Towing Vessel Firefighting Training
| Published date | 01 September 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 48925 |
| Record Number | 2021-17945 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Coast Guard |
Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48925-48942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17945]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 11
[Docket No. USCG-2020-0492]
RIN 1625-AC64
Towing Vessel Firefighting Training
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to revise the training
requirements for national Merchant Mariner Credential endorsements as
master of towing vessels (limited) or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on
inland waters or Western Rivers routes. The proposal would provide
mariners seeking these endorsements the option to take a modified basic
firefighting course that eliminates training on equipment that is not
required to be carried on towing vessels operating on inland waters or
Western Rivers. Applicants who take the modified basic firefighting
course would reduce their costs due to the courses being shorter and
less expensive than the longer basic firefighting courses.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before November 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0492 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
Collection of information. Submit comments on the collection of
information discussed in section VI.D. of this preamble both to the
Coast Guard's online docket and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) using their website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Comments sent to OIRA on the collection of information must reach OMB
on or before the comment due date listed on their website.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Mr. James Cavo, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1205,
email [email protected].
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
[[Page 48926]]
Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do
so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2020-0492 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
Public meeting. We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we
will consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a
meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register
notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.
II. Abbreviations
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
GT Gross tonnage
GRT Gross register tons
MERPAC Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee
MMC Merchant Mariner Credential
MMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NMC National Maritime Center
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPM Office of Personnel Management
Sec. Section
SME Subject Matter Expert
STCW Convention International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended
STCW Code Seafarer's Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code,
as Amended
TSAC Towing Safety Advisory Committee
U.S.C. United States Code
III. Basis and Purpose
The legal basis of this proposed rule is title 46 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.) section 7101, which authorizes the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish the experience
and professional qualifications required for the issuance of merchant
mariner credentials with officer endorsements. The DHS Secretary has
delegated the rulemaking authority under 46 U.S.C. 7101 to the Coast
Guard through DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(92)(e). Additionally, 14 U.S.C.
102(3) grants the Coast Guard broad authority to promulgate and enforce
regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property on waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, 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), Sec. 11.201(h)(3) to provide mariners
seeking a national officer endorsement as master of towing vessels
(limited) \1\ or mate (pilot) \2\ of towing vessels on inland waters or
Western Rivers routes the option to take a modified basic firefighting
course instead of a basic firefighting course. The modified basic
firefighting course eliminates training on equipment that is not
required to be carried on towing vessels operating on inland waters or
Western Rivers.\3\ This proposed change would apply to applicants for
national Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) endorsements as master of
towing vessels (limited) and mate (pilot) of towing vessels. Mariners
seeking an endorsement as master of towing vessels would have had to
complete firefighting training when they obtained one of the
endorsements that are a prerequisite to qualifying for master of towing
vessels. Mariners who will not be working solely on Western Rivers or
inland waters other than the Great Lakes would need to complete a basic
firefighting course and not the modified basic firefighting course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An endorsement as a master of towing vessels (limited)
authorizes service as a master (the person in command of the vessel)
to work on a towing vessel in a limited local area within inland
waters or Western Rivers (e.g., master of towing vessels (limited)
restricted to the Lower Mississippi River mile marker 775.0 to mile
marker 850.0).
\2\ ``Mate'' means a qualified deck officer other than the
master. On towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers,
``pilot'' also refers to a qualified deck officer other than the
master. The terms ``mate'' and ``pilot'' refer to the same position
on the vessel and usage varies based on company and regional
preference.
\3\ Throughout this NPRM, the term modified basic firefighting
course describes the basic firefighting course required by 46 CFR
11.201(h)(3) modified to eliminate training on equipment that is not
required to be carried on towing vessels operating on inland waters
or Western Rivers routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Background
Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR part 11, subpart B, contain the
general merchant mariner credentialing requirements for national and
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended (STCW Convention) officer
endorsements. Currently, 46 CFR 11.201(h)(3)(ii) requires mariners
seeking national officer endorsements as master or mate (pilot) of
towing vessels on routes other than oceans \4\ to complete a Coast
Guard-approved firefighting course that meets the basic firefighting
training requirements in Regulation VI/1 of the STCW Convention and
Table A-VI/1-2 \5\ of the Seafarer's Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping Code, as Amended (STCW Code). This requirement was
implemented by the Coast Guard through the December 24, 2013 final rule
titled, ``Implementation of the Amendments to the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978, and Changes to National Endorsements.'' (78 FR 77795).
Prior to the 2013 final rule, there had not been a requirement to
complete firefighting training to obtain a national endorsement for
master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels in services other than
oceans.\6\ The Coast Guard included this requirement in 2013 to improve
overall safety by requiring basic firefighting training. Basic
firefighting training ensures that mariners have the skills to contain
small fires before they can spread, leading to injury, death,
[[Page 48927]]
property damage, or becoming a larger marine hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the purposes of this NPRM, we refer to ``routes other
than oceans'' as near-coastal, Great Lakes, inland waters, and
Western Rivers.
\5\ Regulation VI/1 and Regulation VI/3 of the STCW Convention
provides two levels of firefighting training, basic and advanced.
The competence requirements for basic firefighting are contained in
Table A-VI/1-2 of the STCW Code and the competence requirements for
advanced firefighting are found in Table A-VI/3 of the STCW Code.
\6\ Completion of an approved basic and advanced firefighting
course for towing vessel endorsements on ocean routes has been a
requirement for several decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Advisory Committee Recommendations
Following the implementation of the 2013 final rule, the Coast
Guard received requests from industry to review the appropriateness of
the basic firefighting training requirement for towing vessel
endorsements. As a result, the Coast Guard tasked two Federal Advisory
Committees, the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC)
\7\ and the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) \8\ with reviewing
the basic firefighting training requirements while taking into
consideration the equipment carried on towing vessels operating on
inland waters and Western Rivers routes. Prior to the MERPAC meeting
held in March of 2017, the Coast Guard invited public comment on the
issues listed in the meeting agenda, including Task Statement 95,
Recommendations Regarding Training Requirements for Officer
Endorsements for Master or Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels, except
Assistance Towing and Apprentice Mate (Steersman) of Towing Vessels, in
Inland Service.\9\ In response, MERPAC received input from two mariners
working on inland waters and Western Rivers towing vessels transporting
tank barges, one as a mate (pilot) and the other as a master. Both
mariners suggested that a lack of firefighting skills could directly
contribute to the escalation of an emergency that could ultimately lead
to injury or death of vessel crewmembers. Both mariners also suggested
that mariners on inland waters and Western Rivers towing vessels need
to complete approved firefighting training in order to be prepared to
adequately respond to a fire on their vessel, and that time and money
spent on training is an investment in safety. Each mariner also
expressed that onboard training and drills were not conducted in a way
that adequately prepares mariners to handle evolving emergency
situations on board the vessels. They also stated that annual
inspections were not adequate to ensure training and drills were being
conducted as they only verify the paper records and do not verify the
conduct of practical exercises in handling emergency situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC)
Task Statement #95, Inland Firefighting, Draft Report,'' September
14, 2016. This report is available at: https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/Attachments/709/Enclosure%207%20Task%20Statement%2095%20%20Inland%20Firefighting.pdf.
\8\ See ``Towing Safety Advisory Committee, Task 16-02,
Recommendations Regarding Firefighting Training Requirements for
Officer Endorsements for Master, Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels,
Except Assistance Towing and Apprentice Mate (Steersman) of Towing
Vessels, Inland Service Final Report,'' March 21, 2018. This report
is available at: https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/Attachments/799/TSAC%20Task%2016-02%20Inland%20Firefighting%20Final-03212018.pdf.
\9\ See MERPAC notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting (82
FR 9575).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their recommendations to the Coast Guard, both MERPAC and TSAC
commented that the basic firefighting requirements in Sec.
11.201(h)(3)(ii) are based on equipment found on deep-sea vessels and
not on vessels operating on inland waters or Western Rivers. TSAC
identified equipment covered in the basic firefighting training
requirements, contained in Table A-VI/1-2 of the STCW Code that is not
required to be carried on towing vessels operating on inland waters or
Western Rivers.\10\ They noted that nowhere in 46 CFR subchapter M,
``Towing Vessels,'' part 142, ``Fire Protection,'' is there a
requirement for towing vessels operating on inland waters or Western
Rivers to be equipped with firefighters' outfits or self-contained
breathing apparatus. Because the basic firefighting training in Sec.
11.201(h)(3)(ii) requires mariners seeking national officer
endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels to become
proficient with equipment that is not required to be carried onboard
the vessels they intend to operate, MERPAC and TSAC both recommended
that the content of firefighting training be modified for these
mariners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Input
In 2017, the Coast Guard sought comments on regulations, guidance
documents, and interpretative documents that the public believed should
be repealed, replaced, or modified.\11\ The Coast Guard received public
input from a trade association representing the towing industry
regarding the regulations in Sec. 11.201(h)(3)(ii), which requires
basic firefighting training for endorsements as master or mate (pilot)
of towing vessels. The trade association suggested that the training
requirement is excessive, because the current towing vessel regulations
in Sec. Sec. 27.209 and 142.245, which require company provided
firefighting instruction and drills, are adequate to address fires
onboard towing vessels. The commenter recommended that the Coast Guard
eliminate the basic firefighting training requirement in Sec.
11.201(h)(3)(ii) for national officer endorsements as master or mate
(pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters and Western Rivers. The
commenter asserted that this would alleviate an unnecessary regulatory
burden by not requiring mariners or their employers to pay for
inappropriate firefighting training that does not address a
demonstrated safety need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Coast Guard Request for Information entitled,
``Evaluation of Existing Coast Guard Regulations, Guidance
Documents, Interpretative Documents, and Collections of
Information'' (82 FR 26632, June 8, 2017). This document is
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCG-2017-0480-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the letter from the trade association, current towing
vessel regulations in Sec. Sec. 27.209 and 142.245 require company
provided firefighting instruction and drills that are adequate to
address fires onboard towing vessels. However, input provided by
mariners in response to the Coast Guard's request for public input on
MERPAC Task Statement 95, as previously discussed, provides information
on their experience with company provided onboard training and drills.
These mariners expressed that training and drills were not conducted in
a way that adequately prepares mariners to handle evolving emergency
situations on board the vessels. They also stated that annual
inspections were not adequate to ensure training and drills were being
conducted, as they only verify the paper records and do not verify the
conduct of practical exercises in handling emergency situations.
After receiving recommendations from MERPAC and TSAC and reviewing
the public comments, the Coast Guard determined that the basic
firefighting training for national officer endorsement as master or
mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters and Western Rivers
should be retained. Basic firefighting training ensures that mariners
have basic firefighting skills and leads to increased maritime safety
by ensuring mariners will be able to contain a small fire before it
spreads throughout the vessel and becomes a threat to life, or a hazard
to the environment and public safety. However, we have determined these
mariners should not have to train using equipment that is not required
to be carried aboard the towing vessels on which they will serve.
With this proposed rule, applicants seeking national officer
endorsements as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland
waters or Western Rivers would have the option to take a modified basic
firefighting course that excludes training on equipment that is not
required to be carried on their vessels.
This proposed change would apply to applicants for national MMC
[[Page 48928]]
endorsements as master of towing vessels (limited) and mate (pilot) of
towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers routes. The modified
basic firefighting training required by Sec. 11.201(h)(3) would have
to be approved by the Coast Guard, and training required for MMC
endorsements would be approved in accordance with the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 10.402 and 10.403. This proposed change would provide an
opportunity for course providers to develop a Coast Guard-approved
modified basic firefighting course for applicants for national MMC
endorsements as master of towing vessels (limited) and mate (pilot) of
towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers routes.
This proposed rule would result in a one-time cost to course
providers for developing and submitting requests for approval of a
modified basic firefighting course, and a one-time cost to the Coast
Guard for reviewing and approving these courses. Under existing Sec.
10.402(d) and (f), there would be ongoing costs to both the course
providers and the Coast Guard every 5 years for requests for renewal of
the course approval.\12\ Applicants who take modified basic
firefighting courses would receive cost savings due to courses being
shorter and less expensive than the longer basic firefighting courses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Approved courses are valid for 5 years from the date of
Coast Guard approval. Before the course approval expires, the course
provider must seek a course approval renewal if they want to
continue to offer the course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Proposed Amendments to Sec. 11.201(h)
The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec. 11.201(h), which requires
mariners seeking national officer endorsements to present a certificate
of completion from a Coast Guard-approved firefighting course of
instruction.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (h)(1) by adding
language stating that the firefighting certificate of completion must
be ``relevant to the endorsement being sought.'' The Coast Guard
proposes this change to ensure that mariners would be required to
provide evidence of completing the appropriate firefighting training
for the endorsement they are applying for.
We also propose to make several changes to paragraph (h)(3), which
contains a list of national officer endorsements that require
completion of basic firefighting training in accordance with Regulation
VI/1 of the STCW Convention and Table A-VI/1-2 of the STCW Code.
Currently, paragraph (h)(3)(ii) requires that ``all officer
endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels, except
apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels, in all services except
oceans'' must meet this requirement. We propose to revise paragraph
(h)(3)(ii) to specify the requirements for officer endorsements for
master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels, except apprentice mate
(steersman) of towing vessels, for service on near-coastal waters. We
are also proposing to add paragraphs (h)(3)(iii) and (h)(3)(iv) to list
the specific waters covered by the phrase, ``in all services except
oceans.'' Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iii) would specify the requirements
for officer endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels,
except apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels, for service on
the Great Lakes. Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iv) would specify the
requirements for officer endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of
towing vessels, except apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels,
for service on inland waters or Western Rivers.
Mariners seeking a national officer endorsement as master or mate
(pilot) of towing vessels authorized for service on near-coastal waters
or on the Great Lakes would still need to complete the basic
firefighting training referenced in paragraph (h)(3). A modified basic
firefighting course is not appropriate for mariners operating on towing
vessels on near-coastal waters or on the Great Lakes for two reasons:
(1) Near-coastal waters and Great Lakes towing vessels may carry the
equipment omitted from a modified towing vessel firefighting course,
and (2) near-coastal waters and Great Lakes towing vessels operate
farther from the shore, where firefighting assistance is not readily
available as it is on inland waters or Western Rivers.
Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(A) would provide a mariner the option
of completing a modified basic firefighting course for a national
officer endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on
inland waters or Western Rivers. The course would be a Coast Guard-
approved modified basic firefighting course that would not include
training on equipment that is not required to be carried aboard towing
vessels for service on inland waters or Western Rivers. When approving
modified courses, the Coast Guard intends to consider the requirements
of 46 CFR subchapter M, parts 140 and 142, in determining the training
to achieve proficiency in firefighting consistent with the equipment
available onboard towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers.
The Coast Guard anticipates this modified basic firefighting course
would have a total of about 12 hours of classroom and practical
training instead of a total of 16 hours for the basic firefighting
course. The Coast Guard is interested in public input regarding whether
12 hours of classroom and practical training is adequate for the course
and what subject matters could be omitted from the basic firefighting
course.
Currently, national officer endorsements for towing vessels serving
on the Great Lakes and inland waters are issued as one route. In
proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(A), language would be added to allow
separation of these routes so that a mariner who completes a modified
basic firefighting course could be issued an endorsement restricted to
inland waters or Western Rivers.
The Coast Guard proposes paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(B) to specify that a
mariner who qualifies for an endorsement by completing a modified basic
firefighting course would be required to complete the basic
firefighting course required in paragraph (h)(3) for an increase in
scope \13\ of the endorsement to add a Great Lakes or near-coastal
waters route. For an increase in scope to add oceans routes, a mariner
would need to complete both the basic firefighting course required in
paragraph (h)(3) and the advanced firefighting course required in
paragraph (h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Increase in scope means additional authority added to an
existing credential, such as adding a new route or increasing the
authorized horsepower or tonnage. (46 CFR 10.107).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Proposed Changes
The proposed rule would revise the authority citation in 46 CFR
part 11 by deleting a reference to ``46 U.S.C. 503'' and inserting a
reference to ``46 U.S.C. 102(3),'' which grants the Coast Guard broad
authority to promulgate and enforce regulations for the promotion of
safety of life and property on waters subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States, including establishing the experience and
professional qualifications required for the issuance of credentials.
Lastly, we would revise Sec. 11.201(l) to allow the Coast Guard to
modify training in addition to the service or examination requirements
for an endorsement. The proposed change is needed in order to allow for
the option of the modified basic firefighting course for a national
officer endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on
inland waters or Western Rivers routes.
[[Page 48929]]
VI. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses
based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. A summary
of the proposed rule's impacts are presented below and a more detailed
discussion on the estimated cost savings of this rule follows.
As discussed earlier in the preamble, this proposed rule would
provide applicants for an MMC endorsement as master of towing vessels
(limited) or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western
Rivers routes the option to take a modified basic firefighting course
instead of the basic firefighting course. Specifically, this
firefighting course would eliminate training on firefighting equipment
that is not required to be carried on towing vessels operating on
inland waters or Western Rivers routes. Because the modified
firefighting course is expected to be shorter in duration and lower in
cost than a basic firefighting course, we anticipate eligible mariners
will take the modified course. The Coast Guard requests comments on
this assumption.
We estimate that this proposed rule would result in a 10-year net
cost savings of $835,225, or $118,917 annualized, in 2020 dollars,
discounted at 7 percent. The annual cost savings for mariners is
approximately $123,598 (in undiscounted 2020 dollars) from the second
year onward. The savings would stem from reduced hours spent in
training and reduced tuition for firefighting training necessary for an
endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland
waters or Western Rivers routes.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Operating on the Great Lakes is treated separately from
operating on inland waters or Western Rivers. Routes on the Great
Lakes would require the same firefighting training as near-coastal
routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that this proposed rule would result in a one-time cost
to course providers to develop a modified basic firefighting course and
submit the course to the Coast Guard for approval. There would also be
a one-time cost to the Government resulting from Coast Guard employees
reviewing and approving these new courses. Under existing 46 CFR
10.402(d) and (f), there will be ongoing costs to both the course
providers and the government every 5 years to renew the modified basic
firefighting course. We anticipate course providers that offer the
modified basic firefighting course to also continue to provide a basic
firefighting course because these courses would serve additional
markets. We request comment on whether course providers that plan to
offer a modified basic firefighting course would continue to offer a
basic firefighting course.
In the first year, we estimate the costs (in 2020 dollars) to
industry would be $8,444 and the cost to the Government would be
$15,988. These costs would not recur after the first year, but there
would be ongoing costs for renewal of course approvals every 5 years
resulting in costs to industry of $1,044 and costs to the Government of
$14,029. The 10-year net cost savings would be $835,225, or $118,917
annualized, in 2020 dollars, discounted at 7 percent. We do not
estimate that there would be any reduction in safety or benefits
between the current basic firefighting training and a modified
firefighting training, as the modified training would be better suited
for the equipment common to the relevant towing vessels. Table 1
summarizes these results. In the following subsections, we describe the
changes, the affected population, the potential costs, the potential
cost savings, and the qualitative benefits in further detail.
Table 1--Summary of the NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability..................... Update 46 CFR part 11 in order to
permit a modified basic
firefighting course for national
endorsements as master and mate
(pilot) of towing vessels on inland
waters or Western Rivers routes.
Affected Population............... An estimated 23 course providers and
381 applicants for master or mate
(pilot) towing vessels would take a
modified firefighting course in
order to qualify for their
endorsement. This is a one-time
training requirement for mariners.
Costs to Industry ($, 7% discount One-time Costs: $8,444; Recurring
rate). Costs: $1,044 every 5 years.
Costs to the Government ($, 7% One-time Costs: $15,988; Recurring
discount rate). Costs: $14,029 every 5 years.
Cost Savings ($, 7% discount rate) 10-year: $868,103.
Annualized: $123,598.
Qualitative Benefits.............. Firefighting courses that are more
tailored to the credential
endorsement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Regulatory Changes
This proposed rule would result in two changes that would have
potential costs and potential cost savings. First, course providers
would have the opportunity to develop a modified firefighting course
and submit the course to the Coast Guard for approval. Consequently,
this proposed rule would initially result in costs to course providers
for developing the course, and to the government for reviewing and
approving the modified basic firefighting courses. Second, applicants
would likely experience cost savings by taking shorter and less costly
modified basic firefighting courses rather than the longer basic
firefighting courses. The Coast Guard requests comments on all aspects
of this analysis and in particular
[[Page 48930]]
how much savings this proposed rule could generate for mariners.
Table 2 lists and describes the changes we propose to 46 CFR
11.201. The proposed changes contain costs and cost savings, as
described above. Text that has been added is underlined, and text that
has been deleted is stricken through.
Table 2--Summary of Proposed Changes to 46 CFR 11.201 and Proposed Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed changes in
Section regulatory text Description of change Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.201(h)(1).......................... Applicants for an This editorial change This editorial change
original officer would make it clear would not have any
endorsement in the that the required substantive impact and
following categories firefighting training therefore would not
must present a should be based on the impose any costs or
certificate of operating route of the cost savings.
completion from a endorsement sought.
firefighting course
of instruction
relevant to the
endorsement being
sought that has been
approved by the Coast
Guard. The
firefighting course
must have been
completed within the
past 5 years, or if
it was completed more
than 5 years before
the date of
application, the
applicant must
provide evidence of
maintaining the
standard of
competence in
accordance with the
firefighting
requirements for the
credential sought.
11.201(h)(2)(i)....................... All national officer This editorial change This editorial change
endorsements as would make the text would not have any
master or mate on easier to read and substantive impact and
seagoing vessels of makes it consistent therefore would not
200 GRT or more. with other lines in impose any costs or
this section. cost savings.
11.201(h)(3)(i)....................... All officer This editorial change This editorial change
endorsements as would make the text would not have any
master on vessels of easier to read and substantive impact and
less than 500 GT in make it consistent therefore would not
ocean service. with other lines in impose any costs or
this section. cost savings.
11.201(h)(3)(ii)...................... All officer This editorial change This editorial change
endorsements for would make it clear would not have any
master or mate that applicants for substantive impact
(pilot) of towing master or mate (pilot) because these
vessels for service of towing vessel applicants were
on near-coastal endorsements on near- already required to
waters, except coastal waters must take a basic
apprentice mate take a basic firefighting course.
(steersman) of towing firefighting course.
vessels.
11.201(h)(3)(iii)..................... (iii) All officer This editorial change This editorial change
endorsements for would make it clear would not have any
master or mate that applicants for substantive impact
(pilot) of towing master or mate (pilot) because these
vessels for service of towing vessel applicants were
on Great Lakes, endorsements on Great already required to
except apprentice Lakes must take a take a basic
mate (steersman) of basic firefighting firefighting course.
towing vessels. course.
11.201(h)(3)(iv)...................... (iv) All officer This editorial change This editorial change
endorsements as would make it clear would not have any
master or mate that applicants for substantive impact
(pilot) of towing master or mate (pilot) because these
vessels for service of towing vessel applicants were
on inland waters or endorsements on inland already required to
Western Rivers, waters or Western take a basic
except apprentice Rivers routes must firefighting course.
mate (steersman) of take a basic
towing vessels. firefighting course.
11.201(h)(3)(iv)(A)................... (A) The Coast Guard These changes would This would lead to
will accept a Coast permit master or mate costs and costs
Guard approved (pilot) applicants savings. Costs result
modified basic operating exclusively from course providers
firefighting course, on inland waters or developing a modified
which is the basic Western Rivers routes, firefighting course
firefighting training other than the Great and submitting the
described in Lakes, to take a course to the Coast
paragraph (h)(3) of modified basic inland Guard for approval,
this section modified waters and Western which would cost an
to only cover the Rivers towing vessel estimated $8,444 to
equipment, fire firefighting course as the industry and an
prevention opposed to basic estimated $15,988 to
procedures, and firefighting course the government for
firefighting when they apply for review and approval of
operations required endorsements on inland the course in the
on towing vessels on waters or Western first year. Course
inland waters or Rivers. providers would need
Western Rivers routes to seek a renewal of
required in 46 CFR their course approval
parts 140 and 142. A in year 6, resulting
mariner who completes in $1,044 in costs to
this modified course course providers and
will be issued an $14,029 in costs to
endorsement that is the Coast Guard.
restricted to inland Estimated cost savings
waters or Western would come from
Rivers. applicants for towing
vessel master or mate
(pilot) endorsements
spending fewer hours
in training and less
money on tuition,
resulting in an
estimated $123,598 in
annual cost savings
discounted at 7% in
2020 dollars.
[[Page 48931]]
11.201(h)(3)(iv)(B)................... (B) To increase in This proposed change is While this new clause
scope to Great Lakes, a rewording of is a restatement of
near-coastal or existing Sec. the requirements
oceans, the applicant 11.201(h)(4) to make currently existing in
will be required to the text of Sec. Sec. 11.201(h)(4),
complete the 11.201(h) easier to there could be a cost
firefighting course read. impact because
appropriate to the mariners could apply
route sought. for an endorsement for
inland waters or
Western Rivers with a
modified basic inland
waters and Western
Rivers towing vessel
firefighting course
approved under Sec.
11.201(h)(3)(iv)(A),
and later request an
increase in scope
requiring the mariner
to complete an
additional basic
firefighting course.
Because the mariner
would need to take the
basic firefighting
course, they would
spend approximately
$553.38 on the tuition
for the course.
Additionally, they
would spend 16 hours
taking the course, and
the travel time to get
to and from the
course. However, the
Coast Guard cannot
forecast who would
seek an increase in
scope or how
frequently this would
occur.
11.201(l)............................. (l) Restrictions. The The addition of the Without the addition of
Coast Guard may word ``training'' in the word ``training'',
modify the service, this paragraph would the Coast Guard would
training, and allow the Coast Guard not be able to modify
examination to modify the training training requirements
requirements in this requirements based on for specific groups of
part to satisfy the the unique mariners based on
unique qualification qualification their unique
requirements of an requirements of a qualifications and the
applicant or distinct group of mariners, cost savings proposed
group of mariners. which we have not here would not be
The Coast Guard may previously done. attainable. The
also lower the age addition also permits
requirement for OUPV the Coast Guard, in
applicants. The the future, to modify
authority granted by training requirements
an officer for other specific
endorsement will be groups of mariners. We
restricted to reflect do not intend to
any modifications modify other training
made under the requirements at this
authority of this time. As such, we do
paragraph. not estimate any costs
or cost savings from
this proposed change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population
This proposed rule would have two affected populations: (1) Course
providers who would offer a modified basic firefighting course; and (2)
applicants for MMC endorsements as a master of towing vessels (limited)
or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers
routes. We first estimated the number of course providers who may
submit a modified basic firefighting course to the Coast Guard for
approval, and then estimated the number of applicants who may apply for
an endorsement as master of towing vessels (limited) or mate (pilot) of
towing vessels operating on inland waters or Western Rivers.
The Coast Guard does not know how many course providers would
request approval for a modified basic firefighting course. However,
since this course would be a modified form of the basic firefighting
course, we assume that only course providers who already teach a
firefighting course would take advantage of the opportunity provided by
this proposal. Currently, there are 91 course providers approved to
offer a basic firefighting course.\15\ Historically, the number of
course providers does not significantly change on an annual basis.
Therefore, we expect that the course providers who would offer a
modified firefighting course would be from these 91 course providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NMC/pdfs/courses/courses.pdf lists all courses approved by the Coast Guard. There are
91 course providers approved to offer basic firefighting courses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A subject matter expert (SME) from the Coast Guard's Office of
Merchant Mariner Credentialing with extensive experience involving
regular contact with maritime course providers and towing vessel
operating companies reviewed publicly available materials from these 91
providers and rated each on how likely they would be to request
approval of a modified basic firefighting course. Our SME considered
the types of courses offered by each provider, their facilities,
geographic location(s), and the segment of the industry their clientele
work in. The SME rated each course provider as either 0 percent, 25
percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, or 100 percent likely to request
approval of a modified basic firefighting course. Across the 91 course
providers with an approved basic firefighting course, we rated 56 of
them as having no likelihood of requesting approval to offer a modified
firefighting course because our SME's review indicated that they are
unlikely to serve the inland towing population. Our SME estimates that
35 providers would request course approval of a modified firefighting
course. Among these 35 providers, our SME estimates that the average
likelihood to request approval to offer a modified basic firefighting
course would be 65 percent. Multiplying 35 by 65 percent yields 23,
rounded, or our estimate for the number of training providers likely to
offer a modified firefighting course.
The Coast Guard requests comments on our estimate of 23 course
providers who may request Coast Guard approval of a modified basic
firefighting course or any additional data that we could use to inform
and refine our estimate.
Applicants for a national officer endorsement as master of towing
vessels (limited) or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland water or
Western Rivers who take a modified course would realize a cost savings
by taking a shorter, less expensive firefighting course. As discussed
in section IV of this preamble, the Coast Guard issued a final rule in
2013 requiring mariners seeking national officer endorsements as master
or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on routes other than oceans to
complete a Coast Guard-approved basic
[[Page 48932]]
firefighting course.\16\ Prior to the 2013 final rule, only masters and
mates (pilots) of towing vessels serving on an ocean route were
required to complete firefighting training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 78 FR 77796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2013 final rule established grandfathering provisions for which
the Coast Guard provided guidance in Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular (NVIC) 03-16, titled ``Guidelines for Credentialing Officers
of Towing Vessels.'' \17\ As described in Enclosure 10 of NVIC 03-16,
the Coast Guard grandfathered in mariners applying for an original MMC
endorsed as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on non-oceans
routes who began sea service prior to March 24, 2014 and submitted an
application prior to March 24, 2019. The grandfathering provisions
established that applicants for original master or mate (pilot)
endorsements on non-oceans routes prior to March 24, 2019 were not
required to take a firefighting course.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Current Coast Guard NVICs can be found at: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/NVIC/Year/2010/. The NVIC was
updated in September 2020 and the discussion about grandfathering
was removed because the grandfathering period has expired. The
original NVIC was published June 23, 2016 and can be found here:
https://beta.regulations.gov/document/USCG-2016-0611-0001.
\18\ Coast Guard SMEs estimate that nearly all master or mate
(pilot) applicants would have begun sea service prior to March 24,
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mariners raising the grade of their MMC endorsement from mate
(pilot) to master of towing vessels were also grandfathered in under
NVIC 03-16, and were not required to take a firefighting course. As a
result of the grandfathering provisions, this proposal would be
applicable to new applicants for master of towing vessels (limited) or
mate (pilot) of towing vessels endorsements who choose to take a
modified basic firefighting course.
In order to qualify for an MMC endorsement as master of towing
vessels, other than master of towing vessels (limited), an applicant
must have prior sea service experience as either a mate (pilot) of
towing vessels or a master of vessels greater than 200 gross register
tons (GRT). In order to hold the endorsement authorizing service in
either of these capacities would have required the applicant to either
take a firefighting course or be grandfathered in under NVIC 03-16. As
a result, this proposed rule does not impact applicants for an
endorsement as master of towing vessels other than master of towing
vessels (limited).
Masters of towing vessels (limited) do not require prior sea
service as a master or mate of vessels greater than 200 GRT. Therefore,
this proposed rule would affect applicants for endorsements of inland
master of towing vessels (limited) if they do not have a prior
endorsement as a mate (pilot) that required a firefighting course. Two
towing vessel endorsement applicant groups are thus affected by this
rule: (1) Mate (pilot) of towing vessels, and (2) master of towing
vessels (limited) with no prior endorsement as a mate (pilot).
The Coast Guard's National Maritime Center (NMC) issues MMCs to
applicants who meet the regulatory requirements for endorsements
described in 46 CFR parts 11, 12, and 13. Applicants for endorsements
as master and mate (pilot) of towing vessels may be endorsed to operate
on oceans, near coastal, Great Lakes and inland waters, or Western
Rivers routes. The Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation (MMLD)
database is used by the NMC to issue MMCs and maintain records of U.S.
merchant mariners. Data was obtained from the MMLD, for the period
between 2015-2019, on each issuance of an original master or mate
(pilot) of towing vessel endorsement, including when the endorsement
was issued, and the authorized routes of operation.
We excluded applicants for Great Lakes, near-coastal, or oceans
routes, because applicants for those endorsements on those routes are
required to complete basic firefighting and would not be affected by
the rule. Currently, Great Lakes and inland waters are issued as one
route for towing vessel endorsements. With this proposed rule, language
would be added to allow the separation of these two routes so that a
mariner who completes the modified basic firefighting course could be
issued an endorsement valid for inland waters or Western Rivers.
Because towing vessel endorsements are currently issued for Great Lakes
and inland routes, the Coast Guard cannot directly estimate from the
MMLD data the number of masters and mate (pilots) of towing vessels
operating exclusively on the inland waters. However, we can estimate
the number of towing vessels that operate on these waters based on data
from towing vessel inspection records.
As of October 2019, 1,265 towing vessels have been inspected, out
of an estimated 5,770 46 CFR subchapter M vessels.\19\ When vessels are
inspected, they must declare their operating route, which may include
the Great Lakes, inland waters and Western Rivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Data from the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety
and Law Enforcement database from October, 2019. 46 CFR subchapter M
requires all towing vessels greater than 26 feet and those that
transport hazardous materials to be inspected. The Coast Guard has
not fully implemented the 46 CFR subchapter M requirements, which is
why not all affected towing vessels have been inspected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to isolate the vessels operating on the Great Lakes, we
first reviewed the number of vessels that operate on the Great Lakes,
inland waters or Western Rivers, and then examined the number of
vessels that list the Great Lakes as at least one of their routes.
Specifically, out of the 1,265 total towing vessels inspected under 46
CFR subchapter M, 900 are recorded as one or more of the following
routes: Great Lakes, inland waters, or Western Rivers. Five percent, or
45 of the 900 vessels, include the Great Lakes as one of their listed
routes and, therefore, would require basic firefighting training, since
they may operate on the Great Lakes. The remaining 95 percent, or 855
vessels, do not include the Great Lakes as one of their listed routes
and, therefore, we assume mariners serving on these vessels are
eligible to take the modified basic firefighting course.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 45 divided by 900 equals .05 or 5 percent of inspected
towing vessels listing an inland waters, Western Rivers, or Great
Lakes route operate on the Great Lakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 shows the number of endorsements issued from 2016-2020 for
master of towing vessels (limited) and mate (pilot) of towing vessels,
respectively, endorsed to operate on the Great Lakes, inland waters, or
Western Rivers routes. While we report the number of endorsements
issued in 2020 in the table below, we intentionally exclude 2020 when
calculating the average number of master (limited) and mate (pilot)
towing vessel endorsements each year because of the exceptional impact
the COVID-19 pandemic on all facets of the U.S. economy. We therefore
do not believe the number of endorsements issued in 2020 represents a
typical year, and that many individuals that might ordinarily have
pursued an endorsement did not because of the general slowdown in
business associated with the pandemic. On average between 2016 and
2019, the Coast Guard has issued 13 master of towing vessels (limited)
and 450 mate (pilot) of towing vessels endorsements per year, for a
total of 463 new endorsements per year on Great Lakes, inland waters,
and/or Western Rivers routes.
[[Page 48933]]
Table 3--Estimated Number of New Great Lakes, Western Rivers, and/or
Inland Waters Mate (Pilot) and Masters (Limited) Endorsements Issued per
Year *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Masters
Mate (pilot) (limited) with
Year applicants no mate (pilot)
endorsement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016................................ 615 19
2017................................ 512 17
2018................................ 372 10
2019................................ 300 6
2020................................ 128 2
Average............................. 450 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers may not add due to rounding, and 2020 numbers are not included
in the average.
As seen in Table 3, the number of individuals applying for an
endorsement as mate (pilot) of towing vessels has been declining. The
Coast Guard does not know specifically why fewer individuals have
applied for an endorsement as mate (pilot) of towing vessels. It may be
associated with grandfathering provisions provided in the 2013 final
rule, which established grandfathering provisions for master and mate
(pilots) of towing vessels. The 2013 final rule may have caused
applicants for master of towing vessels (limited) and mate (pilot) of
towing vessels endorsements to seek an MMC earlier than they may have
otherwise in order to be grandfathered under the existing regulations.
Additionally, the introduction of 46 CFR subchapter M in 2016 may have
led to a contraction in the industry. In either case, the Coast Guard
believes carrying forward the current decline has been more severe than
fundamentals would suggest, so we expect the number of applicants to
level off. The Coast Guard therefore utilizes the four-year average of
the number of new towing vessel mate applicants, 450, and the four-year
average of the number of limited masters, 13, to estimate that 463
mariners that apply to the Coast Guard to be endorsed to operate on the
Great Lakes, Western rivers, or inland waters each year. We request
comment on this methodology and how many applicants might seek an
inland towing mate or limited master endorsement in the coming years.
Applying the percentage of vessels that do not operate on the Great
Lakes (95 percent) to the estimated 463 annual new endorsements yields
an estimated 440 new endorsements as mate (pilot) of towing vessels or
master of towing vessels (limited) operating in inland waters or
Western Rivers per year, rounded.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 463 multiplied by 0.95 equals 440, rounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
The modified basic firefighting course for towing vessels on inland
waters and Western Rivers would be a modified version of the basic
firefighting course. Mariners are required to take a firefighting
course, and this proposed rule would permit some mariners to take the
modified basic firefighting course in lieu of the longer basic
firefighting course. As such, this rule presents no additional costs to
mariners who will continue to operate on inland waters and Western
Rivers.
Before mariners could save hours spent in training and the tuition
for a basic firefighting course by taking a modified basic firefighting
course, course providers would first need to obtain Coast Guard
approval for the modified basic firefighting course. Course providers
submit course approval requests to the NMC in accordance with the
requirements of 46 CFR part 10, subpart D. The NMC would then evaluate
the course to ensure the content demonstrates comprehensive coverage of
the firefighting knowledge and competency requirements of the training.
If the course submission does not require edits or revisions, and is
approved as submitted, the Coast Guard estimates that it would take a
training specialist at a course provider 6 hours to develop and submit
a request for course approval of a modified basic firefighting
course.\22\ We used the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Occupational
Employment Statistics National-Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates for May 2020 ``Training and Development
Specialists'' category to estimate the wages for the employees who
would prepare and submit the course for Coast Guard approval, as these
employees ``design and conduct training and development programs to
improve individual and organization performance.'' \23\ The BLS
estimates a training and development specialist's mean hourly wages at
$32.43. We then applied a load factor to account for non-wage
compensation and benefits, resulting in a fully loaded hourly wage of
$45.40.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Information provided by an SME from the Coast Guard's NMC.
We request comment on how long it would take to develop and submit
the course approvals, and what wages those who develop the course
approval would be paid.
\23\ https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes131151.htm.
\24\ Data on the employer cost of compensation was sourced from
the ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation'' one screen data
search. We searched for both the total compensation and the wages
and salaries of private industry workers in the ``Educational
Services Industry'' yielding BLS series CMU2016100000000D for total
compensation and series CMU2026100000000D for wages. To derive the
cost of compensation per hour worked, the Coast Guard first took the
average of the four quarters of total compensation or $47.34 and the
average of the four quarters of wages and salaries of $33.92,
rounded. We then divided the total compensation amount of $47.34 by
the wage and salary amount of $33.92 to obtain the load factor of
about 1.4 for ``Educational Services'' occupations, rounded (47.34
divided by 33.92 equals 1.4, rounded). To load the wage, the Coast
Guard multiplied the estimated hourly wage of $32.43 by the loaded
wage factor of 1.4 yielding $45.40, rounded, which accounts for the
total cost of compensation per hour of work (32.43 multiplied by 1.4
equals 45.40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the submission does not require a request for additional
information to supplement the course approval request, the Coast Guard
estimates that a Federal government employee, at a grade level of a GS-
7, would take 1 hour to process the receipt of the course approval
submission. One Federal employee, at a grade level of a GS-13, would
spend 4 hours evaluating the course approval request; another Federal
employee, at a grade level of GS-13, would spend 0.5 hours reviewing
the course; and a fourth Federal employee, also at a grade level of GS-
13, would spend 0.5 hours conducting a final review of the course. In
total, the Coast Guard would spend 1 hour of GS-7 time and 5 hours of
GS-13 time per course approval request, if the submission does not
require a
[[Page 48934]]
request for additional information to supplement the course approval
request.
The impacted employees work in the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington,
DC-MD-VA-WV-PA area. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) lists the
hourly pay for Federal employees in the Washington, DC area according
to the Washington, DC General Schedule (GS) pay tables.\25\ We estimate
that the impacted employees would, on average, be at a step 5 pay,
because that is the midpoint of the pay band. OPM records the hourly
pay of GS-7, step 5 employees as $26.43, and records the hourly pay of
GS-13, step 5 employees as $55.75. These wages are not fully loaded,
meaning they do not account for associated benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/20Tables/html/DCB_h.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To account for the value of benefits to government employees, we
first calculate the share of total compensation of Federal employees
accounted for by wages. The Congressional Budget Office (2017) reports
total compensation to Federal employees as $64.80 per hour and wages as
$38.30.\26\ This implies that total compensation is 1.69 times the
average wages.\27\ We can, therefore, calculate the fully loaded wage
rate for the GS-7 and GS-13 hourly wage rates by multiplying by 1.69,
yielding $44.67 and $94.22, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Congressional Budget Office (2017), ``Comparing the
Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to
2015,'' https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf.
\27\ $64.80 divided by 38.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 23 course providers that may offer a modified basic
firefighting course must submit a course approval request to the Coast
Guard for evaluation. We estimate the costs of this initial submission
to industry and the Coast Guard in table 4.
Table 4--Costs Due to Initial Course Approval Applications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Employee type Fully loaded course Hours Total cost
wage providers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[A] [B] [C] [A * B * C]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Cost................. Training $45.4 23 6 $6,265
Specialist.
Government Cost............... GS-7............ 44.67 23 1 1,027
Government Cost............... GS-13........... 94.22 23 5 10,835
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Government Cost..... ................ .............. .............. .............. 11,862
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............ ................ .............. .............. .............. $18,127
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is common for course providers to submit insufficient supporting
information with a course approval request to the Coast Guard. When
this occurs, the Coast Guard will request additional information from
the course provider. We reviewed new course approval submissions over 3
years (2018-2020) to determine how likely it is for a course provider
to submit a course approval request without the Coast Guard requesting
additional information. We report the total number of course approval
applications received and the number of course approval applications
that require additional information in table 5. We estimate that course
providers include insufficient information in their application packet
37 percent of the time.
Table 5--Course Approval Requests Received With Insufficient Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Course approval Percent of course
Course approval requests received approval requests
Year requests received with insufficient with insufficient
information information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018................................................... 944 362 38
2019................................................... 768 335 44
2020................................................... 699 199 28
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 2,411 896 37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When course providers submit a course approval request with
insufficient information, the Coast Guard would request that the course
providers revise their course request and resubmit. The Coast Guard
estimates that both the course provider and the Coast Guard would spend
an equal number of hours on each resubmittal as they would on the
initial submission. In other words, the course provider would spend 6
hours on an initial approval request and 6 hours on the resubmittal,
for 12 hours total, and the Coast Guard would spend 1 GS-7 hour and 5
GS-13 hours on the initial request, and 1 GS-7 hour and 5 GS-13 hours
on the resubmittal, for 2 GS-7 hours and 10 GS-13 hours total.\28\ We
request comment on how long it would take to develop and submit a
course approval request and the wages that would be paid to those who
develop the course materials and submit the approval request to the
Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Information provided by an SME from the Coast Guard's NMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the Coast Guard estimates that 37 percent of the course
providers, or 8 course providers,\29\ would submit the request for
course approval with insufficient information, requiring a second
submission taking 6 hours to prepare for submission to the Coast Guard.
Similarly, the Federal government would spend an additional 1 hour at
grade level GS-7 and 5 hours
[[Page 48935]]
at grade level GS-13 to review the information resubmitted for the
course approval request. We estimate the costs of modified firefighting
course approvals resubmissions in Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 23 * 37% = 8, rounded.
\30\ Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Table 6--Summary of Resubmission Costs for Modified Firefighting Training Courses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Employee type Hourly course Average hours Total cost
burdened wage providers \30\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[A] [B] [C] [A * B * C]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Cost................. Training $45.40 8 6 $2,179
Specialist.
Government Cost............... GS-7............ 44.67 8 1 357
Government Cost............... GS-13........... 94.22 8 5 3,769
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Government Cost..... ................ .............. .............. .............. 4,126
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............ ................ .............. .............. .............. $6,305
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the total costs to course providers from initial
applications and any resubmissions to be approximately $8,444 ($6,265 +
$2,179), and the total costs to government to be approximately $15,988
($11,862 + $4,126). Together, we estimate the costs of evaluating
approval requests, for the modified basic firefighting courses to be
$8,444 + $15,988, or $24,432. This cost would occur during the first
year of implementation.
As discussed above, course providers would need to seek a renewal
every five years if they wish to continue to offer the course. This
course renewal would include a submission similar to that initially
provided to and approved by the Coast Guard. Since the Coast Guard
would have previously reviewed and approved the course submission, the
Coast Guard does not estimate that it would take course providers
nearly as long to prepare all materials for the Coast Guard.
Specifically, we estimate that the same training specialist who spent 6
hours on an initial course approval request would only spend 1 hour on
a renewal request, and the renewal request would be submitted without
any revisions.\31\ We further estimate that all 23 providers would
submit a request for renewal of a course approval because we do not
expect turnover in course providers based on a review of previous
course approval renewals. The Coast Guard, however, would spend the
same amount of time reviewing the renewal requests as it spent with the
initial approval request to ensure that the course still meets
regulatory requirements, or 1 hour of GS-7 time and 6 hours of GS-13
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ According to SMEs from the Coast Guard's Office of Merchant
Mariner Credentialing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These costs would occur 5 years after each approval, or in year 6.
We estimate the course renewal costs in Table 7. The 10-year
distribution of undiscounted and discounted costs from both the initial
and renewal requests are recorded in Table 8.
Table 7--Course Renewal Submission Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Employee type Burdened wage course Hours Total cost
providers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[A] [B] [C] [A * B * C]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Cost................. Training $45.40 23 1 $1,044
Specialist.
Government Cost............... GS-7............ 44.67 23 1 $1,027
Government Cost............... GS-13........... 94.22 23 6 $13,002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Government Cost..... ................ .............. .............. .............. $14,029
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............ ................ .............. .............. .............. $15,073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--Discounted Costs over a 10-Year Period of Analysis in 2020 Dollars Discounted at 7% and 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted costs
Year Undiscounted -----------------------------------
costs 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... $24,432 $22,834 $23,721
2......................................................... 0 0 0
3......................................................... 0 0 0
4......................................................... 0 0 0
5......................................................... 0 0 0
6......................................................... 15,073 10,044 12,623
7......................................................... 0 0 0
8......................................................... 0 0 0
9......................................................... 0 0 0
[[Page 48936]]
10........................................................ 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 39,505 32,878 36,344
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized................................................ ................ 4,681 4,261
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
The primary benefits of the rule come from the cost savings to
mariners in terms of reduced time spent in training and reduced
tuition. The modified course content would eliminate the requirement
for training using certain firefighting equipment that is not required
to be carried on towing vessels operating on inland waters or Western
Rivers. Acquiring and maintaining this equipment contributes to the
cost of the basic firefighting course. Therefore, the modified basic
firefighting course would be shorter, and likely less expensive, than
the basic firefighting course. Thus, a mariner would likely prefer to
take a modified basic firefighting course instead of a basic
firefighting course. Some mariners may prefer to take the basic
firefighting course if they are considering the possibility of working
on the Great Lakes, near coastal waters, or ocean routes in the future.
However, we do not have data to forecast how many of these mariners
might opt, in the future, to take the longer basic firefighting course
when they apply for the endorsement as master (limited) of towing
vessels or mate (pilot) of towing vessels for inland waters or Western
Rivers. Because the modified basic firefighting course will be shorter,
less expensive, and located in the same area as the basic firefighting
course, and because only a small portion of mariners operate in the
Great Lakes (5 percent) and we already account for them, we assume all
mariners eligible to take a modified basic firefighting course will do
so. We request comment on our assessment that mariners would prefer a
modified firefighting course is correct and if any mariners would
prefer to take the longer basic firefighting course.
The basic firefighting training costs $553.38, on average, and
lasts 16 hours.\32\ The Coast Guard estimates that the modified basic
firefighting courses will be 4 hours shorter than the current 16-hour
basic firefighting course. The modified basic firefighting course would
likely be less expensive than the basic firefighting course, because it
would require fewer resources to host, result in less wear and tear on
the facility, and require fewer hours of an instructor's time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Data on the price of firefighting training was only
publicly available for 21 of the 91 approved course providers. Some
of the course providers are private companies that train their own
employees, some are in schools like the U.S. Naval Academy that
teach basic firefighting to their own cadets but do not separate out
the training, and others do not appear to offer basic firefighting
training despite having an approval permitting them to teach it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the affected population section, we estimate that 440
individuals would apply for an MMC endorsement as a mate (pilot) of
towing vessels or master of towing vessels (limited) on inland waters
or Western Rivers each year, and would be eligible to take the modified
basic firefighting course in lieu of the basic firefighting course.
Therefore, these applicants would save 4 hours of their time and the
difference in costs between the basic firefighting tuition and the
modified basic firefighting course tuition.
The Coast Guard estimates that these 440 applicants would be
mariners who hold an MMC endorsement as apprentice mate (steersman),
which is a position between ordinary seaman and mate. The BLS does not
have a labor category for apprentice mate (steersman); however, the BLS
Occupational Employment Statistics National-Industry-Specific
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for May 2020 lists the wages
for both ``Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels'' and ``Sailors
and Marine Oilers.'' \33\ Because an apprentice mate (steersman) is a
position between ordinary seaman and mates, we derive their wages by
taking a weighted average wage of both ``Captains, Mates, and Pilots of
Water Vessels'' and ``Sailors and Marine Oilers'' operating in the
``Inland Water Transportation'' industry. We take a weighted average
because the duties and responsibilities of an apprentice mate
(steersman) are more similar to that of sailors than they are to mates.
Consequently, we rate the sailor's wage more heavily than we weight the
mate's wage. Specifically, we estimate the wage of an apprentice mate
(steersman) by taking one-third of the average mate's wage ($42.39) and
two-thirds of the average sailor's wage ($24.01), yielding $30.14 per
hour, rounded.\34\ We then apply a load factor to account for non-wage
compensation and benefits, which results in a fully loaded wage of
$46.42.\35\ Therefore, we estimate the annual undiscounted cost savings
for taking shorter courses to be about $81,699 [(440 endorsements x 4
(the number of hours saved) x $46.42 (the burdened wage)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Master and mates rates were accessed on April 30, 2021
from: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes535021.htm#ind. Sailor and
Oiler rates were accessed on April 30, 2021 from: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes535011.htm. For both rates the hourly
mean wage for the ``Inland Water Transportation'' industry was used
as this best approximates the wages of towing vessel masters, mates,
and deckhands.
\34\ [($42.39 divided by 3) plus ($24.01 multiplied by \2/3\)]
which equals $30.14.
\35\ Data on the employer cost of compensation was sourced from
the ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation'' one screen data
search. We searched for both the total compensation and the wages
and salaries of private industry workers in the ``Transportation and
Warehousing Industry'' yielding BLS series CMU2014300000000D for
total compensation and series CMU2024300000000D for wages. To derive
the cost of compensation per hour worked, the Coast Guard first took
the average of the four quarters of total compensation or $40.84 and
the average of the four quarters of wages and salaries of $26.56,
rounded. We then divided the total compensation amount of $40.84 by
the wage and salary amount of $26.56 to obtain the load factor of
about 1.54 for ``Transportation and Warehousing'' occupations,
rounded ($40.84 divided by $26.56 equals 1.54, rounded). To load the
wage, the Coast Guard multiplied the estimated hourly wage of $30.14
by the loaded wage factor of 1.54 yielding $46.42, rounded, which
accounts for the total cost of compensation per hour of work ($30.14
multiplied by 1.54 equals $46.42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants for MMC endorsements as mate (pilot) of towing vessels
and master of towing vessel (limited) would also save the difference
between the tuition for the less expensive, modified basic firefighting
course and the basic firefighting course. If we use the tuition for the
basic firefighting course, $553.38, as the cost of 16 hours of
firefighting instruction, then 12 hours of instruction would be
$415.04,
[[Page 48937]]
rounded.\36\ We request public comment on whether or not the tuition
would decrease proportionally to the reduction in the number of hours
of instruction. The cost savings for the modified basic firefighting
course due to reduced tuition would be $138.34 or $60,870 total,
rounded.\37\ In total, applicants for mate (pilot) of towing vessels
and master of towing vessels (limited) on inland waters or Western
Rivers routes would save $142,569 per year--$81,699 from reduced hours
spent in courses and $60,870 from reduced tuition fees.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 553.38 multiplied by 12/16 equals 415.04.
\37\ 553.38--415.04 = 138.34 and 138.34 x 440 = 60,870, rounded.
\38\ We request public comments regarding the accuracy of this
estimated reduction in course fees and if a different methodology
would be more appropriate to estimate the reduction in course fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because courses must be Coast Guard-approved before they can be
offered to mariners, and developing a new course and obtaining approval
from the Coast Guard can be a lengthy process, we assume that a
modified firefighting course would not be available within the first
year. We show the 10-year distribution of cost savings in table 9.
Table 9--Discounted Cost Savings Over a 10-Year Period of Analysis in 2020 Dollars at 7% and 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted cost savings
Year Undiscounted -----------------------------------
cost savings 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... $0 $0 $0
2......................................................... 142,569 124,525 134,385
3......................................................... 142,569 116,379 130,471
4......................................................... 142,569 108,765 126,671
5......................................................... 142,569 101,650 122,981
6......................................................... 142,569 95,000 119,399
7......................................................... 142,569 88,785 115,922
8......................................................... 142,569 82,976 112,545
9......................................................... 142,569 77,548 109,267
10........................................................ 142,569 72,475 106,085
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 1,283,121 868,103 1,077,726
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized................................................ ................ 123,598 126,342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantified Benefits of the Proposed Rule
We have no data to quantify any change in benefits, other than cost
savings, that might result from providing an option to mariners to take
a firefighting course more closely tailored to the type of equipment
they would find on the vessels they serve on.
Analysis of Alternatives
In addition to our preferred alternative, discussed throughout the
remainder of this regulatory analysis, we considered three additional
alternatives:
(1) No action, or maintaining the requirement that masters and mate
(pilots) of towing vessels be required to take a basic firefighting
course. With this alternative, industry would not benefit from a
shorter, modified basic firefighting course. Therefore, there would be
no cost savings. We rejected the no-action alternative because it would
not create cost savings for mariners seeking an endorsement for master
or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers.
(2) We also considered an alternative from a comment submitted
during our request for feedback, discussed earlier in this NPRM. This
commenter recommended that the Coast Guard eliminate the approved
training requirement and rely instead on drills required by existing
regulations to ensure mariner competence in firefighting. Proponents of
this alternative are likely to argue that the absence of a training
requirement could lead to cost savings from no longer traveling to,
paying for or spending time in the training. However, the Coast Guard
believes this alternative contains a number of serious drawbacks.
First, as noted earlier in this NPRM, firefighting training ensures
that mariners have basic firefighting skills that allow for the quick
extinguishment of small fires that could otherwise spread and lead to
property damage and personnel injury or death. Without the training,
the Coast Guard cannot be sure that mariners would have the necessary
skills to combat fires should they occur on vessels. Second,
instructors in courses that are approved by the Coast Guard are
required to have experience or training in effectively delivering
course material. Third, the content of company managed training and
drills would likely be much less intensive and exhaustive than what
course providers will offer. Firefighting courses will include live
fire exercises and practical experience identifying potential fire
hazards and extinguishing live fires. As part of approved training,
these types of activities take place in a controlled environment,
allowing students to meet learning objectives while keeping them safe
from the associated hazards. These practical exercises cannot be
carried out on an operational vessel. While individuals no longer being
required to take a firefighting course may view this as a benefit via
cost savings, the Coast Guard views this as unacceptably decreasing the
quality of firefighting skills and decreasing the safety of the inland
waters and Western Rivers towing vessel fleet.
Taken together, these three features would lower the safety and
preparedness of the inland waters and Western Rivers towing vessel
fleet substantially. Therefore, the Coast Guard rejected this
alternative.
(3) The third alternative we considered was permitting firefighting
training specific to inland waters and Western Rivers towing vessels,
but requiring the new training to have the same 16 hours of coursework
and cover additional topics and situations common to inland waters and
Western Rivers towing vessels not previously required by regulation.
While the addition of topics for training could be beneficial, the
Coast Guard has no data or feedback to support its impact on safety.
Additionally, the Coast Guard believes course providers would have
little incentive to undergo the expense of developing a firefighting
course that would not provide cost savings to mariners.
[[Page 48938]]
Both courses would occur over 2 days. In the 16-hour course
suggested by this alternative, the mariner would likely experience a
cost savings from reduced tuition because there would be fewer
equipment needs used for the training; however, we do not have a way to
estimate the size of this reduction in fees. This reduction in fees
would almost certainly be less than the reduction in fees for a 12-hour
course instead of a 16-hour course, because the instructors would spend
less time in class. Additionally, a 16-hour course would not result in
the cost savings from the 4-hour reduced training duration, estimated
at $92,381 annually. As a result, the Coast Guard rejected this
alternative because it did not lead to the highest cost savings.
Net Cost Savings
As documented above, there would be costs to course providers and
the Coast Guard, and cost savings to mariners who would have the option
to complete a modified basic firefighting course. Table 10 presents the
net cost savings to industry and the Government over a 10-year period
of analysis, in 2019 dollars. Net cost savings are expressed as
negative numbers in the first year due to the absence of cost savings.
Table 10--Discounted Net Cost Savings Over a 10-Year Period of Analysis in 2020 Dollars at 7% and 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted cost savings
Year Undiscounted -----------------------------------
cost savings 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... -$24,432 -$22,834 -$23,721
2......................................................... 142,569 124,525 134,385
3......................................................... 142,569 116,379 130,471
4......................................................... 142,569 108,765 126,671
5......................................................... 142,569 101,650 122,981
6......................................................... 127,496 84,956 106,776
7......................................................... 142,569 88,785 115,922
8......................................................... 142,569 82,976 112,545
9......................................................... 142,569 77,548 109,267
10........................................................ 142,569 72,475 106,085
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 1,243,616 835,225 1,041,382
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized................................................ ................ 118,917 122,082
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000 people.
As described in section VI. A. of this preamble, Regulatory
Planning and Review, there would be two affected populations: (1)
Course providers who develop and submit a course to the Coast Guard for
approval, and (2) applicants for mate (pilot) of towing vessels or
master of towing vessels (limited) operating on inland waters or
Western Rivers. Applicants are individuals and not entities; as such,
the second affected population does not contain any small entities.
Of the 91 course providers approved to offer a basic firefighting
course, the Coast Guard identified 35 course providers who might submit
requests for course approval to teach a modified firefighting
course.\39\ Of these 35 providers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ In the Affected Population section, we estimated that 23
providers would most likely be impacted by this rule based on their
location and other factors. While we estimated that 23 providers
would be most likely impacted, we identified 35 providers that might
offer a modified basic firefighting course. For the purposes of the
regulatory flexibility analysis, and because we did not know with
certainty which of the 35 course providers would be impacted, we
reviewed the potential costs to any of 35 entities to see if this
rule would be likely to have a substantial impact on small entities.
These 35 course providers are listed in in a document which is
available in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES portion
of the preamble (See Table A1: Basic Firefighting Course Providers,
Course Cost, and Likelihood to Offer a Modified Basic Firefighting
Course).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 are public agencies, none of which are classified as
small entities;
4 are non-profit organizations, and all 4 are classified
as small entities;
18 are private companies. Of these, 4 are not classified
as small businesses, 8 are classified as small businesses, and 6 could
not be classified because information could not be found on those 6
businesses. We classify those 6 businesses, where information could not
be found, as small entities.
In total, we classified 18 of 35 entities as small entities. Table
11 lists the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes and size standards used to determine whether or not entities are
small and the numbers of small entities.
Table 11--Size Standards and the Affected Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
NAICS U.S. industry title NAICS code Size standard entities small entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Government Jurisdiction...... N/A ``governments of cities, 13 0
counties, towns,
townships, villages,
school districts, or
special districts with a
population of less than
50,000.''.
[[Page 48939]]
Small Organization................. N/A ``any not-for-profit 4 4
enterprise that is
independently owned and
operated and not dominant
in its field.''.
Crude Petroleum Extraction......... 211120 1250 employees............. 1 0
Inland Water Freight Transportation 483211 750 employees.............. 1 1
Inland Water Passenger 483212 500 employees.............. 1 0
Transportation.
Navigational Services to Shipping.. 488330 $41.5 million in revenue... 2 1
Human Resources Consulting Services 541612 $16.5 million in revenue... 1 1
Business and Secretarial Schools... 611410 $8 million in revenue...... 1 1
Other Technical and Trade Schools.. 611519 $16.5 million in revenue... 3 3
Sports and Recreation Instruction.. 611620 $8 million in revenue...... 1 1
Ambulance Services................. 621910 $16.5 million in revenue... 1 0
Firms Where the Industry Could not N/A N/A........................ 6 6
be Identified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... .............. ........................... 35 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in the Costs section of this Regulatory Analysis, we
estimate that it takes either 6 hours to prepare and submit a course
approval request for a modified basic firefighting course or 12 hours
if the course approval request requires additional information and
resubmission. A training and development specialist's time is valued at
a burdened rate of $45.40, for a total cost of either $272.40, or
$544.80.\40\ For this proposed rule to impose a significant impact on a
small entity, the impact would have to be greater than 1 percent (.01)
of a small entity's annual revenue. That is, in order for this proposed
rule to have a significant economic impact on an entity, the entity's
annual revenue would have to be less than $54,480.\41\ Out of the 8
small entities for which we had revenue information, none had annual
revenue under $54,480. Table 12 indicates the distribution of revenue
impacts for the small entities for which we were able to identify
revenue information.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See footnote 24 for a calculation of the burdened wage rate
for training and development specialists. 6 hours x $47.66 per hour
is $285.96, while 12 hours x $47.66 per hour is $571.92
\41\ $571.92 divided by .01 equals $57,192
\42\ We were not able to identify revenue information for the 4
nonprofit small entities and for 6 firms we identified as small.
Table 12--Distribution of Revenue Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small entities Portion of small
Percent of revenue impact Average annual with known entities with
impact revenue known revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3%....................................................... 544.80 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, based on this analysis, the Coast Guard certifies under
5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that
your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as
a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the docket at the
address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your
comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree
this proposed rule would economically affect it.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
D. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for a change to the existing
information collection (OMB Control Number 1625-0028) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. As defined in 5
CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar
actions. The title and description of the information collections, a
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden
[[Page 48940]]
follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection.
Title: Course Approval and Records for Merchant Marine Training
Schools
OMB Control Number: 1625-0028.
Summary of the Modification to the Collection of Information: This
proposed rule would allow course providers to offer a new course
approved under 46 CFR 10.402 and 10.403 by permitting inland waters and
Western Rivers towing vessel master and mate (pilot) applicants to take
a modified course in lieu of a basic firefighting course.
Need for information: The Coast Guard will need to receive a course
approval submission from each course provider in order to approve each
course provider's new modified basic inland waters and Western Rivers
towing vessel firefighting course.
Proposed Use of the Information: The collection of information is
intended to ensure that course providers meet the regulatory
requirements for the courses that they offer.
Description of the Respondents: The respondents are course
providers wishing to offer a modified basic inland waters and Western
Rivers towing vessel firefighting course.
Number of Respondents: The Coast Guard estimates that there will
not be any additional respondents, because the course providers who
would request approval of a modified basic inland waters and Western
Rivers towing vessel firefighting course would already have other
courses approved by the Coast Guard. As such, the Coast Guard expects
there will be no additional respondents because the respondents are
already included in the collection of information. Out of the 315
current annual respondents for OMB Control Number 1625-0028, 91 are
currently approved to offer a basic firefighting course. Based on
information provided by an SME from the Coast Guard's Office of
Merchant Mariner Credentialing, we estimate that 23 of the 91 course
providers offering a basic firefighting course would likely request
approval of a modified basic inland waters and Western Rivers towing
vessel firefighting course.
Frequency of Response: Half the course providers would request
course approval and not need to provide additional information, and the
other half would request course approval and need to provide additional
information. The Coast Guard estimates these requests would happen in
the first year. Therefore, we estimate that there would be 35
additional responses from this proposed rule (23 initial submissions,
plus 12 submissions of additional information). The current collection
of information estimates the annual number of responses at 3,757;
adding 35 responses brings the total estimated number of responses to
3,792.
Burden of Response: Out of the 35 responses, the Coast Guard
estimates that 23 would take 6 hours to request approval of a modified
basic inland waters and Western Rivers towing vessel firefighting
course because the course provider's submission complies with Coast
Guard policies and regulations. Another 12 responses would take an
additional 6 hours because the course package would need to be revised
and resubmitted.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: All 35 responses would take 6
hours to complete. As a consequence, the Coast Guard estimates that 35
x 6, or 210 hours, will be incurred by course providers in requesting
new modified basic firefighting course approvals. The current
collection of information annual hour burden is 145,917 hours. Adding
210 to this annual burden brings the total estimated hour burden to
146,127.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this
proposed rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
We ask for public comment on the proposed revised collection of
information to help us determine, among other things--
How useful the information is;
Whether the information can help us perform our functions
better;
How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of
the information;
Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
How valid our methods are for determining the burden of
collection; and
How we can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them to both to OMB and to the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
NPRM, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect
this information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 7101 (personnel
qualifications of officers serving on board merchant vessels), and any
other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the
sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed
from regulation by the States. See, e.g., United States v. Locke, 529
U.S. 89 (2000) (finding that the states are foreclosed from regulating
tanker vessels) see also Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151,
157 (1978) (state regulation is preempted where ``the scheme of federal
regulation may be so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that
Congress left no room for the States to supplement it [or where] the
Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal interest is so
dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude
enforcement of state laws on the same subject.'' (citations omitted)).
Because this proposed rule involves the credentialing of merchant
mariner officers 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.
Because the States may not regulate within this category, this proposed
rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption
requirements in Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications
and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs
agencies to consult with State and local governments during the
rulemaking
[[Page 48941]]
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 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1,\43\ 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 L52 and L56 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev.1. Paragraph L52 pertains to regulations concerning
vessel operation safety standards and paragraph L56 pertains to
regulations concerning the training, qualifying, and licensing of
maritime personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS_Instruction%20Manual%20023-01-001-01%20Rev%2001_508%20Admin%20Rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would revise the existing merchant mariner
credentialing training requirements for national endorsements as master
and mate (pilot) for towing vessels. The proposed changes would apply
to mariners working on towing vessels inspected under 46 CFR subchapter
M when operating on inland waters or Western Rivers routes. Under the
proposed rule, these mariners would only be required to receive
training that is relevant to the firefighting equipment that is
available on their vessels. This proposed change would promote marine
safety by focusing attention on the resources actually available to
affected mariners. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 11
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools,
Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR part 11 as follows:
0
1. The authority citation for part 11 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 102(3); 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101,
2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701,
8906, and 70105; Executive Order 10173; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 11.107 is also issued under
the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
0
2. Amend Sec. 11.201 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (h)(1), (2)(i), and (3)(i) and (ii);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (h)(3)(iii) and (iv); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (l) .
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 11.201 General requirements for national and STCW officer
endorsements.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Applicants for an original officer endorsement in the following
categories must present a certificate of completion from a firefighting
course of instruction relevant to the endorsement being sought that has
been approved by the Coast Guard. The firefighting course must have
been completed within the past 5 years, or if it was completed more
than 5 years before the date of application, the applicant must provide
evidence of maintaining the standard of competence in accordance with
the firefighting requirements for the credential sought.
(2) * * *
(i) All national officer endorsements as master or mate on seagoing
vessels of 200 GRT or more.
* * * * *
[[Page 48942]]
(3) * * *
(i) All officer endorsements as master on vessels of less than 500
GT in ocean service.
(ii) All officer endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels for service on near-coastal waters, except apprentice mate
(steersman) of towing vessels.
(iii) All officer endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels for service on Great Lakes, except apprentice mate (steersman)
of towing vessels.
(iv) All officer endorsements as master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels for service on inland waters or Western Rivers, except
apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels.
(A) The Coast Guard will accept a Coast Guard approved modified
basic firefighting course, which is the basic firefighting training
described in paragraph (h)(3) of this section modified to only cover
the equipment, fire prevention procedures, and firefighting operations
required on towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers routes
required in 46 CFR parts 140 and 142. A mariner who completes this
modified basic firefighting course will be issued an endorsement that
is restricted to inland waters or Western Rivers.
(B) To increase in scope to Great Lakes, near-coastal or oceans,
the applicant will be required to complete the firefighting course
appropriate to the route sought.
* * * * *
(l) Restrictions. The Coast Guard may modify the service, training,
and examination requirements in this part to satisfy the unique
qualification requirements of an applicant or distinct group of
mariners. The Coast Guard may also lower the age requirement for OUPV
applicants. The authority granted by an officer endorsement will be
restricted to reflect any modifications made under the authority of
this paragraph (l).
Dated: August 16, 2021.
J.W. Mauger,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-17945 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
