9,043 in-person payment transactions between 2015 and 2019.
The Coast Guard estimates the total average annual population of
applicants, who paid fees in person at
[[Page 18716]]
an REC during this period, to be approximately 10,249 applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Based on NMC data, most applicants paid fees by cash or
check at RECs; however, a small, unknown number of applicants paid
by check or money order. The Coast Guard does not maintain data on
applicants who paid by check or money order at RECs, which may
result in an underestimation of applicants who paid fees in person
by these two methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2015 and 2021, the Coast Guard also recorded an annual
average of approximately 12,638 payments made by applicants who paid by
check or money order outside of an REC through standard mail.
Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the total average annual
population affected by this proposed rule would be approximately 36,838
(13,951 + 10,249 + 12,638) applicants (see table 3).
Table 3--Affected Population of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected CFR
Affected group section Population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original applicants who paid fees 10.225(c) 13,951.
electronically and took oath
outside of an REC for original
applications (relatively near
place of residence).
All applicants including a subset 10.219(d) 10,249 (9,958 by
of original applicants who paid credit card and 291
fees in person at RECs. by cash; 1,206 from
original applicants
and 9,043 from
other applicants).
All applicants who paid by check 10.219(d) 12,638.
or money order through standard
mail.
-------------------------------------
Total......................... .............. 36,838.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The populations that the Coast Guard presents in this table are
annual averages.
Cost Savings Analysis
Two proposed changes in this rule (in 46 CFR 10.219(d) and
10.225(c)) would result in quantifiable cost savings for MMC
applicants. The other proposed changes would have no quantifiable
economic impact on individuals, companies, or businesses, and would not
result in costs or cost savings to them.
The proposed option in 46 CFR 1.03-15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i)(1) for
electronic submission of certain documents that currently must be
submitted by paper copy (see table 2) would likely have cost savings
associated with it, but we are not able to quantify these savings in
this analysis because the Coast Guard does not have data to show how
many electronic submissions we would receive in the future.
Additionally, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Coast Guard is not
able to accurately determine a future trend of the number of documents
that applicants would choose to submit to the Coast Guard
electronically.
In table 2, we presented a summary of the estimated impacts of the
proposed rule and provided a description of the change for each
affected CFR section. Where the description reads ``Editorial; non-
substantive regulatory text changes,'' we propose to make changes that
include the addition, deletion, consolidation, and clarification of
regulatory text and would not have cost or cost savings associated with
them. These proposed changes include minor grammatical revisions, such
as changes to punctuation and pronoun changes; the clarification of
regulatory text by removal, deletion, or consolidation of terms;
definitional changes; and changes that update Coast Guard website
addresses. This includes changes in Sec. 10.209(d)(2), ``General
Application Procedures,'' where the Coast Guard proposes to remove the
regulatory text governing the submission of certain documents by
applicants. There would be no costs or cost savings to individuals that
would be associated with this proposed change because the Coast Guard
would still retain this requirement in Sec. Sec. 10.227 and 10.231.
For Sec. 1.03-15(h)(2)(i), ``General,'' the Coast Guard proposes
to add the option of electronic submission of an appeal for course
approvals and merchant mariner personnel to the Coast Guard. There are
no quantifiable cost or cost savings associated with this proposed
change because the Coast Guard does not have data on the future use of
electronic submission for appeals. The Coast Guard would still accept
the current paper-copy submission method for appeals.
For Sec. 10.219(i)(1), ``Determination of Eligibility,'' the Coast
Guard proposes to add the option of electronic submission of an
eligibility request to the Coast Guard for the items listed in
10.219(h). There are no quantifiable cost or cost savings associated
with this proposed change because the Coast Guard does not have data on
the future use of electronic submission with this item. The Coast Guard
would still accept the current paper-copy submission method for these
requests.
For Sec. 14.307, ``Entries on certificate of discharge,'' the
information the Coast Guard proposes to remove in current paragraphs
(d) and (e) is currently contained in form CG-718A, ``Certificate of
Discharge to Merchant Mariner;'' therefore, there is no cost or cost
savings associated with this proposed change.\13\ The Coast Guard
proposes to remove, consolidate, and condense the existing regulatory
text into paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section. The proposed
changes to this section do not change the current OMB-approved ICR or
alter its burden estimates because the Coast Guard is not making any
changes to the reporting requirements in form CG-718A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ This form is part of a currently OMB-approved Coast Guard
ICR with a control number of 1625-0012. Readers can access NMC's
website at <a href="https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/">https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/</a> to
view this form and obtain information about the application process.
The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings Analysis for Proposed Changes to Sec. 10.219(d)/
Electronic Payment of Fees
The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec. 10.219(d) to remove the
option for applicants to pay merchant mariner credentialing fees in
person at an REC by cash or credit card (applicants who pay in person
may also pay by check or money order; because the Coast Guard does not
collect data on where these payments were made and based on payment
data from the NMC and subject matter experts who work at the NMC, most
applicants pay by cash or with a credit card in person) since credit
card transactions are processed by individual RECs and cash payments
are not accepted through standard mail. The Coast Guard would instead
require all payments to be made electronically through the Government's
payment system at <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>.\14\ For payments made
[[Page 18717]]
by check outside of an REC, applicants mailed the checks to the Coast
Guard by standard mail. With the proposed rule, the Coast Guard would
still accept payment by check, but applicants would be required to use
a bank ACH payment through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. Applicants who mailed checks to the
Coast Guard would save the postage cost with this proposed rule. The
Coast Guard expects that applicants have access to the requisite
technology to pay credentialing fees through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau's 2021 American Community Survey, approximately 95
percent of American households have one or more electronic devices such
as a desktop or laptop computer, a smartphone, or tablet.\15\ This
included over 90 percent of households that have an internet
subscription that would facilitate access to <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>.\16\ Even if an
applicant or household does not have access to a computer at home or
the internet individually, in this case, the Coast Guard assumes for
the purpose of this analysis, that an applicant may access a
smartphone, cellphone, or computer to submit an application to the
Coast Guard without incurring a cost.\17\ The Coast Guard requests
comments from the public on the requirement for applicants to pay MMC
fees solely using <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>, to register with <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>, and their ability
to access the internet for this purpose. Additionally, with this
proposed rule, we assume that a small population of applicants affected
by part 10.219(d) of this proposed rule, who submit applications at
RECs currently, would choose to continue to visit RECs and would
continue to print receipts as proof of payment. However, the Coast
Guard is not able to determine the number of applicants who would
continue to visit RECs for this purpose. Therefore, there is an
unquantifiable cost of printing the receipts for a small number of
applicants who visit RECs to submit their applications. This would
result in a small, unknown reduction in the total estimated cost
savings of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard requests comments from
the public on the number of applicants who choose to visit RECs with
this proposed rule and their ability to print receipts at home when
they make fee payments using <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> accepts three payment types: credit card, prepaid
card, and ACH payments. The Coast Guard does not collect data on the
usage of prepaid cards for applicants who use <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. The Coast
Guard also did not estimate a cost (and subsequent cost savings) to
obtain these cards in this analysis because applicants can obtain
these cards when they are at grocery stores or other locations
without making a separate trip to specifically obtain the cards. In
this analysis, we assume for the unknown number of applicants who
choose to use a prepaid card to pay fees, already possess the card.
We request comments from the public on the use of prepaid cards with
<a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>.
\15\ U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2021, S2801
Types of Computers and internet Subscriptions: ACS 1-year Estimates
Subject Tables, Types of Computers, <a href="https://data.census.gov/table?q=Computer+and+internet+Use&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S2801">https://data.census.gov/table?q=Computer+and+internet+Use&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S2801</a>.
\16\ U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2021, S2801
Types of Computers and internet Subscriptions: ACS 1-year Estimates
Subject Tables, Types of internet Subscriptions, <a href="https://data.census.gov/table?q=Computer+and+internet+Use&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S2801">https://data.census.gov/table?q=Computer+and+internet+Use&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S2801</a>.
\17\ The Coast Guard acknowledges that there may be a small
portion of applicants in the affected population who may not own a
computer or have access to the internet to submit a MMC payment.
Readers can access these websites for further information on access
to the internet and the ownership of mobile phones in the United
States: <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/">https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/</a> and <a href="https://wwww.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/">https://wwww.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants may visit an REC for many reasons; for example, to take
an examination, to ask questions about the application process, submit
an application, pay the mandatory fees, obtain an oath from an
authorized individual, or for other reasons. This is notable in the
following cost savings analysis, because the Coast Guard does not
include travel cost savings estimates for the affected applicants in
our analysis of the impact of the proposed change to Sec. 10.219(d).
The Coast Guard reasons that, although it is possible for applicants to
visit RECs exclusively to pay MMC fees, the Coast Guard does not retain
data on the number of applicants who do so. In practice, the Coast
Guard assumes applicants do not visit an REC to solely pay the fees.
Therefore, the Coast Guard cannot attribute travel costs to applicants
who pay the mandatory fees in person at an REC. For example, applicants
may visit RECs to ask questions about the application process and may
decide to pay the fees during the same visit. Or applicants may visit
RECs to obtain an oath, not realizing that RECs accept in-person
payment, and may decide to pay the fees during this visit. The Coast
Guard also assumes that applicants pay the mandatory fees at one time.
The proposed requirement for applicants to pay MMC fees
electronically through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> would eliminate the flexibility to pay
these fees by cash, and money order, by standard mail, and directly at
an REC (see footnote number 13). However, with <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>, the Coast Guard
believes applicants would find this payment method to be more
convenient and secure because applicants would be able to pay MMCs fees
from their home instead of traveling to an REC and expending the time
and money by making a payment in person, as we discuss later in this
analysis. The Coast Guard acknowledges that there may be a small subset
of the applicant population that would still prefer to pay MMC fees in
person instead of through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> after an effective final rule. The
Coast Guard requests comments from the public on how the proposed
removal of the payment options (cash and money orders) and in-person
payments at RECs affects applicants who currently use these payment
methods to pay MMC fees.
The Coast Guard collects data for all payment transactions
including transactions for original MMC applications. Between 2015 and
2019, the Coast Guard recorded an annual average of 1,167 credit card
transactions for original applications made in person by applicants at
an REC. It also recorded an average annual of 8,791 credit card
transactions for other fees for a total average annual of 9,958 credit
card transactions over these 5 years. During the same period, the Coast
Guard recorded an average annual of 39 cash payment transactions for
original applications made in person by applicants at an REC. It also
recorded an average annual of 252 cash transactions for other fees for
a total average annual of 291 cash transactions for these 5 years.
Therefore, the total average annual number of transactions made in
person was approximately 10,249 over the 5-year time period.
The NMC estimates it takes applicants approximately 5 minutes, or
0.083 hours (rounded), to complete a payment through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. The NMC
estimates it takes a certain amount of time for applicants to make in-
person application payments at an REC. For applicants who pay by credit
card, the NMC estimates it takes approximately:
<bullet> 8 minutes, or approximately 0.13 hours (rounded), to enter
RECs due to security checks;
<bullet> 3.5 minutes, or approximately 0.06 hours (rounded) to wait
in line for a clerk; and
<bullet> 7.5 minutes, or approximately 0.13 hours (rounded) to make
the payment and complete the transaction, for a total of approximately
0.32 hours.
Therefore, the net amount of time (time difference) applicants
would save by making payments electronically rather than by credit card
in person is approximately 0.237 hours (0.32 - 0.083 hours).
For applicants who pay by cash, the NMC estimates it takes
approximately:
<bullet> 8 minutes, or approximately 0.13 hours (rounded) to enter
RECs due to security checks;
<bullet> 3.5 minutes, or approximately 0.06 hours (rounded) to wait
in line for a clerk; and
<bullet> 6.0 minutes, or approximately 0.10 hours to make the
payment and complete the transaction, for a total of approximately 0.29
hours.
Therefore, the net amount of time applicants would save from making
payments electronically rather than making cash payments in person is
approximately 0.207 hours (0.29 - 0.083 hours).
[[Page 18718]]
The payment time for <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> does not account for the time to
create a personal account on <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. Individual payments may be made
without creating an account. <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> provides the same capabilities to
pay credentialing and other fees and obtain a receipt without creating
an account. For this analysis, the Coast Guard assumes individuals will
not create an account since credentialing fees are typically only paid
once every five years aligning with the validity of a mariner
credential. Using <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> infrequently does not necessitate the need to
create an account. The Coast Guard requests comment on this assumption
and whether <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> users would create an account to pay credentialing
fees.
Anyone meeting the citizenship requirement under 46 CFR 10.221 and
of an eligible age can apply for an MMC, regardless of their current
employment status. For this regulatory analysis, the Coast Guard
assumed applicants for an original MMC are currently employed (this
would be for original applications where an oath is currently
required); this allows the Coast Guard to construct a cost savings
analysis, because we can then obtain applicants' wage rates, the labor
time, and the cost savings associated with the removal of the in-person
payment option.
Additionally, because the Coast Guard does not know the current
occupations of individuals who apply for an original MMC and pay fees
in person at an REC, the Coast Guard used the Bureau of Labor
Statistics' (BLS) ``Occupational and Employment Statistics'' database
and May 2021 wage estimates to obtain the general occupational code
(BLS code 00-0000) for all civilian workers in the U.S., which is the
largest occupational category of workers the Coast Guard found at BLS'
website.\18\ The unloaded mean hourly wage rate for this labor category
is $28.01. The Coast Guard does not collect employment data on
applicants; nevertheless, the Coast Guard acknowledges that the
assumption of employment may lead to an overestimation of cost savings
for the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The BLS defines civilian workers to be ``private industry
workers and State and local government workers.'' This includes
individuals in the private nonfarm economy excluding households and
the public sector excluding the Federal Government. Readers can view
BLS' glossary of terms at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm">https://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm</a>.
Readers can access BLS' website at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes_nat.htm#00-0000">https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes_nat.htm#00-0000</a> to obtain information about the wages used in
this analysis. The Coast Guard accessed BLS' web page in the summer
of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because fees are also paid in person at an REC mostly by applicants
other than original applicants, the Coast Guard used the BLS
occupational category, Water Transportation Workers (BLS code 53-5000)
to obtain the unloaded mean hourly wage rate for all applicants who pay
fees in person at RECs. The unloaded mean hourly wage rate in 2021 for
this occupational category is $38.84.
Because the Coast Guard used different occupational categories,
this required us to use two load factors to obtain an average load
factor.
To obtain a loaded mean hourly wage rate for civilian workers, the
Coast Guard used BLS' ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation''
database to calculate the load factor for this group of workers in the
U.S. The Coast Guard used the same database to obtain a load factor for
the occupational category of Water Transportation Workers. The Coast
Guard then used the average load factor for these two groups of workers
in the U.S. The Coast Guard applied the load factor to the average
unloaded mean hourly wage rate using fourth quarter data from 2021 for
all applicants. The Coast Guard determined the average load factor for
the two occupational categories to be about 1.47, rounded.\19\ The
Coast Guard then multiplied this average load factor by the unloaded
mean hourly wage rate for applicants, who pay fees in person at RECs,
and obtained a loaded mean hourly wage rate of approximately $57.09,
rounded ($38.84 x 1.47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ A loaded mean hourly wage rate is what a company pays per
hour to employ a person, not the hourly wage an employee receives.
The loaded mean hourly wage rate includes the cost of non-wage
benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). The Coast Guard
calculated the load factor by accessing BLS' website at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/">https://www.bls.gov/</a> and selecting the topic ``Subjects'' from the menu on
this web page. From the categories listed on this page, under the
category titled ``Data Tools,'' the Coast Guard selected the
category ``Top Picks, One Screen, Multi-Screen, and Maps.'' On the
next page titled, ``Databases, Tables, and Calculators by Subject,''
the Coast Guard selected used the category ``Pay and Benefits''.
Under the category, ''Employer Costs for Employee Compensation'', we
selected the ''Multi-Screen'' feature. This took us to <a href="https://www.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cm">https://www.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cm</a>. At this page, titled, ``Create
Customized Tables'', or screen 1, the Coast Guard then selected the
category of ``Civilian Workers''. At screen 2, the Coast Guard first
selected the category ``Total Compensation,'' then we continued to
select ``All Workers'' at screens 3, 4, and 5. At screen 6, for
``Area'' the Coast Guard selected ``United States.'' At screen 7,
the Coast Guard selected the category ``Cost of Compensation.'' At
screen 8, the Coast Guard selected the category ``not seasonally
adjusted.'' At screen 9, the Coast Guard selected the series ID,
CMU1010000000000D. The Coast Guard used the ``Cost of Compensation''
for quarter 4 of 2021, or $40.35. The Coast Guard performed this
process again to obtain the value for ``Wages and Salaries,'' which
we selected on screen 2. On screen 9, the Coast Guard selected the
series ID CMU1020000000000D and obtained a value of $27.83. The
Coast Guard divided $40.35 by $27.83 and obtained a load factor of
1.45, rounded. The Coast Guard used the same methodology to obtain
the load factor for the 5 occupational categories for applicants
other than original applicants. However, instead of using the
category of ``Civilian Workers'', the Coast Guard selected ``Private
Industry Workers'' at screen 1, ``Transportation and Material Moving
Occupations'' at screen 3, ``All Workers'' at screens 4 and 5,
``United States'' at screen 6, ``Cost of Compensation'' at screen 7,
``not seasonally adjusted'' at screen 8, and the series ID at screen
9, CMU 2010000520000D. The Coast Guard again used the ``Cost of
Compensation'' for quarter 4 of 2021, or $33.57. The Coast Guard
then selected ``Wages and Salaries,'' at screen 2. On screen 9, the
Coast Guard selected the series ID CMU2020000520000D and obtained a
value of $22.75. The Coast Guard divided $33.57 by $22.75 and
obtained a load factor of 1.48, rounded. The Coast Guard then used
the average of these two load factors, which is 1.47, rounded. The
Coast Guard accessed this BLS' website in June 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants (including original applicants) who currently pay the
fees by credit card at an REC would be required to pay them
electronically using <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> under this proposed rule. This would
affect approximately 9,958 applicants annually. The Coast Guard
estimates the undiscounted cost for these applicants to be
approximately $47,186 annually (9,958 x $57.09 x 0.083 hours). The
Coast Guard estimates the undiscounted baseline cost for applicants who
currently pay the fees by credit card in person at an REC to be
approximately $181,921 annually (9,958 x $57.09 x 0.32 hours), rounded.
Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the undiscounted net cost savings
to applicants who currently pay the fees in-person by credit card and
would be required to pay them electronically through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> to be
approximately $134,735 annually ($181,921 - $47,186), rounded.
Similarly, applicants (including original applicants) who currently
pay the mandatory fees by cash at an REC would be required to pay them
electronically using <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> under this proposed rule. This would
affect approximately 291 applicants annually. The Coast Guard estimates
the undiscounted cost for these applicants to be approximately $1,379
annually (291 x $57.09 x 0.083 hours). The Coast Guard estimates the
undiscounted baseline cost for applicants who currently pay the fees by
cash in person at an REC to be approximately $4,818 annually (291 x
$57.09 x 0.29 hours), rounded. Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the
undiscounted net cost savings to applicants who currently pay the fees
by cash and would need to pay them electronically through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> to be
approximately $3,439 annually ($4,818 - $1,379), rounded. The Coast
Guard estimates the total undiscounted net cost savings to 10,249
(9,958 by credit card + 291 by cash) applicants who currently pay the
mandatory fees in-person by credit card and cash and
[[Page 18719]]
would need to pay them electronically through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> to be
approximately $138,174 annually ($134,735 by credit card + $3,439 by
cash), rounded. See table 4.
Table 4--Summary of Undiscounted Cost Savings for Applicants Who
Currently Pay in Person at an REC and Would Use <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> With Proposed
Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit card
Item users Cash users
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current In-Person Transactions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loaded Wage Rate........................ $57.09 $57.09
Population.............................. 9,958 291
Time Estimate........................... 0.32 0.29
Cost Estimate........................... 181,921 4,818
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If In-Person Transactions Made Through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage Rate............................... 57.09 57.09
Population.............................. 9,958 291
Time Estimate........................... 0.083 0.083
Cost Estimate........................... 43,805 1,280
-------------------------------
Net Cost Savings.................... 134,735 3,438
-------------------------------
Total Cost Annual Savings....... $138,174
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Lastly, the proposed rule would create cost savings for applicants,
other than original applicants, who paid mandatory fees by check or
money order in the past and mailed the payment to the Coast Guard
through standard mail, or USPS. Over the 7-year period from 2015 to
2021, the Coast Guard recorded an annual average of 12,638 payments
(10,146 by check and 2,492 by money order) where an applicant used a
check or money order. Because this regulatory analysis is in 2021
dollars, the cost of a forever stamp from the USPS in 2021 was
$0.55.\20\ With this proposed rule, applicants would still be able to
use a check or money order to make mandatory fee payments with <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>;
however, payments made by check must be made with an ACH payment and
for money orders, a prepaid card (see footnote number 15). The Coast
Guard did not estimate cost savings for applicants who currently mail
checks or money orders to the Coast Guard and would be required to use
<a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> because we do not estimate that there would be a time
difference between these two payment methods and <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. The total
undiscounted cost for these payment types is approximately $6,951
annually, rounded. The proposed rule would create cost savings in the
same amount annually. The Coast Guard estimates the total 10-year
discounted cost savings for applicants who would no longer be able to
mail a check or money order (cost savings would be from the cost of a
forever stamp) to pay for mandatory fees would be approximately
$48,820, rounded, using a 7 percent discount rate. The Coast Guard
estimates the annualized cost savings would be approximately $6,951,
rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Readers can access USPS' website at <a href="https://www.usps.com">https://www.usps.com</a> to
find past postal rates or search online for USPS' ``Postal News''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In table 5, the Coast Guard presents the 10-year discounted cost
savings to applicants who currently paid the fees in person and would
be required to pay them electronically under this proposed rule and
applicants who paid the fees by check or money order and sent their
payments by standard mail to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard estimates
the total undiscounted cost savings for the electronic payment of fees
by applicants would be approximately $145,125 annually, rounded
($138,174 from in-person payments + $6,951 from mailed checks and money
orders). The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted 10-year cost
savings for these applicants would be approximately $1.0 million,
rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the
annualized cost savings would be approximately $145,125, rounded, using
a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 5--Estimated Cost Savings of Proposed Rule to Applicants Who Would Use <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> (2021 Dollars, 10-Year
Period of Analysis, 7- and 3-Percent Discount Rates)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net cost
savings from Cost savings Total cost
Year cash and from check and savings to use 7 Percent 3 Percent
credit card money order <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>
payments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... $138,174 $6,951 $145,125 $135,631 $140,898
2............................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 126,758 136,794
3............................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 118,465 132,810
4............................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 110,715 128,942
5............................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 103,472 125,186
[[Page 18720]]
6............................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 96,703 121,540
7............................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 90,376 118,000
8............................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 84,464 114,563
9............................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 78,938 111,226
10.............................. 138,174 6,951 145,125 73,774 107,987
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. 1,019,296 1,237,944
Annualized.................. .............. .............. .............. 145,125 145,125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Federal Government Cost Savings for Proposed Change to Sec. 10.219(d)
This proposed rule would create cost savings for the Coast Guard in
the amount of time that would be saved by REC personnel who would no
longer process in-person payment transactions. The NMC estimates it
takes fee clerks at an REC approximately 5 minutes, or 0.083 hours
(rounded), to process credit card payments. Similarly, the NMC
estimates it takes mandatory fee clerks approximately 25 minutes, or
0.42 hours (rounded), to process cash payments. This includes the
processing time the fee clerk takes to go to a bank and obtain a money
order in order to complete the payment transaction. There is no
difference in the time it takes for a fee clerk at an REC to process a
check mailed to the Coast Guard and the time it would take with this
proposed rule to process an ACH payment. There is also no difference in
the time it takes for a fee clerk to process a money mailed to the
Coast Guard and the time it would take with this proposed rule to
process a prepaid card used from a money order. Therefore, the Coast
Guard does not estimate cost savings for the Federal Government from
not processing checks and money orders mailed to the Coast Guard by
applicants.
A fee clerk at an REC has a Federal Government General Schedule
(GS) grade level of GS-5. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
lists the hourly pay for Federal Government employees who work in the
United States.\21\ Because RECs are geographically dispersed across the
U.S., the Coast Guard used the hourly wage rate for the category ``Rest
of the United States'' from OPM's pay tables. OPM reports the hourly
pay for a person with the grade level of a GS-5, step 5 (the midpoint
of the pay grade) as $19.15 in 2021. The Coast Guard calculated the
share of total compensation of Federal Government employees to account
for the non-wage benefits to determine the load factor that the Coast
Guard applied to the hourly wage rate of employees. In a Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) report titled ``Comparing the Compensation of
Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015,'' the CBO reports
total compensation of Federal Government employees to be approximately
$64.80, and wages and salaries to be approximately $38.30.\22\ From
these values, the Coast Guard determined the load factor to be about
1.69, rounded ($64.80 / $38.30). The Coast Guard then multiplied this
value by the hourly wage rate of $19.15 to obtain a loaded hourly wage
rate of $32.36, rounded, for a GS-5, step 5 fee clerk at an REC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Readers can view the General Schedule of salaries for
Federal Government employees at <a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/21Tables/html/RUS_h.aspx">https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/21Tables/html/RUS_h.aspx</a>. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the fall of
2022.
\22\ Readers can view the report at, <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf">https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf</a>.
The Coast Guard accessed this report in the fall of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard estimates the baseline undiscounted cost for REC
fee clerks to process credit card transactions to be approximately
$26,749 annually, rounded ($32.36 x 9,958 credit card transactions
annually x 0.083 hours). The Coast Guard estimates the baseline
undiscounted cost for REC payment clerks to process cash transactions
to be approximately $3,955 annually, rounded ($32.36 x 291 cash
transactions annually x 0.42 hours). RECs would no longer accept in-
person payments with this proposed rule, these costs combined would
become cost savings to the Coast Guard of approximately $30,704
annually, rounded ($26,749 + $3,955). See table 6.
Table 6--Summary of Estimated Annual Undiscounted Cost Savings to the Coast Guard From Proposed Change to Sec.
10.219(d)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of
Applicants' payment type time saved Wage rate Cost savings
(hours) estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Card Payment............................................. 0.083 $32.36 $26,749
Cash Payment.................................................... 0.42 32.36 3,955
-----------------------------------------------
Total Annual Cost Savings................................... .............. .............. 30,704
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In table 7, the Coast Guard estimates the total discounted 10-year
cost savings of this proposed rule to the Coast Guard to be
approximately $215,655, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The
Coast Guard estimates the annualized
[[Page 18721]]
cost savings to be approximately $30,704, rounded, using a 7-percent
discount rate.
Table 7--Estimated Cost Savings to the Coast Guard From Proposed Change to Sec. 10.219(d) (2021 Dollars, 10-
Year Period of Analysis, 7- and 3-Percent Discount Rates)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Cost savings 7 Percent 3 Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... $30,704 $28,696 $29,810
2............................................................... 30,704 26,818 28,942
3............................................................... 30,704 25,064 28,099
4............................................................... 30,704 23,424 27,280
5............................................................... 30,704 21,892 26,486
6............................................................... 30,704 20,460 25,714
7............................................................... 30,704 19,121 24,965
8............................................................... 30,704 17,870 24,238
9............................................................... 30,704 16,701 23,532
10.............................................................. 30,704 15,609 22,847
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. 215,655 261,914
Annualized.................................................. .............. 30,704 30,704
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Cost Savings Analysis for Proposed Change to Sec. 10.225(c), Removal
of the Oath Requirement
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the current requirement in Sec.
10.225(c) for applicants for an original MMC to take an oath
administered by any Coast Guard-designated individual or any person
legally permitted to administer oaths in the jurisdiction where the
person taking the oath resides. Typically, if an oath is not
administered by a designated Coast Guard official, it is administered
by a notary public.\23\ When an individual applies for an MMC, the
individual must complete Form CG-719B. They must either submit this
form by email, in person, or send it by standard mail to an REC.\24\
Currently, if applicants use a notary public to administer their oath,
the notary must sign the form along with the applicant. The signature
of the applicant is a testament to the validity and accuracy of the
information the individual is providing to the Coast Guard and is an
attestation to the statements in Section 4, ``Mariner's Consent/
Certification,'' of the form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ An oath an original applicant must take is a pronouncement
that an original applicant will abide by the rules and regulations
aboard a vessel, faithfully execute his or her duties, and obey the
superior officers of the vessel.
\24\ This form is part of a currently-approved OMB ICR with a
control number 1625-0040 and a title of ``Applications for Merchant
Mariners Credentials and Medical Certificates.'' Readers can access
NMC's website at <a href="https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/">https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/</a>
to view this form and obtain information about the application
process. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this proposed rule, original applicants would no longer need
the signature of the notary public on Form CG-719B. This would not
change the current OMB-approved ICR (OMB control number 1625-0040) or
alter its burden estimates, because the signature of the notary public
on the form is a burden that amounts to a few seconds of time. With the
proposed rule, an applicant's signature alone would be sufficient for
Form CG-719B.
Currently, applicants for an original MMC who submit their
application in person at an REC can also take the oath there. There is
no cost to original applicants who take the oath before a designated
official at an REC and therefore, no cost savings. However, original
applicants, who do not visit an REC to submit their application, would
need to seek the service of a notary public elsewhere.
Original applicants can obtain notary public service at a bank or
another location where there are notary public services. The Coast
Guard assumes there is no cost for a notary public service at a bank if
an individual has a bank account there. Other establishments that
provide legal services may also provide notary public services, in
addition to State and local Government offices, including shipping
companies.\25\ However, these offices and establishments usually charge
for the public notary service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The Coast Guard acknowledges that Credit Unions, similar to
banks in the U.S., may also offer notary public services, free of
charge, for its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, as mentioned previously in this RA, the Coast Guard
presents two assumptions that will each generate different cost savings
estimates for the proposed change to Sec. 10.225(c). With each
assumption, the Coast Guard assumes all applicants who apply for an
original MMC are currently employed:
<bullet> Assumption 1--Approximately 13,951 individuals who applied
for an original MMC and took an oath before a designated official who
administers the oath, or a notary public at a bank where they have an
account free of charge. Assumption 2--Half the individuals, or
approximately 6,976, who applied for an original MMC took an oath along
with a notary public service at a bank, and half obtained an oath
elsewhere (perhaps at a state office or an establishment that provides
legal services including notary public services), where a cost would be
associated with the notary public service.
Earlier in this analysis, the Coast Guard established that one
payment transaction represents one original application with one oath.
Presumably, original applicants seek a notary public service at a bank,
where it is free of charge; this is our basis for Assumption 1.
However, because the Coast Guard does not have data on where original
applicants obtained an oath along with a notary public service, it is
possible that a certain number of original applicants obtained an oath
along with a notary public service outside of a bank; this is our basis
for Assumption 2. As such, the Coast Guard divided the population
evenly in Assumption 2.
With the Coast Guard's assumption that original applicants who
apply for MMCs are employed, this allows us to estimate the cost
savings associated with the proposed change to Sec. 10.225(c) as we
did for the proposed change to Sec. 10.219(d). Because original
applicants who apply for MMCs are members of the general public and not
yet mariners, the Coast Guard does not collect data on where these
original applicants reside. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not
[[Page 18722]]
know where original applicants reside relative to the location of banks
or bank branches, or other establishments that offer notary public
services. This required the Coast Guard to estimate the approximate
distance original applicants would need to travel to get to a bank for
Assumption 1, so the Coast Guard then would be able to estimate the
cost savings for them, because they no longer would need to travel to a
bank to obtain a notary public service. To perform this analysis, the
Coast Guard required several pieces of information to determine the
distance original applicants must travel to a bank or bank branch (and
a notary public service in Assumption 2):
1. The number of bank branches in the United States;
2. The total U.S. population and the U.S. adult population; and
3. The number of square miles of the United States.
The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank compiles and reports U.S.
economic data (Federal Reserve Economic Data, or ``FRED''). One of the
data items it reports is the number of bank branches in the United
States. FRED shows that there are 30.46 bank branches per 100,000
adults in the United States.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Readers can access the St. Louis Federal Reserve's ``FRED''
website at <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/#">https://fred.stlouisfed.org/#</a>. At this page, readers
should use the search feature and type the words ``bank branches''
in the search field. The resulting web page will show a graph of the
data and the value that the Coast Guard used for this analysis. The
Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022. With the
acknowledgement that Credit Unions also offer notary public services
(see footnote number 15), the Coast Guard did not include them in
this analysis because the National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA) reports the total number of Federally-insured Credit Unions
in its ``Quarterly Credit Union Data Summary 2002 Q2'' in the United
States (4,853 as of June 30, 2022) and not per a certain population
or certain group of individuals as FRED reports it. Therefore, the
Coast Guard cannot simply add the NCUA's number to FRED's number
because we would be combining incongruent data. Readers can view
this report at <a href="https://www.ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/quarterly-data-summary-2022-Q2.pdf">https://www.ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/quarterly-data-summary-2022-Q2.pdf</a>. The Coast Guard accessed this
website in the summer of 2022. Readers should also note that the
number of bank branches has been in decline since 2000. See the
first link to the report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland in
footnote number 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Census Bureau in the U.S. Department of Commerce reports
population data for the United States. As of July 1, 2021, the U.S.
Census Bureau reports the U.S. population to be 331,893,745.\27\ The
U.S. Census Bureau reports the number of individuals below the age of
18 to be 22.2 percent of the total U.S. population.\28\ Therefore, the
number of adults in the United States (individuals who are 18 years of
age or older) is approximately 258,213,334, rounded ((1-0.222) x
331,893,745). The Coast Guard divided this population by 100,000 to
normalize the value to 100,000 (so it can be scaled to and combined
with FRED's data) and obtained the value of approximately 2,582
(rounded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ For more information U.S. census statistics, readers can
access the U.S. Census Bureau's website at <a href="https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221">https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221</a>. The Coast Guard accessed this
web page in the summer of 2022.
\28\ ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the number of bank branches for every adult in the
U.S., the Coast Guard multiplied 30.46 (number of bank branches) by
2,582 to obtain approximately 78,648 (rounded) bank branches.
Finally, as of 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau's Quick Facts shows the
number of square miles in the United States to be 3,533,038,
rounded.\29\ The Coast Guard then divided this value by 78,648 bank
branches to obtain the number of bank branches per square mile in the
United States, or approximately one bank branch for every 45 square
miles, or an area of 6.7 by 6.7 miles. This is equivalent to
approximately one bank branch every 6.7 miles.\30\ The Coast Guard
acknowledges that this methodology may not be completely representative
of the geographic distribution of bank branches in the United States
(the distribution of bank branches may change in the future considering
the steady decline in its numbers, particularly since 2010); the
distance we estimated is an approximation based on the known statistics
we present in this analysis from different sources. The Coast Guard
requests comments from the public on this methodology. Table 8 outlines
the inputs used in these calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ibid.
\30\ The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland reports the average
distance to a bank branch in urban and rural areas of the United
States to be about 1.5 miles and 4.3 miles, respectively, in 2020
(an average of about 2.9 miles combined), which is significantly
less than the distance we calculated in this analysis. Readers can
view the Cleveland Federal Reserve's report at this link, ``Has Bank
Consolidation Changed People's Access to a Full-Service Bank
Branch?'' (<a href="http://clevelandfed.org">clevelandfed.org</a>). In a working paper by the Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago, it reports the median distance traveled to
a bank branch to be 5 miles on page 16 of the paper. Readers can
view this paper at <a href="https://www.chicagofed.org/-/media/publications/working-papers/2023/wp2023-15.pdf?sc_lang=en">https://www.chicagofed.org/-/media/publications/working-papers/2023/wp2023-15.pdf?sc_lang=en</a>. The Coast Guard
accessed these links in July 2023.
Table 8--Summary of Inputs for the Proposed Change to Sec. 10.225(c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of bank branches in the United 30.46 (per 100,000 adults).
States.
U.S. population........................... 331,893,745.
U.S. adult population (18 or older)....... 258,213,334.
Number of square miles in the United 3,533,038.
States (land area).
Number of bank branches in the United 78,648.
States.
Number of square miles per bank branch 45.
(and notary public service).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this analysis, the Coast Guard assumed that 13,951 original
applicants would travel the same distance of 6.7 miles to obtain a
notary public service at a bank or bank branch. Using these data and
assumptions, it is possible to construct a cost savings analysis based
on the original applicants' travel time to a bank branch to obtain the
service of a notary public.
The population of original applicants applying for an MMC who seek
notary public services outside of an REC is approximately 13,951
annually (see Table 3). The Coast Guard does not collect data on how
original applicants travel to a bank or a notary public service and
acknowledges that original applicants can choose among different modes
of transportation, including walking or taking public transportation,
to do so. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the Coast Guard
assumed original applicants use their personal vehicles to accomplish
this task, which allows the Coast Guard to estimate the travel cost for
original applicants.
To construct this analysis for Assumptions 1 and 2, the Coast Guard
assumed that 13,951 original applicants would travel approximately 6.7
miles one way or about 13.4 miles round-trip to an establishment that
has a notary public service. See table 9.
Table 9--Summary of Travel Distance for Original Applicants Who Obtain
the Service of a Notary Public at a Location Other Than an REC (e.g., a
Bank)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Distance
Number of original applicants traveled one traveled round
way (miles) trip (miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13,951................................ 6.7 13.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard shows the cost-saving elements for Assumption 1 and
2 in table 10. The Coast Guard estimated
[[Page 18723]]
that the 13,951 original applicants affected by the proposed change to
Sec. 10.225(c) would save the travel time or labor cost for travel
(the value of travel time savings or VTTS), the mileage cost, and the
cost of time waiting at a bank or a notary public service.\31\ The
Coast Guard included these cost savings in both Assumption 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The Department of Transportation (DOT) has guidance on VTTS
for individuals who use different modes of travel in the United
States. The VTTS is divided into two categories, local and intercity
travel. See table 1 on page 13 of the memorandum. Within these two
categories, there are two subcategories, personal and business
travel, in the first column of the table. Based on SME input from
the NMC, applicants would most likely obtain an oath on their
personal time. Therefore, we used the category, local personal
travel. In the second column of the table, the Coast Guard used the
category ``surface modes (except high-speed rail)''. Therefore, we
used the value of 50 percent of the mean hourly wage rate for the
VTTS. Readers can access DOT's memorandum at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-valuation-travel-time-economic">https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-valuation-travel-time-economic</a>. At this link,
to access the memorandum, readers should select the pdf document
titled, ``2016 Revised Value of Travel Time Guidance.pdf''. The
Coast Guard accessed this link in July 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Assumption 2, half of these original applicants, or about
6,976, would also save the cost of the time it takes to complete a
payment transaction, either by credit card or by cash, at a notary
public service. The Coast Guard assumed half of these original
applicants currently pay by credit card and half by cash, for about
3,488 original applicants choosing each payment method.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that there is a greater concentration
of banks and establishments with notary public services in urban and
metropolitan areas of the United States. Additionally, considering that
the population density of urban areas is greater than in rural areas,
it is likely that the population of original applicants is higher in
urban areas than in rural areas of the United States. Therefore, it is
likely that a greater proportion of original applicants who apply for
MMCs reside in urban and metropolitan areas and may travel shorter
distances to reach these places, which would result in lower cost
savings than the Coast Guard estimated in this analysis. Nevertheless,
this analysis represents an analysis of averages because the Coast
Guard does not know where original applicants who apply for MMCs
reside. The Coast Guard acknowledges that bank branches (and notary
public services) are not equally distributed in the United States; the
travel distance of 6.7 miles we estimated in this analysis is an
approximate distance to a bank branch or notary public service; the
travel distance may vary for some applicants who reside in suburban and
rural areas of the United States.
Table 10--Applicable Cost-Saving Elements for Assumptions 1 and 2 for
the Proposed Change to Sec. 10.225(c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.225(c) Sec. 10.225(c)
Cost savings element Assumption 1 Assumption 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel time..................... Yes............... Yes.
Mileage cost savings............ Yes............... Yes.
Waiting time at bank branch..... Yes............... Yes.
Waiting time at notary public No................ Yes.
service.
Time for payment transaction at No................ Yes.
notary public service.
Cost of notary public service... No................ Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the two main assumptions for the proposed change to
Sec. 10.225(c) that the Coast Guard presented earlier, we present a
summary of the other assumptions (some of which we may have presented
earlier in the analysis), that we included in the analysis for
Assumptions 1 and 2:
1. Original applicants for an MMC are currently employed in another
occupation;
2. Affected original applicants live approximately 6.7 miles from a
bank branch or notary public;
3. Affected original applicants travel an equal distance of 6.7
miles to a bank branch or a notary public service;
4. The wait times and payment transaction times at bank branches
and notary public are the same as wait times at an REC; and
5. Original applicants use their privately-owned vehicle to travel
to a bank branch or a notary public service.
Cost Savings Analysis for Assumption 1 for the Proposed Change to Sec.
10.225(c)
With Assumption 1, the Coast Guard assumed 13,951 original
applicants currently obtain a notary public service for the purpose of
the oath at a bank, where there is no charge for the service if
original applicants have an account at the bank. Because the Coast
Guard does not know where original applicants live in proximity to the
location of bank branches, the Coast Guard assumed all 13,951 original
applicants travel about 6.7 miles one-way or about 13.4 miles round-
trip to a bank branch. Under this assumption, 13,951 original
applicants would save the labor travel time or VTTS, the mileage cost,
and the time waiting at a bank branch to obtain a notary public
signature on Form CG-719B under this proposed rule.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ For this analysis, the Coast Guard did not account for the
time it would take an applicant to park at a bank branch or notary
public service. The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on
whether we should account for this time in the regulatory analysis,
in addition to the travel time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To obtain the time it takes to travel this distance, the Coast
Guard first accessed the Department of Transportation's (DOT) website
to access the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)
web page to obtain the mean road speeds on all roads.\33\ The 2015
report shows the free-flow speed estimates (mph) for three road
classes: limited access, major arterial, and minor arterial roads/
collector roads. The Coast Guard used the mean speed for the minor
arterial/collector road class, which may be more representative of
roads used by applicants. NHTSA estimates the mean speed for minor
arterial/collector roads to be about 49.73 miles per hour (mph).\34\
The Coast Guard then divided the distance of about 6.7 miles (one way)
by 49.73 mph to obtain the time it takes to travel this distance, or
approximately 0.13 hours, rounded. The Coast Guard then divided the
round-trip distance of about 13.4 miles by 49.73 mph to obtain the time
it takes to travel this distance, or approximately 0.27 hours, rounded.
The Coast Guard recognizes that an unknown portion of applicants, who
live in urban areas, may travel at lower speeds than applicants in
suburban and rural areas of the United States to get to a bank branch
or notary public service. As a result, travel speeds may be lower than
the 49.73 mph speed we estimated in this regulatory analysis. The Coast
Guard requests comments
[[Page 18724]]
from the public on the travel speed, the roads, and travel distance we
used in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ At DOT's homepage, under the heading ``Explore DOT,'' the
Coast Guard selected the topic ``Roadways and Bridges.'' At this
page, under the heading ``Other Associated Agencies,'' the Coast
Guard selected the NHTSA link. There is no direct link, so in the
search feature, the Coast Guard typed the words ``traffic survey.''
The Coast Guard then selected the link titled ``National Traffic
Speeds Survey III: 2015 Traffic Tech.'' One result will appear, or a
pdf version of the report that the Coast Guard used in this
analysis. Readers can access the report at, <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/traffic_tech/812489_tt-national-traffic-speeds-survey-iii-2015.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/traffic_tech/812489_tt-national-traffic-speeds-survey-iii-2015.pdf</a>. The Coast Guard accessed this web page
in the summer of 2022.
\34\ Readers should view the classification of roadways by DOT's
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to understand the types of
roadways used in DOT's survey found in footnote number 34. The 2013
document describes the classification of roadways by the FHWA and is
titled, ``Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and
Procedures'', which readers can find at <a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications/fcauab.pdf">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications/fcauab.pdf</a>. The Coast Guard
accessed this link in July 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this information, the Coast Guard then calculated the labor
cost for all original applicants who currently expend the time to
travel this distance to obtain a notary public service. Earlier, the
Coast Guard established the loaded mean hourly wage rate for original
applicants who apply for an MMCs to be approximately $40.61 (recall
that this labor rate is for original applicants who need to take an
oath; it is different than the labor rate for the mandatory fee portion
of this analysis). Using the value of 50 percent for the VTTS for
personal time (see footnote number 32), the Coast Guard calculated the
labor cost for the time to travel the 13.4-mile round-trip distance for
one original applicant to be approximately $5.48 ($40.61 x 0.50 x 0.27
hours). Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted
labor travel time cost or VTTS, for 13,951 original applicants would be
approximately $76,452 annually, rounded (13,951 original applicants x
$5.48). Next, the Coast Guard calculated the mileage cost for these
original applicants to travel the round-trip distance. The Coast Guard
used the General Services Administration's (GSA) reimbursement rates
for original applicants who use their privately-owned vehicles.\35\ The
GSA reports the rate per mile to be $0.585. Using the round-trip
distance of 13.4 miles, the Coast Guard estimates the cost for one
individual to make this trip to be approximately $7.84, rounded (13.4
miles x $0.585). The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted
travel or mileage cost for 13,951 original applicants would be
approximately $109,376 annually, rounded (13,951 original applicants x
$7.84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ At GSA's home web page, the Coast Guard used the menu
feature and selected the category titled, ``Travel.'' At this page,
the Coast Guard selected the topic titled ``POV Mileage.'' The next
page shows the results for ``Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) Mileage
Reimbursement Rates.'' The Coast Guard used the category ``If use of
privately owned automobile is authorized or no Government-furnished
automobile is available.'' Readers can access this information at
<a href="https://www.gsa.gov/travel-resources">https://www.gsa.gov/travel-resources</a>. The Coast Guard accessed this
web page in the summer of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the Coast Guard calculated the waiting time at a bank
branch for 13,951 original applicants to obtain a notary public
signature on Form CG-719B. Because the Coast Guard assumed that waiting
times at RECs would be similar to waiting times at bank branches, we
used the same waiting time that we used for original applicants who
wait to pay the fees at an REC, or approximately 3.5 minutes (readers
should refer to the earlier discussion of this estimate), or 0.06
hours, rounded. The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost
for 13,951 original applicants who currently wait at bank branches for
a notary public service to be approximately $33,993 annually, rounded
(13,951 x $40.61 x 0.06 hours).
The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost for 13,951
original applicants affected by the proposed changes to Sec. 10.225(c)
and who currently travel to bank branches to obtain a free notary
public service to be approximately $219,820 annually, rounded ($76,452
+ $109,376 + $33,993). This estimate is for Assumption 1 of the
analysis. Therefore, in this proposed rule, the Coast Guard estimates
the total undiscounted cost savings to these original applicants, who
would no longer need to obtain notary public service at bank branches,
would be approximately $219,820 annually, rounded. See table 11.
Table 11--Summary of Undiscounted Cost-Saving Elements for Assumption 1
for the Proposed Change to Sec. 10.225(c), 2021 Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings Population
Cost savings element estimate affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor Travel Time Cost Savings (VTTS)... $76,452 13,951
Mileage................................. 109,376 13,951
Waiting Time at Bank Branch............. 33,993 13,951
-------------------------------
Total Annual Cost Savings........... 219,820 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Readers should not add together the populations in the third
column. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted cost savings, under
Assumption 1, over a 10-year period of analysis would be approximately
$1.5 million, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard
estimates the annualized cost savings would be approximately $219,820,
rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. See table 12.
Table 12--Summary of Discounted Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule Under Assumption 1 for Sec. 10.225(c) Only
[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiting time Total cost
Year VTTS Mileage at bank branch savings 7 Percent 3 Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... $76,452 $109,376 $33,993 $219,820 $205,440 $213,418
2....................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 192,000 207,202
3....................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 179,439 201,167
4....................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 167,700 195,308
5....................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 156,729 189,619
6....................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 146,476 184,097
7....................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 136,893 178,734
8....................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 127,937 173,528
9....................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 119,568 168,474
10...................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 111,746 163,567
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18725]]
Total............................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1,543,926 1,875,112
Annualized.......................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 219,820 219,820
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Cost Savings Analysis for Assumption 2 for the Proposed Change to Sec.
10.225(c)
Because the Coast Guard does not collect data on where original
applicants obtain a notary public service, with Assumption 2, the Coast
Guard assumed half of the original applicants who currently apply for
an MMC obtain a notary public service at a bank branch free of charge
and half at a notary public, where there is a fee for the service. The
half of the affected population who currently obtain a notary public
service at a location other than a bank branch under this assumption
consists of approximately 6,976 original applicants. As in Assumption
1, 13,951 original applicants travel the same distance of about 6.7
miles one-way or about 13.4 miles round-trip to a bank branch or a
notary public service. For the time and the associated labor cost, it
does not make a difference if these original applicants travel to a
notary public service rather than a bank branch; they still incur the
same labor cost for the travel time as in Assumption 1. The Coast Guard
estimated earlier this total undiscounted labor cost, or labor travel
time cost (VTTS), for 13,951 original applicants to be approximately
$65,151 annually, rounded.
Similarly, these original applicants incur a mileage cost. As in
Assumption 1, it does not make a difference if they travel to a notary
public service rather than a bank branch; they still incur a mileage
cost. The Coast Guard estimated earlier the total undiscounted travel
or mileage cost, for 13,951 original applicants, to be approximately
$109,376 annually, rounded.
Again, as in Assumption 1, 13,951 original applicants incur the
cost to wait at a bank branch or a notary public service. The Coast
Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost for 13,951 original
applicants who currently wait at bank branches or at a notary public
service to be approximately $33,993 annually, rounded.
With Assumption 2, the Coast Guard added the cost for half of the
original applicants, or about 6,976, who pay for the notary public
service outside of a bank branch. Similar to the payment of mandatory
fees presented earlier, the Coast Guard assumed original applicants pay
for a notary public with either a credit card or cash. For this
analysis, the Coast Guard assumed half of the original applicants who
currently pay for a notary public pay by credit card and half by cash.
For the approximately 3,488 original applicants who currently pay by
credit card, the Coast Guard used the same time estimate for this
method of payment as we did for the payment of fees earlier, or
approximately 0.13 hours (7.5 minutes each). The Coast Guard estimated
the total undiscounted cost for these original applicants who currently
pay by credit card would be approximately $18,414 annually, rounded
(3,488 x $40.61 x 0.13).
The Coast Guard estimated the time for original applicants who
currently pay by cash to be approximately 0.10 hours (6.0 minutes
each). For the approximately 3,488 original applicants who currently
pay by cash, the Coast Guard estimated the total undiscounted cost
would be approximately $14,165 annually, rounded (3,488 x $40.61 x
0.10).
The last of the five cost elements for Assumption 2 (which would
become cost-saving elements with this proposed rule) is the cost for
the notary public service itself. The Coast Guard obtained the cost for
notary public services in the U.S. from the organization National
Notary (<a href="http://NationalNotary.org">NationalNotary.org</a>). Readers should refer to footnote 11 for
more information. This organization provides cost data for 2022 for
notary public services throughout the United States, including
Washington, DC and U.S. territories.
The Coast Guard included fees from all 50 states and Washington, DC
in this analysis.\36\ Because the organization provides a fee schedule
for verbal oaths, the Coast Guard used these fees as a proxy for the
signature of the notary public on Form CG-719B. The fee varies from
state to state with the lowest amount being $1 and the highest $15. Ten
states do not have a fee schedule or do not charge a fee altogether;
nevertheless, the Coast Guard took the statistical average of the fees
for all 50 states and Washington, DC, for an amount of approximately
$5.14, rounded. The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost
for original applicants in this assumption who pay for a notary public
service to be approximately $35,855 annually, rounded (6,976 x $5.14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ National Notary also includes fees for U.S. territories,
with the highest amount being $20. The Coast Guard did not include
the fees for U.S. territories in this analysis, because we have
sufficient national data for this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost for original
applicants in Assumption 2 for the proposed changes to Sec. 10.225(c)
in this proposed rule to be approximately $288,255 annually, rounded
($76,452 + $109,376 + $33,993 + $18,414 + $14,165 + $35,855).
Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost
savings to original applicants who would no longer need to obtain a
notary public service at bank branches or notary public services to be
approximately $288,255 annually, rounded. See table 13.
Table 13--Summary of Undiscounted Cost-Saving Elements for Assumption 2 for the Proposed Change to Sec.
10.225(c), 2021 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-savings
Cost-savings element Unit inputs Population affected estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor Rate of Applicants................ $40.61.................... 13,951.................... ..............
[[Page 18726]]
Labor Travel Time (VTTS)................ 0.27 hours................ 13,951.................... $76,452
Mileage Rate............................ $0.58 per mile............ 13,951.................... 109,376
Waiting Time at Bank Branch and Notary 0.06 hours................ 13,951.................... 33,993
Service.
Payment by Credit Card.................. 0.13 hours................ 3,488 of 6,976............ 18,414
Payment by Cash......................... 0.10 hours................ 3,488 of 6,976............ 14,165
Avg. Notary Fee......................... $5.14..................... 6,976 of 13,951........... 35,855
---------------
Total Annual Cost Savings........... .......................... .......................... 288,255
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Readers should not add together the populations in the third column of the table. The individual
population for each item less than 13,951 is a subset of the total affected population of 13,951. Readers
should use the estimated loaded labor rate of $40.61 to obtain the cost savings estimate in the last column of
the table, except for the notary fee. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted cost savings under
Assumption 2 over a 10-year period of analysis to be approximately
$2.02 million, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast
Guard estimated the annualized cost savings to be approximately
$288,255, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. See table 14.
Table 14--Summary of Discounted Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule Under Assumption 2 for Sec. 10.225(c) Only
[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiting time
at bank branch Time to pay
Year VTTS Mileage or notary notary by cash Notary cost Cost savings 7 Percent 3 Percent
service or credit card
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... $76,452 $109,376 $33,993 $32,579 $35,855 $288,255 $269,397 $279,859
2............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 251,773 271,707
3............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 235,302 263,794
4............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 219,908 256,110
5............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 205,521 248,651
6............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 192,076 241,409
7............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 179,510 234,377
8............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 167,767 227,551
9............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 156,791 220,923
10.............................................................. 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 146,534 214,488
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 2,024,579 2,458,869
Annualized.................................................. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 288,255 288,255
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
As noted earlier, the cost savings that the Coast Guard estimated
for Assumptions 1 and 2 for the proposed change to Sec. 10.225(c) do
not include the cost savings from the proposed change to Sec.
10.219(d). However, in table 1 of this RA, where we present the total
cost savings estimates of the proposed rule, the Coast Guard included
the cost savings estimates for the proposed change to Sec. 10.219(d),
because the Coast Guard must add the cost savings from Sec. 10.225(c)
to the cost savings estimate for Sec. 10.219(d). Also recall that only
one of the two main assumptions of this analysis would hold. The Coast
Guard presented two different scenarios, because we do not know where
affected original applicants currently obtain a notary public service.
For Assumption 1 and including the cost savings estimates from the
proposed change to Sec. 10.219(d), the Coast Guard estimates the total
undiscounted cost savings of the proposed rule to be approximately
$364,945 annually, rounded ($219,820 from Assumption 1 and Sec.
10.225(c) + $145,125 from Sec. 10.219(d)). The Coast Guard estimated
the 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule to be
approximately $2.6 million, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate.
The Coast Guard estimated the annualized cost savings to be
approximately $364,945, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. See
table 15.
Table 15--Summary of Total Discounted Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule Under Assumption 1 (Includes Cost
Savings From Sec. Sec. 10.225(c) and 10.219(d)
[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. Sec. Total cost
Year 10.225(c) Cost 10.219(d) Cost savings-- 7 Percent 3 Percent
savings savings Assumption 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... $219,820 $145,125 $364,945 $341,070 $354,316
2............................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 318,757 343,996
3............................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 297,904 333,977
[[Page 18727]]
4............................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 278,415 324,249
5............................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 260,201 314,805
6............................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 243,178 305,636
7............................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 227,270 296,734
8............................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 212,401 288,091
9............................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 198,506 279,700
10.............................. 219,820 145,125 364,945 185,520 271,553
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. 2,563,222 3,113,056
Annualized.................. .............. .............. .............. 364,945 364,945
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Readers should compare the total cost savings estimate and
annualized cost savings estimate for the proposed rule in table 15 with
the total cost savings estimate of the proposed rule for Assumption 1
in table 1.
For Assumption 2 and including the cost savings estimates from the
proposed change to Sec. 10.219(d), the Coast Guard estimates the total
undiscounted cost savings of the proposed rule to be approximately
$433,379 annually, rounded ($288,255 from Assumption 2 and Sec.
10.225(c) + $145,125 from Sec. 10.219(d)). The Coast Guard estimates
the 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule for
Assumption 2 to be approximately $3.0 million, rounded, using a 7-
percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost
savings to be approximately $433,379, rounded, using a 7-percent
discount rate. See table 16.
Table 16--Summary of Total Discounted Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule Under Assumption 2 (Includes Cost
Savings From Sec. Sec. 10.225(c) and 10.219(d)
[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. Sec. Total cost
Year 10.225(c) Cost 10.219(d) Cost savings-- 7 Percent 3 Percent
savings savings Assumption 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... $288,255 $145,125 $433,379 $405,027 $420,757
2............................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 378,530 408,502
3............................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 353,767 396,603
4............................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 330,623 385,052
5............................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 308,993 373,837
6............................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 288,779 362,948
7............................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 269,887 352,377
8............................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 252,231 342,114
9............................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 235,730 332,149
10.............................. 288,255 145,125 433,379 220,308 322,475
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. 3,043,875 3,696,814
Annualized.................. .............. .............. .............. 433,379 433,379
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Readers should compare the total cost savings estimate and
annualized cost savings estimate for the proposed rule in table 16 with
the total cost savings estimate of the proposed rule for Assumption 2
in table 1.
Including Federal Government cost savings, the Coast Guard
estimates the 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed
rule under Assumption 1 to be about $2.8 million ($2,563,222 from table
15 and $215,564 from table 7), rounded, using a 7-percent discount
rate. We estimate the annualized cost savings to be approximately
$395,650, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate ($364,945 from table
15 + $30,704 from table 7). See table 17.
Including Federal Government cost savings, the Coast Guard
estimates the 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed
rule under Assumption 2 to be about $3.3 million ($3,043,875 from table
16 and $215,564 from table 7), rounded, using a 7-percent discount
rate. We estimate the annualized cost savings to be approximately
$464,084, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate ($433,379 from table
16 + $30,704 from table 7). See table 17.
[[Page 18728]]
Table 17--Total Discounted Annualized Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule
[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7-percent discount rate]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.225(c) Cost Savings
-------------------------------
Assumption 1 Assumption 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.219(d) Cost Savings........... $219,820 $288,255
Sec. 10.219(d)--Applicants............ 145,125 145,125
Sec. 10.219(d)--Federal Government.... 30,704 30,704
-------------------------------
Total cost savings under each 395,650 464,084
Assumption (annualized)............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Readers should add together the cost savings in each of the two
columns separately under the individual Assumptions to obtain the
total cost savings. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Unquantifiable Benefits of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would create unquantifiable benefits for MMC
applicants. This includes the flexibility to submit documents
electronically contained in the proposed changes to Sec. Sec. 1.03-
15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i)(1). Because this would be an option in the
future, the Coast Guard does not have data at this point to estimate
the cost savings that would be associated with the electronic
submission of documents, if applicants were to choose this option.
The use of <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> would provide a benefit to applicants because it
is a free and secure service that allows applicants to make payments to
most Federal Government agencies. <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> uses the latest industry-
standard payment methods and encryption technology to safely collect,
store, transmit, and protect applicants' personal information
throughout the payment process. Applicants can access and make payments
through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and every day of the
year, including holidays.
In table 2 the Coast Guard lists the unquantifiable benefit where
the proposed regulatory text changes would be more than minor
grammatical changes.
Analysis of Alternatives
(1). Industry would continue to meet the current requirements in
subchapter A, part 1 and subchapter B, parts 10-16 of title 46 of the
CFR (current baseline without regulatory action).
This alternative represents the current state of the MCP with no
updates to 46 CFR subchapter A, part 1 and subchapter B, parts 10-16.
The Coast Guard rejected this alternative, because it would not require
that applicants pay mandatory fees electronically through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. This
alternative would maintain all the current, estimated, undiscounted
costs between $219,820 and $288,255 annually, rounded (see the
estimated costs under Assumptions 1 and 2, respectively, in the
preferred alternative). The Coast Guard would also continue to request
applicants provide receipt of payment when using <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a> (e.g., attach
receipt to applications and provide receipt for MCP services) although
this is not required. Applicants would still have the option of paying
mandatory fees in person at an REC through cash, check, credit card and
money order. Although in-person payments would remain an option, these
applicants would not realize potential cost savings by using <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>.
In-person and standard mail payments made by applicants maintains the
options that currently exist, which some applicants may find more
convenient (for in-person payments, perhaps as a customer service
benefit) over payments by electronic means. We request comments from
the public on the benefit of the Coast Guard maintaining these payment
options for applicants. This alternative would also not result in time
and cost savings to original applicants, who would still be required to
take an oath before an authorized individual. Additionally, this
alternative would not clarify existing regulatory text.
(2) The Coast Guard would update regulatory requirements to align
with a new MCP IT system and update mandatory fees with an incentive
for electronic payment.
With this alternative, the Coast Guard would replace the current
MMLD database and would propose changes to 46 CFR parts 10 through 14
and 16 to increase electronic submission of documents to support the
credentialing process. With this alternative, the Coast Guard would
provide an incentive to applicants to electronically pay mandatory fees
through <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>. It would be beneficial to applicants, who would save
time and money; however, the Coast Guard is unable to estimate a cost
savings for this item under this alternative, because it would require
a lengthy analysis of the Coast Guard's mandatory fee program.
The Coast Guard rejected this alternative, because the update would
require additional regulatory action to allow for future changes in the
system, and any changes to mandatory fees would require further study
and analysis by the Coast Guard and would require the use of limited
additional time and resources.
(3) The Coast Guard would update regulatory requirements to align
with a new MCP IT system and require electronic payment, but would not
address mandatory fees.
With this alternative, the Coast Guard would not propose to update
the mandatory fees together with the requirement for the electronic
payment of fees by individuals through a new MCP IT system. However,
the Coast Guard kept the proposed requirement under the preferred
alternative (proposed rule) for the electronic payment of fees by
applicants saving them approximately $145,125 annually, rounded (see
the analysis for the preferred alternative for the derivation of this
estimate), because it would not be connected to a new MCP IT system.
The Coast Guard rejected this alternative, because the new system
is at the beginning stages of development, and, as a result, the Coast
Guard is unable to estimate the economic impact of this new system on
applicants and companies. Therefore, the Coast Guard cannot accurately
determine any adjustments to mandatory fees based on the new system
capabilities, potential costs to support the system, or cost savings
generated from the system.
(4) Preferred Alternative--Update 46 CFR subchapter A, part 1 and
subchapter B, parts 10-16 to update regulatory requirements to align
with a new MCP IT system, require the electronic payment of fees and
the option of electronic submission of supporting documents for an MMC
application, remove the requirement for an oath to be administered by
an authorized individual, and make
[[Page 18729]]
editorial and non-substantive changes that clarify existing regulatory
text.
This is the preferred alternative because applicants would be
required to pay mandatory fees electronically using <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>, and the
Coast Guard would create an option for electronic submission of
documents to the Coast Guard. This would save MMC applicants time and
money because they would no longer be paying these mandatory fees in
person at an REC. However, this preferred option would remove the
flexibility for applicants who wish to continue to pay the mandatory
fees in person. We analyzed the time and cost difference between the
different payment methods and the proposed requirement to use <a href="http://Pay.gov">Pay.gov</a>
previously in this regulatory analysis.
This alternative also aligns with Department of the Treasury
regulations for promoting efficient, effective cash management through
improved billing, collection, deposit, and payment of funds. The Coast
Guard also proposes to remove the requirement for an oath to be taken
by original applicants when they submit their MMC application. This
would also save time and money for original applicants who would no
longer need to travel to a bank or a bank branch or a notary public
service to have the oath administered. Lastly, the Coast Guard proposes
to make numerous editorial changes to the affected CFR subchapters that
would clarify existing regulatory text. The Coast Guard analyzed and
presented the cost savings and other unquantifiable benefits associated
with this alternative earlier in this RA.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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.
Based on the analysis in section A, Regulatory Planning and Review,
we found this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most
provisions of this proposed rule would affect individuals who apply for
an MMC and would not directly regulate small entities. These include
provisions that would require electronic payment of merchant mariner
credentialing fees in Sec. 10.219(d), remove the requirement for an
oath to be administered by an authorized official on Form CG-719B in
Sec. 10.225(c), and allow for the electronic submission of certain
documents in Sec. 1.03-15(h)(2)(i) for appeals involving course
approvals and merchant mariner personnel issues and in Sec. 10.219(i)
for requests involving no-fee MMCs. Since individual members of the
public that are applying for MMCs are not considered to be small
entities under the RFA, we have found that no small entities are
impacted by these provisions of the proposed rule.
One substantive change of this proposed rule would allow for
electronic signature on Form CG-718A in Sec. Sec. 14.307(a), (b), and
(c) when a mariner completes a voyage. However, the Coast Guard is not
changing the previously accepted method of a standard signature by pen
and ink. Therefore, the owner or operator of a vessel and mariner may
continue to choose this signature method, but a part of the population
may also choose the option of an electronic signature. The Coast Guard
estimates that these two methods take nearly the same amount of time
and would not result in measurable cost savings either to the owner or
operator of a vessel, who may be a small entity, or to the mariner if
they choose the electronic signature method. The Coast Guard requests
comments from the public on this assumption and if there is a time
difference between a standard signature and an electronic signature.
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 because based on our analysis,
most of provisions of the proposed rule would affect applicants and not
directly regulate or affect small entities. We determined that the time
difference between the standard signature method and the option of the
electronic signature method in Sec. Sec. 14.307(a), (b), and (c), for
those who choose this method, to be nearly the same and would not
result in any measurable cost savings to vessel owners or operators,
who may be small entities, and mariners.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
D. Collection of Information
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
the U.S. 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.
The Coast Guard has determined that the proposed rule would not
result in a new collection nor modify an existing collection of
information. Thus, this proposed rule would not change the burden in
the collections currently approved by OMB under OMB Control Numbers
1625-0012 with a title of ``Certificate of Discharge to Merchant
Mariners'' and 1625-0040 with a title of ``Applications for Merchant
Mariners Credentials and Medical Certificates.''
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. 3306, 3703, 7101, and
8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation,
equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as
the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress
[[Page 18730]]
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 and
Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). Because this
proposed rule involves the credentialing of merchant marine officers
under 46 U.S.C. 7101, it relates to personnel qualifications for
vessels subject to a pervasive scheme of federal regulation, and is
therefore foreclosed from regulation by the States. Therefore, because
the States may not regulate within these categories, this rule is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications
and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs
agencies to consult with State and local governments during the
rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule would have
implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or
email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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 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, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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.
If you are aware of voluntary consensus standards that might apply,
please identify them by sending a comment to the docket using one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your
comment, please explain why you think the standards might apply.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration 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 the training, qualifying, licensing, and disciplining of
maritime personnel.
This proposed rule involves regulatory changes that are needed for
implementation of a new information technology system that would
replace the current MMLD database used by the Coast Guard to process
mariner credentials. This new system features an electronic platform
for activities such as mariners providing documents for applying for or
maintaining mariner credentials, or submitting associated fees. In
addition, the rule includes technical amendments, such as updates, to
addresses and websites necessary for accessing or using MMLD. 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 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions
(Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 10
Penalties, Personally identifiable information, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
[[Page 18731]]
46 CFR Part 11
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools,
Seamen.
46 CFR Part 12
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
46 CFR Part 13
Cargo vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
46 CFR Part 14
Oceanographic research 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.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 46 CFR parts 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 as
follows:
Title 46--Shipping
PART 1--ORGANIZATION, GENERAL COURSE AND METHODS GOVERNING MARINE
SAFETY FUNCTION
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 14 U.S.C. 503; 46 U.S.C. 7701; 46
U.S.C. Chapter 93; Secs. 101, 888, and 1512, Pub. L. 107-296, 116
Stat. 2135; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3; Sec.
1.01-35 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507; and Sec.
1.03-55 also issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306(j).
0
2. Amend Sec. 1.01-15 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.01-15 Organization; Districts; National Maritime Center.
* * * * *
(e) Applicants for merchant mariner credentials may apply to the
Coast Guard National Maritime Center or any of the NMC detachments.
Applicants may contact the National Maritime Center at 100 Forbes
Drive, Martinsburg, West Virginia 25404, by telephone at 1-888-I-ASK-
NMC (1-888-427-5662), by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9fd6deccd4d1d2dcdfeaecfcf8b1f2f6f3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c656d7f6762616f6c595f4f4b02414540">[email protected]</span></a>, or online chat at
website <a href="https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/">https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/</a>. A list of
NMC detachment locations is available through the website.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 1.03-15 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(i); and
0
b. In paragraph (h)(2)(ii), removing the period after the words ``2703
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 1.03-15 General.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Appeals involving course approvals and merchant mariner
personnel issues must be in writing and mailed or electronically
submitted to the Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC),
U.S. Coast Guard, Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE,
W
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on March 14, 2024.
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.