Person in Charge of Fuel Transfers, 31677-31690 [2020-11366]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 155 [Docket No. USCG–2018–0493] RIN 1625–AC50 Person in Charge of Fuel Transfers Coast Guard, DHS. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: I. Abbreviations The Coast Guard is amending the requirements regulating personnel permitted to serve as a person in charge (PIC) of fuel oil transfers on an inspected vessel by adding the option of using a letter of designation (LOD) in lieu of a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. Obtaining an MMC with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement is now optional for PICs of fuel oil transfers on inspected vessels. This change is not limited to towing vessels, but one effect of this rule is that a PIC currently using the LOD option on an uninspected towing vessel may continue to do so once the vessel receives its Certificate of Inspection. DATES: This final rule is effective May 27, 2020. CG–MMC Policy Letter 01–17 is cancelled effective May 27, 2020. ADDRESSES: To view comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking and documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG– 2018–0493 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document call or email Cathleen Mauro, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG– MMC–1), Coast Guard; telephone 202– 372–1449, email Cathleen.B.Mauro@ uscg.mil. SUMMARY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Table of Contents for Preamble I. Abbreviations II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History III. Discussion of Comments A. Decades-Long Use of LODs which focus on fuel oil transfers B. Safety and environmental concerns and restricted-endorsement policy letter C. Miscellaneous D. No changes to regulatory text IV. Discussion of the Rule A. Amendments to § 155.710(e) B. Amendments to § 155.715 C. This rule only addresses fuel oil transfers, not LNG fuel transfers V. Regulatory Analyses VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 CFR Code of Federal Regulations COI Certificate of Inspection DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LOD Letter of designation MERPAC Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement MMC Merchant Mariner Credential MPH Miles per hour NMC National Maritime Center NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget PIC Person in charge § Section STCW International Convention of Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers TSAC Towing Safety Advisory Committee TWIC Transportation Worker Identification Card U.S.C. United States Code VSO Vessel Security Officer II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History As we stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 14, 2019 (84 FR 40329), the Coast Guard established the option of using a letter of designation (LOD) for uninspected vessels in 1998.1 The LOD designates the holder as a person in charge (PIC) of the transfer of fuel oil and states that the holder has received sufficient formal instruction from the operator or agent of the vessel to ensure his or her ability to safely and adequately carry out the duties and responsibilities of the PIC.2 When establishing the LOD option, we stated that the formal instruction required by this option should ensure that personnel acting as PICs of fuel oil transfers have the ability to safely and adequately carry out their duties and responsibilities while minimizing the risks of pollution from fuel oil spills.3 Thousands of towing vessels are currently transitioning from being 1 See Qualifications for Tankerman and for Persons in Charge of Transfers of Dangerous Liquids and Liquefied Gases final rule (63 FR 35822, July 1, 1998). 2 33 CFR 155.715. 3 63 FR 35822, 35825, July 1, 1998. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 31677 uninspected vessels to becoming inspected vessels.4 While this rule is not limited to towing vessels, it will allow a PIC currently using the LOD option on one of those uninspected towing vessels to continue to use that option to perform the same fuel oil transfers once the vessel becomes an inspected vessel. This transition happens when the vessel is issued a certificate of inspection (COI). This rule only addresses transfers of fuel oil. The PIC requirements in 33 CFR 155.710(a), (b) and (f) for vessels transferring cargo remain unchanged. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13777 (Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda) direct us to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens.5 We believe that the LOD option provides a level of safety and protection for fuel oil transfers equivalent to the TankermanPIC option, while eliminating the burden of obtaining and maintaining a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC). By adding this LOD alternative, individuals on inspected vessels now have an option that was previously only available to individuals on uninspected vessels. As discussed in the NPRM,6 the Coast Guard tasked the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) and the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) to review existing PIC requirements for vessel fuel transfers and to make recommendations for amendments. The Coast Guard reviewed the recommendations from both TSAC and MERPAC and agreed with MERPAC’s broader recommendation that all inspected vessels should have the option of using an LOD to satisfy the requirement for designating the PIC of fuel transfers. This final rule is consistent with MERPAC’s recommendation and provides the relief sought for towing vessels in the TSAC recommendation. In March 2017, the Coast Guard issued CG–MMC Policy Letter No. 01– 17 titled, ‘‘Guidelines for Issuing Endorsements for Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels.’’ 7 As we stated in the NPRM,8 this policy eased some of the requirements for obtaining an MMC 4 See 46 CFR 136.202, and discussion in this document’s Regulatory Analysis regarding the number of towing vessels making this transition. 5 See Section 1(b)(11) and Section 1, respectively. 6 84 FR 40329, 40332, August 14, 2019. 7 U.S. Coast Guard, Guidelines for Issuing Endorsements for Tankermen PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels (Mar. 10, 2017), https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NMC/pdfs/ announcements/2017/cg-mmc_policy_letter_01-17_ final_3_9_17-date.pdf. 8 84 FR 40329, 40332, August 14, 2019. E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 31678 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations with a Tankerman PIC endorsement, but it did not completely relieve the burden of obtaining the credential or maintaining the endorsement through the renewal process every 5 years and it only addresses inspected towing vessels—not other inspected vessels. Authority under Subtitle II and Chapter 700 of Title 46 United States Code, specifically 46 U.S.C. 3306 and 70034, has been delegated to the Coast Guard and allows us to establish and amend regulations for a person in charge (PIC) of fuel oil transfers. This rule is authorized by Subtitle II provisions to regulate lightering (46 U.S.C. 3715) and personnel qualifications for all inspected vessels, including nontank vessels (46 U.S.C. 3703), and by 46 U.S.C. chapter 700 provisions regarding waterfront safety, including protection of navigable waters and the resources therein (46 U.S.C. 70011). We are making this rule effective upon publication because it relieves a restriction and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) does not require us to wait 30 days before we make such rules effective. This rule relieves a restriction by allowing an LOD to be used to designate a PIC on an inspected vessel. Also, we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for making this rule effective upon publication because it would be contrary to the public interest not to do so. Currently, under provisions in 46 CFR 136.202, thousands of uninspected towing vessels are becoming inspected towing vessels. Making this rule effective May 27, 2020 will enable more persons with an LOD currently serving as a PIC on an uninspected towing vessel to continue to do so without obtaining an MMC endorsement once that same vessel becomes an inspected vessel. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES III. Discussion of Comments The Coast Guard received 10 written submissions during the 62-day comment period that ended October 15, 2019. A common theme for those who supported the proposed rule, was that the vessel-specific training for an LOD is more practicable and appropriate for fuel oil transfers compared to the broader, cargo-transfer focused training for a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. Those who opposed the proposed rule generally viewed it as a change that would lower safety and environmental standards. The Coast Guard summarizes and addresses the comments below. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 A. Decades-Long Use of LODs Which Focus on Fuel Oil Transfers 1. LODs have been used safely for more than 2 decades: One commenter stated that the LOD option has been safely used on uninspected vessels for more than 2 decades and is a highly regulated process that ensures mariners serving as a PIC of fuel oil transfers are properly trained. The commenter noted that when vessel operators issue an LOD, they certify that the holder has received sufficient formal training and instruction to safely and adequately carry out the duties and responsibilities of transferring fuel oil as required by regulation. The commenter pointed out that ‘‘33 CFR 156.120 details 28 individual elements in the fuel transfer process that a PIC must understand and conduct, and that 33 CFR 156.150 requires documentation of each fuel transfer, including a signed declaration from the PIC certifying that each of those requirements was completed.’’ They assessed the LOD option as providing an equivalent level of safety and environmental stewardship when compared to MMCs with a Restricted Tankerman-PIC endorsement. Response: We concur that LOD requirements are detailed, and that the operator or agent of the vessel must certify that the holder has received sufficient formal instruction to safely and adequately carry out these detailed requirements. While this formal instruction is received from the operator or agent of the vessel(s) identified in the LOD, the detailed requirements in 33 CFR 156.120 and 156.150 are standardized for any PIC engaged in fuel oil transfers. 2. LODs allow for vessel-specific training focused on fuel oil transfers: One commenter noted that the LOD option creates important regulatory relief, allows for increased flexibility, and broadens the scope of available mariners to serve as a PIC for fuel oil transfers on inspected vessels. The commenter stated that it allows for a focus on vessel-specific training regarding fuel oil transfers, which can vary widely across the diverse nationwide marine fleet, and views this specialization in training as a positive addition, going above and beyond the requirements of a more general endorsement. Another commenter noted that a feature of the LOD is that it keeps scrutiny of training and oversight at the vessel level and that the commenter’s company issues vessel specific LODs. Response: The Coast Guard concurs that the LOD option tends to focus training on fuel oil transfers for a specific vessel or a fleet of vessels that PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 the LOD holder will be authorized to serve on as a PIC. The requirements in § 155.715 specify that formal instruction is provided by the operator or agent of the vessel or vessels identified in the LOD. B. Safety and Environmental Concerns and Restricted-Endorsement Policy Letter 1. Some warn that restricted endorsement may increase risk level while some want endorsement continued: One commenter noted the cost burden 9 to unlicensed deckhands of obtaining an endorsement for a Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels created by Policy Letter 01–17, but warned that this restricted endorsement may increase risk levels. This commenter wrote that Policy Letter 01–17 waives training requirements (for approved firefighting and tankship course), while allowing uncredentialed deckhands with LODs 10 to become credentialed mariners who may demand higher pay rates. The commenter observed that once a person uses a vessel-specific LOD to qualify for an MMC with an endorsement for Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels, as allowed by Policy Letter 01– 17, they are free to work as a PIC on other towing vessels even if that vessel is quite different from the vessel for which they held an LOD. Another commenter requested that we retain the option for mariners to obtain and renew endorsements as TankermanPIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels. They viewed this option as providing equivalent levels of safety and environmental stewardship as the LOD option and stated that keeping the restricted endorsement option would allow maximum flexibility for mariners and their employers. They also noted that mariners who have obtained an MMC with the restricted Tankerman-PIC endorsement may wish to maintain that credential for professional development reasons. Response: With respect to concerns about Policy Letter 01–17, this rule 9 The evaluation ($95) and issuance ($45) fees are described in 46 CFR 10.219, in the Table 1 to § 10.219(a) row for MMC with rating endorsement: Original endorsement for qualified rating. 10 The commenter is correct that the policy letter does not require applicants to have previously held mariner credentials. Applicants must be at least 18 years old and hold a valid Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC) or have enrolled for one. An alternative to holding an LOD, would be to ‘‘provide evidence of participation, under the supervision of someone designated as PIC of a fuel transfer, in at least five fuel transfers on Towing Vessels during the preceding 5 years.’’ E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES provides more complete relief from the existing § 155.710(e) requirement than Policy Letter 01–17 does, and it does so without waiving any training requirements for obtaining an MMC PIC endorsement. With this rule’s addition of an LOD option, there are now two avenues to qualify as a PIC for the transfer of fuel oil: (1) Hold a valid MMC with either an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement; or (2) use the new option for inspected vessels of designating a PIC with an LOD as described in 33 CFR 155.715. Therefore, we are cancelling Policy Letter 01–17 effective May 27, 2020. The Coast Guard supports mariners pursuing professional development but, for the reason stated above, we are cancelling Policy Letter 01–17 upon publication of this rule. 2. Perceived decline in both safety and protection of the environment: One commenter opposed the proposed rule and stated that he sees too many accidents and spills from untrained crews that go unreported. The commenter stated that as a crew member he has seen a serious decline in safety and an increase in small accidents in the last few years, including 14-hour-work days in violation of STCW 11 watch hours. The commenter said that companies offer low wages and are not willing to pay a meaningful wage to trained and competent workers. The commenter did not directly attribute the reduced level of safety to LODs. Another commenter wrote that easing PIC requirements was ‘‘caving to pressure from industry’’ and unfair to those who have already completed approved training to obtain a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. The commenter stated there is no substitute for loading-and-discharging training service requirements and recommended a PIC-Fueling endorsement for those who bunker and transfer aboard smaller, previously uninspected vessels. Additionally, the commenter stated that there has been a rise in accidents in the inland industry in the last few years. In suggesting a caving-to-industry trend, the commenter referenced recently issued gap-closure 12 training 11 STCW stands for the International Convention of Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. 12 Gap-closing training refers to requirements in 46 CFR 11.305 to 11.321 and 11.325 to 11.335, included in a 2013 final rule entitled ‘‘Implementation of the Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 [STCW Convention], and Changes to National Endorsements’’ (78 FR 77795, 77805, December 24, 2013). These training requirements were implemented to ensure mariners with existing STCW endorsements met the requirements of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 requirements and indicated they disadvantaged U.S. mariners compared to foreign mariners. The commenter referenced the Deepwater Horizon accident as an example of why cutting costs to industry by lowering standards that provided safety to mariners and protection for the environment is dangerous. Response: The requirements for an MMC endorsement and a LOD have remained unchanged for many years, so the requisite training has not changed. We see no correlation, therefore, between the commenters’ reference to either an increase in accidents in recent years or a reduced level of safety, and the requirements regulating personnel permitted to serve as a PIC of fuel oil transfers on an inspected vessel. To the extent the commenter may be concerned about the endorsement for a TankermanPIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels introduced in 2017, effective May 27, 2020 we are cancelling the CG–MMC Policy Letter 01–17 enabling that restricted endorsement. Personnel designated as PICs through the use of an LOD are required to receive formal instruction from the operator or agent of the vessel, sufficient to ensure his or her ability to safely and adequately carry out the duties and responsibilities of the PIC.13 These duties include understanding discharge (spill) reporting procedures.14 Any individual who witnesses a spill or other reportable marine casualty should report that casualty to the Coast Guard. Enforcement of casualty reporting and applicable STCW requirements will continue independent of this regulatory initiative. The influence of market forces on how much is paid to those with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement or that have received sufficient formal instruction to obtain an LOD is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. As for the second commenter, this rule, which is supported by recommendations of the MERPAC and the TSAC, does not change the requirements for having a designated PIC as described in 33 CFR 155.700, the process for obtaining a Tankerman-PIC endorsement in 46 CFR part 13, subpart B, or the requirements for an LOD in 33 CFR 155.715. To qualify for a Tankerman-PIC endorsement, applicants must present evidence of supervised participation in at least five cargo loadings and five cargo discharges. While experience with cargo 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention. Mariners had to complete this training before January 1, 2017, to maintain the validity of their STCW endorsements. 13 33 CFR 155.715. 14 33 CFR 156.120(w)(10). PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 31679 transfers is not required for an LOD, formal instruction is required. The holder of an LOD is required to receive sufficient formal instruction from the operator or agent of the vessel to ensure his or her ability to safely and adequately carry out the duties and responsibilities of the PIC described in 33 CFR 156.120 (requirements for transfer) and 156.150 (Declaration of inspection). The recommendation for a PICFueling endorsement for those who bunker and transfer aboard smaller, previously uninspected vessels warrants future consideration, but that recommendation is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. C. Miscellaneous 1. Make changes proposed by NPRM effective faster by issuing a policy letter: One commenter, who referenced a method for training new deckhands so they can qualify for their vessel-specific LOD, recommended that we implement the LOD option via a policy letter pending the effective date of this rule. Response: We appreciate the concern and another commenter’s concern about making the LOD option available as soon as possible, and we are making this rule effective upon publication. After we publish a rule, normally there is a 30-day waiting period before we can make it effective, but under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) this waiting period does not apply to rules that relieve a restriction. Starting May 27, 2020, this rule will begin relieving a restriction by allowing an LOD to be used to designate a PIC on an inspected vessel. 2. Let Tankerman-Engineer endorsement serve to satisfy § 155.710(e) requirements: One commenter noted that the commenter’s employer requires all officers, even engineers with no involvement in cargo transfers (on a tankship), to maintain a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. Even though 33 CFR 155.710(e) permits engineering officers to serve as PICs, the commenter suggests that we specifically add the Tankerman-Engineer endorsement as an option in addition to the Tankerman-PIC endorsement to satisfy the requirement in § 155.710(e). Observing that not all vessels subject to PIC requirements are oil tankers— making it difficult or impossible to satisfy tankship or self-propelled-tankvessel-loading-and-discharging service requirements to obtain a Tankerman-PIC endorsement—the commenter wants the Coast Guard to ensure that the classroom requirements for the Tankerman-Engineer endorsement focus on fuel and bunker transfers. Finally, the commenter stated that if a PIC on a E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 31680 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations ship is required to have a Tankerman endorsement (PIC or Engineer) to maintain responsibility for the transfer, the person working aboard the transferring barge should also be endorsed and educated to the same level of care. Response: The suggestion to modify the training requirements for the Tankerman-Engineer endorsement to focus on fuel and bunker transfers—and to add the Tankerman-Engineer as a means to satisfy § 155.710(e)—warrants future consideration but is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The LOD option that this rule makes available, however, enables those who are not able to satisfy Tankerman-PIC endorsement service requirements to obtain formal instructions on fuel oil transfers so they may serve as a PIC on the vessel(s) identified in the LOD. Regarding transfers from bunker barges, they are considered cargo transfers and the PIC on a tank barge required to be inspected under 46 U.S.C. 3703, would need to meet requirements in 33 CFR 155.710(b). Those requirements include the option of having a Tankerman-PIC (Barge) endorsement in order to serve as the PIC of a cargo transfer. The requirements for a Tankerman-PIC (Barge) endorsement include experience on tank vessels. 3. Request to extend use of LODs to drilling fluids and other offshoresupply-vessel cargos: Two commenters requested that the Coast Guard extend the use of the LOD for fuel transfers to transfers of drilling fluids and other cargos for Offshore Supply Vessels (OSVs). They stated that offshore oil and gas industry is serviced by a fleet of OSVs that not only routinely load and offload excess fuel, but also supply drilling fluids. They viewed the cargo systems of OSVs as no more complicated or dangerous than its fuel oil systems and stated that harmful nature of drilling fluids did not measure up to the harmful nature of fuel oil. Response: Extending the use of an LOD to non-fuel-oil transfers is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The NPRM was clear regarding the scope of this rulemaking. We are amending 33 CFR 155.710(e), which only applies to fuel oil transfers. Drilling fluids are categorized as cargo, and therefore, would not qualify as a fuel oil transfer. Moreover, drilling fluids 15 may contain oil and under 46 CFR 125.110(e) we treat such fluids the same as oil cargo. 15 As defined in 40 CFR 435.11(l), drilling fluid is the circulating fluid used in the rotary drilling of wells. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 D. No Changes to Regulatory Text We did not make any changes from the proposed rule based on the comments we received on the NPRM. The regulatory text of the final rule is the same as what we proposed in the NPRM. IV. Discussion of the Rule This final rule amends 33 CFR 155.710(e), which sets forth the provisions for the qualifications of the PIC of any fuel oil transfer requiring a Declaration of Inspection. This rule does not change the existing requirements for the PIC on uninspected vessels, and the requirements for vessels transferring cargo also remains unchanged. This rule provides inspected vessels two options for meeting requirements to serve as the PIC of a fuel oil transfer. Vessel operators may comply with the current inspected vessel requirement of having a PIC with a valid MMC with either an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement or use the new option for inspected vessels of designating a PIC with an LOD as described in 33 CFR 155.715. A. Amendments to § 155.710(e) This rule revises the text of 33 CFR 155.710(e)(1) so that requirements for inspected and uninspected vessels are combined in that paragraph. Paragraph (e)(1)(i) presents the MMC endorsement options and paragraph (e)(1)(ii) presents the LOD option. This rule also redesignates the remaining paragraphs in that section and amends a reference in the redesignated paragraph regarding tank barges to reflect our removal of paragraph (e)(2). With respect to MMCs, this rule removes obsolete terminology such as merchant mariner ‘‘licenses’’ and ‘‘Merchant Mariner Documents.’’ The Coast Guard ceased issuing those types of documents in 2009 when we transitioned to the streamlined MMC. Also, the rule clarifies the first sentence of § 155.710(e) by changing ‘‘shall verify’’ to ‘‘must verify.’’ B. Amendments to § 155.715 In § 155.715, this rule changes the reference to § 155.710(e)(2) so that it refers to § 155.710(e)(1) instead. This change reflects our amendments to § 155.710(e). Also, to remove a longstanding conflict of referring to the same letter as both ‘‘letter of instruction’’ and ‘‘letter of designation,’’ this rule amends the reference to a letter of instruction by simply referring to it as ‘‘the letter referenced in § 155.710(e)(1).’’ This letter has become known by the title we gave it in the § 155.715 heading, ‘‘letter of designation.’’ Section 155.715 requires the letter to designate the PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 holder as a PIC of the transfer of fuel oil and to state that the holder has received sufficient formal instruction from the operator or agent of the vessel to ensure his or her ability to safely and adequately carry out the duties and responsibilities of the PIC described in 33 CFR 156.120 and 156.150. Changing our reference to it as ‘‘the letter referenced in § 155.710(e)(1)’’ does not change any of those requirements, but it does make it clear that ‘‘letter of designation’’ is the correct way to refer to the letter referenced in § 155.710(e) that must satisfy the requirements of § 155.715. C. This Rule Only Addresses Fuel Oil Transfers, Not LNG Fuel Transfers This rule does not apply to liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuel transfers. Both §§ 155.710(e) and 155.715 apply solely to the transfer of ‘‘fuel oil.’’ Fuel oil means any oil used to fuel the propulsion and auxiliary machinery of the ship carrying the fuel.16 V. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. The regulatory text of this rule is unchanged, and the analysis for it is not substantively changed from what we proposed in the NPRM. We updated three figures used in the analysis to reflect changes realized after we published the NPRM. We update the number of towing vessel inspections completed to reflect inspections conducted from July through October 2019. We updated the total population of towing vessels to reflect knowledge gained from recent inspections. We also revised the assumed turnover rate of 30 percent following additional analysis of data we obtained from the National Maritime Center. 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, of harmonizing rules, 16 As provided in § 155.110, this 33 CFR 151.05 definition of ‘‘fuel oil’’ applies to §§ 155.710 and 155.715. E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ‘‘for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.’’ The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. DHS considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. See the OMB Memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’’ (April 5, 2017). Details on the estimated cost savings of this rule can be found in the rule’s regulatory analysis (RA) that follows. We received no public comments on the estimated unit costs of the proposed rule, so we retained these estimates for this analysis; however, because our estimated population changed due to a revised turnover rate, the total estimated cost savings changed from the NPRM. We received additional data to update estimates in our assessment of the proposed rule. Updating estimates with new data does not alter the methodology demonstrated in the preliminary regulatory analysis; therefore, we adopt 31681 the methodology of the preliminary analysis for the proposed rule as final. This final rule is necessary to provide a less burdensome method of designating who may serve as the PIC of a fuel oil transfer on an inspected vessel by extending the LOD option to inspected vessels. The individuals expected to take advantage of this deregulatory action are the same individuals currently qualified as a PIC with an LOD on an uninspected towing vessel once the vessel receives its Certificate of Inspection. We estimate the total cost savings of the final rule over a 10-year period of analysis to be about $266,767,725, discounted at 7 percent. We estimate the annualized cost savings to be about $37,981,722, discounted at 7 percent. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE FINAL RULE Category Summary Applicability ......................................................... Extend the LOD option described in 33 CFR 155.710(e)(2) to inspected vessels for fuel oil transfers. This will allow PIC designation to be fulfilled by an LOD rather than an MMC with an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement. The 11,540 individuals on 5,770 vessels that transfer fuel oil and that have a capacity to carry at least 250 barrels or that receive fuel oil from a vessel with a capacity to carry at least 250 barrels. 10-year period of analysis: $266,767,725. Annualized: $37,981,722. Perpetual period of analysis: $26,323,316. Affected Population ............................................. Cost Savings (2018 $ Discounted at 7%) .......... jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Cost Savings (2016 $ Discounted at 7% and discounted back to 2016). Affected Population (1) Vessel Population. Section 155.700 of 33 CFR requires each operator or agent of a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more that engages in the transfer of fuel oil on the navigable waters or contiguous zone of the United States to designate the PIC of each transfer of fuel oil to or from the vessel. The affected population for this deregulatory action is a subset of all inspected vessels subject to the PIC requirements in 33 CFR 155.710(e)(1). The recent change from uninspected to inspected status makes subchapter M vessels uniquely impacted by the MMC requirement. The Coast Guard is not aware of other inspected vessel populations that would likely make use of this rule. The total population is subject to change while inspections are ongoing. In the time since the analysis described in the NPRM, another 194 COIs were issued to towing vessels.17 Table 2 shows the effect of the increased number of COIs. Through information 17 Monthly numbers of inspections completed from July 2018 through October 2019 provided on October 21, 2019 by the National Towing Vessel Coordinator of the Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 gathered during ongoing inspections, TVNCOE revised the total population of inspected towing vessels expected to qualify under subchapter M by the end of the inspection period, adding 30 vessels and increasing the expected total from 5,740 to 5,770 vessels.18 TABLE 2—PROJECTION OF SUBCHAPTER M VESSELS OBTAINING A COI Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ New COIs Total subchapter M inspected vessels 253 1,177 2,031 1,236 1,073 253 1,430 3,461 4,697 5,770 (2) Individual Population. We assume each vessel from the affected population to have at least two individuals able to serve as a PIC to ensure that at least one of them is available for duty at any point in a 2418 The Towing Vessel National Center of Expertise (TVNCOE) estimated the increase of 30 vessels after discovering and correcting pervasive errors in which vessels are classified as Subchapter M vessels in the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 hour period.19 From the population of 5,770 vessels, each carrying two PICs, we obtain an affected population of individuals equal to 11,540. The population of 5,770 becomes constant in Year 3 of the analysis period or in 2022 and thereafter, once all affected vessels are inspected. In the proposed rule, we assumed an individual turnover rate of 30 percent from an approved collection of information.20 In the interim, we were able to obtain more recent data that indicates a current turnover rate of 32.55 percent. For this analysis, we used data from the National Maritime Center (NMC) for individuals obtaining MMCs with issue dates from April 2009 to March 2020 and expiration dates from August 2009 to March 2025 21 to update 19 Information collection request (ICR), ‘‘Waste Management Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters of Instruction for Certain Persons-in-Charge (PIC) and Great Lakes Dry Cargo Residue Recordkeeping’’ OMB control number 1625–0072. 20 See page 84 FR 40335 of NPRM and page 4 of supporting statement for ICR 1625–0072. 21 As per 46 CFR 10.205. An MMC is valid for a period of 5 years. The issue date of a renewal can be postdated by up to 8 months from the time of application to allow for maximum time on the renewed MMC. A future issue date (for example, March 2020) indicates that a mariner renewed an E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM Continued 27MYR1 31682 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations the turnover rate. In the data from NMC, every MMC issued and every mariner has a unique identifying number such that sorting by mariner reference number shows all the MMCs for that mariner. After cleaning the data for duplicates and printing errors (where the NMC issued a second credential with a new ID number within the same validity period), we applied a formula that marks each MMC as either renewed, not renewed, or ineligible to renew. We marked any MMC with an expiration date after July 18, 2019 (when the data was downloaded) as ineligible to renew. Otherwise, we assumed an MMC is renewed if the issue date is within 2,190 days of the previous MMC’s issue date.22 The period of 2,190 days is equivalent to 6 years (6 years × 365 days in a standard calendar year), which represents the validity period of 5 years plus a year-long grace period wherein a mariner cannot use the expiring MMC but could renew that MMC without having to retake the required formal training from the beginning. For example, an MMC issued in April 2009 would be eligible for renewal in March 2014. If there is no new MMC issued by March 2015, we assume that the mariner left the marine industry or otherwise no longer requires an MMC (turned over) in 2015. We then tabulate how many MMCs in each calendar year were eligible to renew, how many of those eligible were renewed, and how many of those eligible were not renewed to produce a turnover percentage as shown below in Table 3. TABLE 3—ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER RATE Year MMCs eligible to renew MMCs renewed MMCs not renewed Rate of turnover A B C = ((C/A) × 100) 2016 ........................................................................................................... 2017 ........................................................................................................... 2018 ........................................................................................................... 1,111 1,069 998 754 721 669 357 348 329 32.13% 32.55% 32.97% Average .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 32.55% We use a three-year average of turnover rates from the last three full calendar years to mirror the methodology used in the periodic renewal of a collection of information. As in the NPRM, the resulting rate of 32.55 percent turnover assumes that any mariner lost to turnover in a given year is replaced by a mariner with an original MMC in order to maintain a stable population of mariners able to serve the total population of vessels. Apart from this updated turnover rate, we retained the methodology for calculating renewals from the NPRM. All calculations using the turnover rate use the unrounded figure for accuracy, any replications using a rounded turnover rate will slightly differ from the calculations shown with the unrounded turnover rate. In table 4 below, we calculated renewals by multiplying the total number of original MMCs in a given starting year by the probability that an individual would still be employed as a PIC after five years. Where [(1¥0.3255)∧(5¥1) = (0.6745∧4)] is the approximate probability of remaining, (0.6745) given a turnover rate of 0.3255, compounded for each year after the first year of having the MMC in the 5 years before renewal. We show the application of the calculation below in Table 4. For Year 4, this is equivalent to 105 = [506 × (0.6745∧4)]. For Year 5, this is equivalent to 521 = [2,519 × (0.6745∧4)]. For Year 6, this is equivalent to 1,033 = [4,993 × (0. 0.6745∧4)]. For Year 7, this is equivalent to 978= [4,725 × (0.6745∧4)]. For Year 8, this is equivalent to 1,077 = [5,204 × (0.6745∧4)]. For Year 9 and all subsequent years, renewals become 777 = [3,756 × (0.6745∧4)]. TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED POPULATION Calendar year jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 ................................. ................................. ................................. ................................. ................................. ................................. ................................. ................................. ................................. ................................. ................................. ................................. Effective year .................... .................... Year 1 ........ Year 2 ........ Year 3 ........ Year 4 ........ Year 5 ........ Year 6 ........ Year 7 ........ Year 8 ........ Year 9 ........ Year 10 ...... Total affected vessels MMCs needed 253 1,430 3,461 4,697 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 506 2,860 6,922 9,394 11,540 11,540 11,540 11,540 11,540 11,540 11,540 11,540 New COIs Original MMCs from new COIs Original MMCs from Turnover 506 2,354 4,062 2,472 2,146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 931 2,253 3,058 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 253 1,177 2,031 1,236 1,073 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total original MMCs 506 2,519 4,993 4,725 5,204 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 Renewals 0 0 0 0 0 105 521 1,033 978 1,077 777 777 Note: We rounded the numbers in the table for readability, but we did not round the turnover rate in our calculations. Additionally, the values in each column are not additive. MMC before it expired so the date was set for a period not exceeding 8 months closest to the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:25 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 expiration of the current MMC to maximize the validity period. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 22 {If(prior issue date <= [issues date + (365 × 6)],‘‘Renewed’’, ‘‘Not’’),‘‘Not’’} E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations While we do not count cost savings for original MMCs obtained before 2020, we counted cost savings for avoided renewals of those MMCs since the renewal would occur after the effective year of the final rule, 2020. Cost Savings to Industry Cost savings from this rule come from the avoided cost of obtaining an MMC for individuals that are able to use an LOD to qualify as a PIC rather than obtaining an MMC. All of the components of the average cost are unchanged and include tuition for Basic Fire Fighting and Dangerous Liquids, application fees, security screening fee, travel, and the opportunity cost of the time to attend training for an applicant. The renewal cost of $220 is also unchanged from the NPRM and includes application fees and security screening fee. As a result, the total average cost for an individual to obtain an original MMC is $8,958, which is the same estimate we used in the NPRM. Below is the analysis for estimating this total cost as it appeared in the NPRM. As of May 2019, the average cost of a Basic Fire Fighting course is $731.31 and ranges in length from 2 to 5 days depending on whether it is offered as a separate module or as part of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers Basic Training. We assume an average course length of 27 hours, which would require 31683 4 days of training. Similarly, the average cost of a Dangerous Liquids course is $985.62 with almost all offerings being 5 days in duration with an average of 38 hours of training. The length of the training in days assumes an 8-hour day, and that any part of an additional day would be considered a full day’s opportunity cost in order to account for travel (that is, a mariner would not be able to leave training at noon and return to work). Because very few of the training facilities offer both courses— and none of the training facilities offer the courses concurrently—mariners would need to schedule each training course separately. See table 5 below for the summary of course costs. TABLE 5—AVERAGE COURSE COSTS Course Tuition Length (days rounded) Length (days) Length (hours) Basic Fire Fighting ........................................................................................... Dangerous Liquids ........................................................................................... $731.31 985.62 3.27 4.80 4 5 27 38 Summary .................................................................................................. 1,716.93 8.07 9 65 In addition, 46 CFR 10.219 prescribes the fees for obtaining an MMC with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. This includes an evaluation fee of $95 and an issuance fee of $45. Every 5 years there is a cost to renew the credential with the endorsement, which includes a $50 evaluation fee and a $45 issuance fee.23 For the original issuance and renewal, there is a security screening expense of $125.25.24 The Coast Guard assumes varying modes of travel for mariners getting to and from approved training based on the distribution of travel modes derived in the Vessel Security Officer (VSO) Interim Rule.25 The percentages below in table 6 reflect the same percentages from the VSO rule.26 In further analysis, we use the average cost per mariner weighted by the distribution of travel type.27 We estimate the total travel cost of the mariners to be about $103,374,546, undiscounted. We estimate the average travel cost for a mariner to be about $8,958, undiscounted. TABLE 6—DISTRIBUTION OF TRAINING COSTS BY MODE OF TRANSPORTATION Affected mariner population Distribution (%) Mode of transport Cost (2018 USD) Commute ..................................................................................................................................... Drive/Lodge .................................................................................................................................. Fly/Lodge ..................................................................................................................................... 26.50 16.70 56.80 3,058 1,927 6,555 $27,214,180 $15,672,417 $60,487,949 Total ...................................................................................................................................... 100 11,540 $103,374,546 Average Cost per Mariner ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ $8,958 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. In table 7, we show the unit costs that comprise the total costs to individuals in table 9. Each method of travel has a different cost, while the costs of training courses and MMC applications are the same for all travel types. The total cost per mariner includes the fixed costs of the two approved training courses and travel costs. As travel costs are highly 23 From 46 CFR 10.219(a), Table 1—Fees. Using column ‘‘Evaluation then the fee is . . .’’ and rows ‘‘Original endorsement for ratings other than qualified ratings’’ and ‘‘Renewal endorsement for ratings other than qualified ratings.’’ 24 Transportation Security Administration 30-Day notice. [Docket No. TSA–2006–24191] Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC®) Program (82 FR 14521, March 21, 2017). 25 73 FR 29060, May 20, 2008, ‘‘Implementation of Vessel Security Officer Training and Certification Requirements-International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended’’ rule corrected June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34190). 26 See Table 4.—TOTAL NATIONAL SHARE OR PERCENTAGE OF—Total National Share of Percentage of VSOs THAT WILL COMMUTE, DRIVE/LODGE, AND FLY/LODGE That Will Commute, Drive/Lodge, and Fly/Lodge in 73 FR 29060, 29065. 27 We use the average cost because the distribution in travel does not change in any given year. If the actual locations of individuals used to develop the baseline was known, then we could base the distribution on actual travel. However, this information is not known and could not be known for every individual in each year. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 31684 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations variable, we obtained the most recent cost figures for travel and lodging, available from either 2017 or 2018, as described in the source reference column. TABLE 7—UNIT TRAVEL COST ESTIMATES (ADJUSTED TO 2018 USD) Item Unit cost Source reference Opportunity cost of applicant time .. $60.66 ............................................ Driving Mileage (rate per mile) ....... $0.58 .............................................. Non-Commuting Driving Time ......... 100 mile/27.08 mph commuting speed. Round-trip Air-Fare ......................... $346 ............................................... Round-trip Airport Transfer ............. $61.28 ............................................ Flying Excursion Time ..................... 16 hours ......................................... Incidentals and Meals (per diem) ... $64.57 ............................................ Lodging (per night) .......................... $142.16 .......................................... The total opportunity cost of time is the base wage multiplied by the loaded wage factor to obtain total compensation including nonwage benefits. $39.61 is the mean wage estimate from the 2019 National Occupation Employment and Wage Statistics for Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels (53–5021) https://www.bls.gov/ oes/2018/may/oes535021.htm. The loaded wage factor of (33.11/ 21.62) is obtained by dividing the total compensation by wages and salaries for full-time transportation workers. These are annual averages of quarterly data series CMU2010000520610D and CMU2020000520610D respectively, obtained from BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation https://www.bls.gov/data/. ‘‘Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage Reimbursement Rates’’ from GSA tables published on January 1, 2019 https://www.gsa.gov/travel/ plan-book/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates. For a mariner who would drive/lodge to the school 100 miles round trip, we divide 100 miles by the average commuting speed of 27.08 miles per hour (mph). We obtained 27.08 mph from the Federal Highway Administration’s Summary of Travel Trends, 2017. https:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/documents/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf page 79 From the U.S Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Average price of a round-trip airfare for 2018 in unadjusted dollars. https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/ Annual%20Fares%201995–2018.xlsx. We used the cost of a round-trip airport transfer from a Coast Guard interim rule, ‘‘Validation of Merchant Mariners’ Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner’s Licenses and Certificates of Registry’’, published on January 13, 2006 (71 FR 2154). Figure found in table 4, page 2,160. A later figure could not be found so this figure was adjusted for inflation using the GDP deflator factor of 1.23 times the original cost of $50. The round-trip airport transfer cost is based on research of the average private and public transfer costs, including taxi or car rental costs associated with U.S. airports and regional destinations. It is not a mathematical or rigorous estimate, but an average transfer cost based on information available from associations and trade groups, airports, transit authorities, and governments. A mariner that would fly/lodge in order to attend a training course or school would incur an opportunity cost of flying. We assume the total air excursion time of 16 hours, equivalent to two days of travel. Obtained from the Composite of General Services Administration’s domestic per diem rates for meals/incidentals (https://www.gsa.gov/ travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates) in training site and REC cities for January 2018. Taxes ARE included in the M&IE rate per FAQ #12 https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates/frequentlyasked-questions-per-diem#12. Obtained from the Composite of General Services Administration’s domestic per diem rates for lodging (https://www.gsa.gov/travel/ plan-book/per-diem-rates) training site, and REC cities for January 2018. Taxes are not automatically included, so lodging taxes and state sales taxes were added to the lodging per diem. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Table 8, ‘‘MMC Costs for Mariners,’’ shows how the above unit costs for travel and tuition contribute to the total average cost per mariner. The average cost of $8,957.93 is for each mariner expected to obtain an original MMC. 28 See 46 CFR 13.120 Renewal of tankerman endorsement. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 31685 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Tuition costs and travel costs do not apply for renewal if a mariner served at least 90 days of service during the preceding 5 years.28 If a mariner cannot fulfill that service requirement, we assume that they turnover and must complete the requirements for an the average travel cost for a mariner that flies and stays overnight for approved training to be about $9,228.15. This cost analysis uses an average because the distribution of travel is constant year to year. original MMC. The Coast Guard estimates the average travel cost for a mariner that commutes to approved training is about $8,899.05. The average travel cost for a mariner that drives and stays overnight for approved training is about $8,132.31. Finally, we estimate TABLE 8—MMC COSTS FOR MARINERS Training cost by travel mode Category Derivation Amount Commuting Tuition ....................................................................................................................... Drive/Lodge Fly/Lodge $1,716.93 $1,716.93 $1,716.93 $1,716.93 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 125.25 346.00 61.28 1,279.45 125.25 NA NA NA 125.25 NA NA 1,279.45 125.25 346.00 61.28 1,279.45 One Flying Time (Opportunity Cost) ........................................................................ Average price of $731.31 for Basic Firefighting, and $985.62 for Dangerous Liquids. $95 evaluation fee .................................. $45 issuance fee .................................... $125.25 ................................................... 346.00 ..................................................... 61.28 ....................................................... 142.16 per lodging night × 9 lodging nights. $48.43 per diem × 9 training days (equivalent to 75% of full per diem). $64.57 per diem × (7 training days) + $48.43 × (4 first and last days of travel 75% of total). 100-mile commute × $0.58 per mile × 9 training days. 100-mile round-trip × $0.58 per mile ...... 65 hrs. training × loaded hourly wage .... (100-mile round trip ÷ 27 mph commuting speed) × loaded hourly wage × 9 days. (100-mile round trip ÷ 27 mph commuting speed) × loaded hourly wage. 16 hours × loaded hourly wage .............. Total Cost per Mariner ...................................................................................... ................................................................. ........................ MMC Fees ................................................................................................................ Security Screening Fee ............................................................................................ Round-trip Airfare ..................................................................................................... Round-trip Airport transfer ....................................................................................... Lodging ..................................................................................................................... Commuting Meals & Incidental Expenses ............................................................... Non-Commuting Meals & Incidental Expenses ....................................................... Commuting Motor Vehicle Costs ............................................................................. Non-Commuting Motor Vehicle Costs ..................................................................... Training Time (Opportunity Cost) ............................................................................ Commuting Driving Time (Opportunity Cost) ........................................................... One Non-Commuting Driving Time (Opportunity Cost) ........................................... We estimate the cost to individuals to generate a present-value discounted cost savings of about $265,559,822 over a 10year period of analysis, in 2018 dollars using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate annualized cost savings to be about $37,809,744, using a 7-percent discount rate. In table 9, we show how 435.86 435.86 NA NA 645.71 NA 645.71 645.71 522.00 522.00 NA NA 58.00 3,942.95 2,016.05 NA 3,942.95 2,016.05 58.00 3,942.95 NA NA 3,942.95 NA 224.01 NA 224.01 NA 970.57 NA NA 970.57 8,899.05 8,132.31 9,228.15 the individual costs apply to the affected population, reflected in the number of original MMCs and renewals, to generate the total cost savings. TABLE 9—ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS TO INDIVIDUALS Original MMCs Calendar year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total cost of original MMC Renewals Renewal fee + security screening Total annual cost of new MMCs Total annual cost of renewals Grand total annual cost Grand total annual cost discounted 7% Grand total annual cost discounted 3% .......................................................................... .......................................................................... .......................................................................... .......................................................................... .......................................................................... .......................................................................... .......................................................................... .......................................................................... .......................................................................... .......................................................................... .......................................................................... .......................................................................... 506 2,519 4,993 4,725 5,204 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 .................. .................. $8,958 8,958 8,958 8,958 8,958 8,958 8,958 8,958 8,958 8,958 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 105 521 1,033 978 1,077 777 777 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. $220 220 220 220 220 220 220 ........................ ........................ $44,726,583 42,327,834 46,615,639 33,649,426 33,649,426 33,649,426 33,649,426 33,649,426 33,649,426 33,649,426 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ $23,066 114,814 227,602 215,396 237,215 171,233 171,233 ........................ ........................ $44,726,583 42,327,834 46,615,639 33,672,491 33,764,240 33,877,028 33,864,821 33,886,641 33,820,659 33,820,659 ........................ ........................ $41,800,544 36,970,769 38,052,248 25,688,582 24,073,436 22,573,694 21,089,309 19,722,333 18,396,198 17,192,708 ........................ ........................ $43,423,867 39,898,043 42,659,914 29,917,572 29,125,330 28,371,477 27,535,199 26,750,427 25,920,719 25,165,747 Total ................................................................... Annualized .................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 370,376,595 ........................ 265,559,822 37,809,744 318,768,294 37,369,369 Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding; we do not round the turnover rate in our calculations, which carries throughout the table. Cost Incurred To Prepare Letter of Designation jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES While the use of an LOD saves the individual approved training costs, the actual letter of designation still takes 28 See 46 CFR 13.120 Renewal of tankerman endorsement. 29 From OMB Control Number 1625–0072 (ICR 201803–1625–007) ¥ 0.167 hours equals approximately 10 minutes from Table 12.3 in Appendix A of ICR 201803–1625–007 (OMB VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 time to prepare. Using the time estimate from the existing collection of information for PICs, we assume the preparation of a letter takes approximately 10 minutes at a loaded hourly wage of $53.39 for a cost of about $8.92.29 Over a 10-year period of analysis, we estimate the total discounted cost of writing LODs to be about $263,603 in 2018 dollars, using a Control Number 1625–0072) last updated in 2018. $34.86 is the mean hourly wage estimate from the 2018 National Occupation Employment and Wage Statistics for Compliance Officers (13–1041) https:// www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes131041.htm. The loaded wage factor of ($33.11/$21.62) is obtained by dividing the total compensation by wages and salaries for full-time transportation workers. These are annual averages of quarterly data series CMU2010000520610D and CMU2020000520610D respectively, obtained from BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation (https://www.bls.gov/data/ ). PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 31686 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 7 percent discount rate. We estimate the annualized cost to be about $37,531, using a 7 percent discount rate. annualized cost to be about $37,531, using a 7 percent discount rate. TABLE 10—ESTIMATED COSTS INCURRED TO PREPARE LETTER OF DESIGNATION Cost of preparing LOD per Mariner Individuals needing a new LOD Year Total annual cost of preparing LOD Grand total annual cost discounted 7% Grand total annual cost discounted 3% 1 ........................................................................................... 2 ........................................................................................... 3 ........................................................................................... 4 ........................................................................................... 5 ........................................................................................... 6 ........................................................................................... 7 ........................................................................................... 8 ........................................................................................... 9 ........................................................................................... 10 ......................................................................................... 4,993 4,725 5,204 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 $8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92 $44,515 42,127 46,395 33,490 33,490 33,490 33,490 33,490 33,490 33,490 $41,603 36,796 37,872 25,549 23,878 22,316 20,856 19,492 18,216 17,025 $43,218 39,709 42,458 29,756 28,889 28,047 27,231 26,437 25,667 24,920 Total .............................................................................. Annualized ............................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 367,468 ........................ 263,603 37,531 316,333 37,084 Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding; we do not round the turnover rate in our calculations, which carries throughout the table. Cost Savings to Government Without this deregulatory action, the Coast Guard would need to evaluate the MMC applications that would be submitted if an MMC with a Tankerman PIC endorsement were still required to serve as a PIC for fuel oil transfers. The avoided cost per MMC application is 55 minutes of review by a GS–8 employee for an avoided cost of about $44.92. As shown in table 11, over a 10-year period of analysis, we estimate the Coast Guard would save a discounted amount of about $1,471,506 in 2018 dollars, using a 7 percent discount rate. We estimate the annualized savings amount to be about $209,509, using a 7 percent discount rate. TABLE 11—ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS TO COAST GUARD OF THE FINAL RULE Effective year Cost of reviewing original MMC Original MMC applications Renewals Cost of reviewing renewed MMC Grand total annual cost Grand total annual cost discounted 7% Grand total annual cost discounted 3% 1 ................................... 2 ................................... 3 ................................... 4 ................................... 5 ................................... 6 ................................... 7 ................................... 8 ................................... 9 ................................... 10 ................................. 4,993 4,725 5,204 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 3,756 $44.92 44.92 44.92 44.92 44.92 44.92 44.92 44.92 44.92 44.92 ........................ ........................ ........................ 105 521 1,033 978 1,077 777 777 ........................ ........................ ........................ 44.92 44.92 44.92 44.92 44.92 44.92 44.92 $224,267 212,239 233,739 173,428 192,139 215,140 212,651 217,101 203,645 203,645 $209,595 185,378 190,801 132,307 136,992 143,357 132,428 126,355 110,769 103,523 $217,735 200,056 213,904 154,089 165,741 180,177 172,905 171,381 156,077 151,531 Total ...................... Annualized ..... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,087,993 ........................ 1,471,506 209,509 1,783,594 209,092 Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding; we do not round the turnover rate in our calculations, which carries throughout the table. Net Cost Savings jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Using a perpetual period of analysis, the Coast Guard estimates the total annualized cost savings of the final rule to be $26,323,316 in 2016 dollars, using a 7 percent discount rate and discounted back to 2016 assuming implementation begins in 2020. The total cost savings is the sum of the cost savings to individuals no longer obtaining MMCs, shown in table 9, and the time cost savings to the Coast Guard, shown in table 11, of no longer reviewing MMCs. Net cost savings are the total cost savings minus the costs incurred, shown in table 12. We estimate the net cost savings of this final rule over a 10-year period of analysis to be about $266,767,725 in 2018 dollars, using a 7 percent discount rate. TABLE 12—ESTIMATED NET COST SAVINGS OF THE FINAL RULE Cost savings Grand Total ...................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 $372,464,588 Sfmt 4700 Costs incurred $367,468 E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 Net cost savings $372,097,120 Annualized cost savings ........................ Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 31687 TABLE 12—ESTIMATED NET COST SAVINGS OF THE FINAL RULE—Continued Cost savings jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Discounted, 7% ................................................................................................ Discounted, 3% ................................................................................................ Alternatives We considered three alternatives in this final rule, including the preferred alternative. The first alternative is to let the policy letter expire and continue to require formal training for TankermanPIC for any fuel oil transfer. The second alternative is to continue to issue limited endorsement MMCs with Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel Oil Transfers on Towing Vessels. The third, and preferred, alternative is extend use of an LOD to qualify as a PIC for fuel oil transfers to inspected vessels. (1) MMC with officer or TankermanPIC endorsement (No Limited Endorsement). Continue to require inspected vessels with a fuel oil capacity of 250 barrels or more—or that obtain fuel oil from a vessel with a fuel oil capacity of 250 barrels or more—to have an individual holding an MMC with either an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement designated as the PIC of any fuel oil transfer. Under this alternative, any designated PIC of a fuel oil transfer would be required to hold an MMC with an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement, without a limited endorsement for fuel oil transfers. The Coast Guard rejected this alternative because it does not generate more benefits than the preferred alternative and there are no cost savings associated with it and it would not meet the Coast Guard’s goal of reducing regulations under Executive Order 13771. Individuals would still bear the cost of obtaining an MMC, and after a vessel receives its COI, individuals previously qualified as PIC through the LOD options would not be able to be designated as a PIC until they obtain their MMC. (2) Continue to Issue Limited Endorsement MMCs with TankermanPIC Restricted to Fuel Oil Transfers on Towing Vessels. Under this alternative the Coast Guard would continue to utilize the CG–MMC Policy Letter 01–17 to issue MMC endorsements for Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels. Under this continued action 30 See 81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016. fleet size is known for all 1,295 entities covering the entire affected population of vessels, revenues are known only for a sample of 183 31 While VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 267,031,327 320,551,888 alternative, the existing policy letter would continue to provide a means for individuals on towing vessels previously designated as PIC of a fuel oil transfer using an LOD to be issued a limited endorsement Tankerman-PIC restricted to Fuel Transfers. Although one commenter on the NPRM requested that the limited endorsement be continued in addition to the use of the LOD, the Coast Guard rejected this alternative because while it achieves similar benefits as the preferred alternative, it provides neither a full solution nor an adequate longterm alternative for designating the PIC of a fuel oil transfer—and it is more costly than the preferred alternative. The policy letter only applies to one industry segment, and individuals who obtain an MMC according to the policy letter would still incur the cost of renewing their credential every 5 years. (3) Preferred Alternative—new regulatory action allowing use of LODs for inspected vessels. Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would provide the option for inspected vessels to designate the PIC of a fuel oil transfer utilizing an LOD. Under a new regulatory action, the Coast Guard would provide flexibility to all inspected vessels in how they designate the PIC of a fuel oil transfer. This is the preferred alternative because it relieves a regulatory burden for individuals who would have to obtain and renew a credential while also providing flexibility to industries—and it tends to provide the benefit of vessel specific training. B. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. We received no comments on the threshold vessels of the original 5,509 vessels, data from the original FRFA of Inspection of Towing Vessels final rule (81 FR 40003). In Table 14, ‘‘Average cost’’ is based on the entire population of entities for which PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Costs incurred 263,603 316,333 Net cost savings 266,767,725 320,235,556 Annualized cost savings $37,981,722 37,541,376 analysis of the proposed rule, therefore we adopt the preliminary analysis as final. Our analysis of the impacts on small entities from the NPRM has not changed; we present this analysis for the final rule below. In lieu of current revenue figures that may be distorted by ongoing inspections, for this analysis we use the small entity impact analysis of the 2016 Subchapter M rule, which we assume will be closely representative of revenues after the inspection period is over. The 2016 rule’s small entity impact analysis used a sample of 304 vessels from the initially estimated population of 5,509.30 Of the 304 vessels, about 59 percent were owned or operated by a small entity. We assume the same number of small entities would be impacted going forward but will know better once inspections are completed and all fleets resume active status. As this is a deregulatory action, most of the impact is cost savings to individuals, who do not qualify as small entities. The only impact to small entities is the cost imposed to industry as the time cost of preparing the LOD. The Coast Guard found the average annual cost to be $75.91 based on the known fleet sizes of all towing vessel entities. For this analysis, we make the most conservative assumption that entities would need to prepare LODs for their entire fleet every year and compare that to the revenue of the lowest earning fleet. The average annual unit cost takes the number of vessels in a fleet—multiplied by the cost of preparing a letter, $8.92, and multiplied by 2—to account for each of the two PICs needed per vessel. This average varies by the number of vessels in an entity’s fleet, see the distribution below. Note that the number of vessels in a fleet does not correlate with company size; a small business may have a large fleet or a large business may have a small fleet. On average, the cost incurred per entity is $75.91, which is on average 0.0152 percent of total annual revenues.31 the total annual revenues are known, ‘‘Average Cost as a % of Total revenue’’ is based only on entities for whom revenue is known. E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 31688 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 13—ESTIMATED AVERAGE COST OF THE FINAL RULE ON SMALL ENTITIES BY FLEET SIZE Fleet size category Description Number of entities Small_1 ........................................................... Small_2–5 ....................................................... Medium ........................................................... Large ............................................................... Average ........................................................... Entity with only one vessel ............................ Entity with 2 to 5 vessels ............................... Entity with 6 to 25 vessels ............................. Entity with > 25 vessels ................................. All fleet sizes .................................................. 611 571 179 32 ........................ In the most conservative case, for a medium-sized fleet owned by the entity with the lowest revenue amount in the sample—which would have the highest possible cost as percentage of total revenues for the affected population— the cost imposed by this rule is still less than 1 percent of total revenues. In this conservative example, the entity’s estimated annual cost would be Average cost Average cost as % of total revenue $17.83 52.25 194.05 873.17 75.91 0.0011 0.0037 0.0292 0.0072 0.0152 approximately $321 for a fleet of 18 vessels, 0.76 percent of their $42,000 annual revenue amount.32 On average, the cost incurred is less than a quarter of one percent of revenues. TABLE 14—DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE IMPACTS ON SMALL ENTITIES Percent revenue impact Average annual impact Small entities with known revenue Percentage of small entities with known revenue (%) <1% 1–3% >3% $75.91 75.91 75.91 183 0 0 100 0 0 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Since the most conservative case shows that the impact of this rule would be less than 1 percent of total annual revenues, we assume that the impact will be less than 1 percent of total annual revenues for 100 percent of the small entities in our sample size. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 121, we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this 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 32 The value of $42,000 comes from the original FRFA of 81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). D. Collection of Information The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) requires the U.S. Coast Guard to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii)(V) and 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The collection of information under this final rule falls under the same collection of information already required for letters of designation described in OMB Control Number 1625–0072. This final rule does not change the content of responses, nor the estimated burden of each response, but does increase the number of annual respondents and responses from 190 to 3,756. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of information’’ comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar 33 As stated in the Discussion of the Rule section, this rule is amending 33 CFR 155.715 to make it clear that the letter that has been referred to as both a ‘‘Letter of Instruction’’ and a ‘‘Letter of PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 actions. The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection. Title: Waste Management Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters of Designation 33 for Certain Persons-inCharge (PIC) and Great Lakes Dry Cargo Residue Recordkeeping. OMB Control Number: 1625–0072 Summary of the Collection of Information: The Letter of Designation, which is issued by the operator or agent of a vessel, designates the holder as the PIC for the transfer of fuel oil and documents that the holder has received sufficient formal instruction from the operator or agent of the vessel to meet the requirements of 33 CFR 155.715. As amended by this rule, § 155.710(e) will now permit LODs to be used on inspected vessels in addition to uninspected vessels. Need for Information: This information is needed to ensure that: (1) Certain U.S. vessels develop and maintain a waste plan; (2) certain U.S. vessels maintain refuse discharge records; (3) certain individuals that act Designation’’ should consistently be called a ‘‘Letter of Designation.’’ We are amending the title of this collection of information to reflect that change. E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations as fuel oil transfer PIC receive an LOD for both vessel safety and prevention of pollution; and (4) certain Great Lakes vessels conduct dry cargo residue recordkeeping. Use of Information: To ensure that fuel oil transfer competency standards are met, all PICs on uninspected or inspected vessels must carry a Letter of Designation if they do not hold an MMC with either an officer endorsement or a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. Description of Respondents: Compliance officers for entities conducting transfers of fuel oil and needing to designate a PIC of such transfers. Number of Respondents: The currently OMB-approved number of respondents is 190, we are requesting an increase of 3,566 respondents for a total of 3,756. The reason for the increase is the number of PICs who choose the LOD option, or 11,540 PICs multiplied by the attrition rate of 0.3255, or PICs who leave the industry over a given period of time. Burden of Response: 0.167 hours per response. Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The currently OMB-approved burden hours is 32, we are requesting an increase of 595 hours (11,540 PICs × 0.3255 × 0.167 hours, the time it takes for a PIC to create a letter of instruction) for a total of 627 hours. The reason for the increase is due to the increase in the number of PICs who choose the LOD option. As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information. You are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We received no comments on this collection of information, so we are updating the population numbers as necessary and are adopting the collection of information from the NPRM as final. regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. See the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). This rule, as promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 3306 and 3703, concerns personnel qualifications because it will amend requirements for who may serve as the PIC of fuel oil transfers on inspected vessels. Therefore, because the States may not regulate within these categories, this rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. 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 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 H. Civil Justice Reform VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 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 $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. G. Taking of Private Property This rule will 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). This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. I. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 31689 J. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it will 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 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 and Incorporation by Reference 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 (for example, 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. M. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 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 Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 31690 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 27, 2020 / Rules and Regulations on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This rule is categorically excluded under paragraph L56 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023– 01–001–01, Rev. 01. Paragraph L56 pertains to the training, qualifying, licensing, and disciplining of maritime personnel. This rule involves letters of designation to assign PICs of fuel oil transfers on inspected vessels. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155 Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends part 155 as follows: PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS 1. The authority citation for part 155 is revised to read as follows: ■ Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 40, 150, 151, and 153 2. Amend § 155.710 as follows: a. In paragraph (e) introductory text, remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add in its place the word ‘‘must’’; ■ b. Revise paragraph (e)(1); ■ c. Remove paragraph (e)(2); ■ d. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (e)(2) and (3), respectively; and ■ e. In newly redesignated paragraph (e)(2), remove the text ‘‘or (2)’’. The revision reads as follows: ■ ■ Qualifications of person in jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES * * * * * (e) * * * (1) On each inspected vessel required by 46 CFR chapter I to have an officer aboard, and on each uninspected vessel, either: (i) Holds a valid merchant mariner credential issued under 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter B, with an endorsement as master, mate, pilot, engineer, or operator aboard that vessel, or holds a valid merchant mariner credential endorsed as Tankerman-PIC; or (ii) Carries a letter satisfying the requirements of § 155.715 and VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 26, 2020 Jkt 250001 § 155.715 [Amended] 3. In § 155.715, remove the text ‘‘letter of instruction required in § 155.710(e)(2)’’ and add in its place the text ‘‘letter referenced in § 155.710(e)(1)’’. ■ Dated: May 21, 2020. R.V. Timme, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy. [FR Doc. 2020–11366 Filed 5–26–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 17 Authority: 3 U.S.C. 301 through 303; 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 1903(b), 2735; 46 U.S.C 3306, 3703, 70011, 70034; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 155.1020 also issued under section 316 of Pub. L. 114–120. Section 155.480 also issued under section 4110(b) of Pub. L. 101– 380. § 155.710 charge. designating him or her as a PIC, unless equivalent evidence is immediately available aboard the vessel or at his or her place of employment. * * * * * RIN 2900–AQ97 Informed Consent and Advance Directives Department of Veterans Affairs. Interim final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its regulation regarding informed consent and advance directives. We amend the regulation by reorganizing it and amending language where necessary to enhance clarity. In addition, we amend the regulation to facilitate the informed consent process, the ability to communicate with patients or surrogates through available modalities of communication, and the execution and witness requirements for a VA Advance Directive. DATES: Effective date: This final rule is effective May 27, 2020. Comment date: Comments must be received by VA on or before July 27, 2020. SUMMARY: Written comments may be submitted through www.regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Room 1064, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AQ97— Informed Consent and Advance Directives.’’ Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1064, ADDRESSES: PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902 for an appointment. (This is not a toll-free number.) In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucinda Potter, MSW, LSW, Ethics Policy Consultant, National Center for Ethics in Health Care (10E1E), Veterans Health Administration, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420; 484– 678–5150, lucinda.potter@va.gov. (This is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 7331 of title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), requires, in relevant part, that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, upon the recommendation of the Under Secretary for Health, prescribe regulations to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that all VA patient care be carried out only with the full and informed consent of the patient, or in appropriate cases, a representative thereof. Based on VA’s interpretation of this statute and our mandate in 38 U.S.C. 7301(b) to provide a complete medical and hospital service, we recognize that patients with decisionmaking capacity have the right to state their treatment preferences in a VA or other valid advance directive. VA’s use and recognition of advance directives is also consistent with practice in the health care industry at large; for instance, a condition of participation in the Medicare program requires providers to agree to abide by the requirements of the Patient SelfDetermination Act of 1990 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)), which, among other things, requires participating providers to inform patients of their rights under state law to indicate treatment preferences, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment, in an advance directive. VA regulations at 38 CFR 17.32 establish standards for obtaining informed consent from a patient for a medical treatment or a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure and standards for advance care planning; that is, the process by which a patient documents in an advance directive his or her future treatment preferences (encompassing medical, surgical, and mental health care) to be relied on in the event the patient loses the capacity to make health care decisions. We revise this section and publish it as an interim final rule to ensure that informed consent procedural and process changes are in E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 27, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31677-31690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11366]



[[Page 31677]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 155

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0493]
RIN 1625-AC50


Person in Charge of Fuel Transfers

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending the requirements regulating 
personnel permitted to serve as a person in charge (PIC) of fuel oil 
transfers on an inspected vessel by adding the option of using a letter 
of designation (LOD) in lieu of a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) 
with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. Obtaining an MMC with a Tankerman-PIC 
endorsement is now optional for PICs of fuel oil transfers on inspected 
vessels. This change is not limited to towing vessels, but one effect 
of this rule is that a PIC currently using the LOD option on an 
uninspected towing vessel may continue to do so once the vessel 
receives its Certificate of Inspection.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 27, 2020. CG-MMC Policy Letter 
01-17 is cancelled effective May 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking and 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0493 in the ``SEARCH'' 
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 
associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document 
call or email Cathleen Mauro, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing 
(CG-MMC-1), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1449, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History
III. Discussion of Comments
    A. Decades-Long Use of LODs which focus on fuel oil transfers
    B. Safety and environmental concerns and restricted-endorsement 
policy letter
    C. Miscellaneous
    D. No changes to regulatory text
IV. Discussion of the Rule
    A. Amendments to Sec.  155.710(e)
    B. Amendments to Sec.  155.715
    C. This rule only addresses fuel oil transfers, not LNG fuel 
transfers
V. 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. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COI Certificate of Inspection
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LOD Letter of designation
MERPAC Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MMC Merchant Mariner Credential
MPH Miles per hour
NMC National Maritime Center
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIC Person in charge
Sec.  Section
STCW International Convention of Standards of Training Certification 
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
TSAC Towing Safety Advisory Committee
TWIC Transportation Worker Identification Card
U.S.C. United States Code
VSO Vessel Security Officer

II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History

    As we stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published 
on August 14, 2019 (84 FR 40329), the Coast Guard established the 
option of using a letter of designation (LOD) for uninspected vessels 
in 1998.\1\ The LOD designates the holder as a person in charge (PIC) 
of the transfer of fuel oil and states that the holder has received 
sufficient formal instruction from the operator or agent of the vessel 
to ensure his or her ability to safely and adequately carry out the 
duties and responsibilities of the PIC.\2\ When establishing the LOD 
option, we stated that the formal instruction required by this option 
should ensure that personnel acting as PICs of fuel oil transfers have 
the ability to safely and adequately carry out their duties and 
responsibilities while minimizing the risks of pollution from fuel oil 
spills.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Qualifications for Tankerman and for Persons in Charge 
of Transfers of Dangerous Liquids and Liquefied Gases final rule (63 
FR 35822, July 1, 1998).
    \2\ 33 CFR 155.715.
    \3\ 63 FR 35822, 35825, July 1, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thousands of towing vessels are currently transitioning from being 
uninspected vessels to becoming inspected vessels.\4\ While this rule 
is not limited to towing vessels, it will allow a PIC currently using 
the LOD option on one of those uninspected towing vessels to continue 
to use that option to perform the same fuel oil transfers once the 
vessel becomes an inspected vessel. This transition happens when the 
vessel is issued a certificate of inspection (COI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 46 CFR 136.202, and discussion in this document's 
Regulatory Analysis regarding the number of towing vessels making 
this transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule only addresses transfers of fuel oil. The PIC 
requirements in 33 CFR 155.710(a), (b) and (f) for vessels transferring 
cargo remain unchanged.
    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13777 
(Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda) direct us to eliminate 
unnecessary regulatory burdens.\5\ We believe that the LOD option 
provides a level of safety and protection for fuel oil transfers 
equivalent to the Tankerman-PIC option, while eliminating the burden of 
obtaining and maintaining a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC). By 
adding this LOD alternative, individuals on inspected vessels now have 
an option that was previously only available to individuals on 
uninspected vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Section 1(b)(11) and Section 1, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the NPRM,\6\ the Coast Guard tasked the Merchant 
Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) and the Towing Safety 
Advisory Committee (TSAC) to review existing PIC requirements for 
vessel fuel transfers and to make recommendations for amendments. The 
Coast Guard reviewed the recommendations from both TSAC and MERPAC and 
agreed with MERPAC's broader recommendation that all inspected vessels 
should have the option of using an LOD to satisfy the requirement for 
designating the PIC of fuel transfers. This final rule is consistent 
with MERPAC's recommendation and provides the relief sought for towing 
vessels in the TSAC recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 84 FR 40329, 40332, August 14, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2017, the Coast Guard issued CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-
17 titled, ``Guidelines for Issuing Endorsements for Tankerman-PIC 
Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels.'' \7\ As we stated in 
the NPRM,\8\ this policy eased some of the requirements for obtaining 
an MMC

[[Page 31678]]

with a Tankerman PIC endorsement, but it did not completely relieve the 
burden of obtaining the credential or maintaining the endorsement 
through the renewal process every 5 years and it only addresses 
inspected towing vessels--not other inspected vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Coast Guard, Guidelines for Issuing Endorsements for 
Tankermen PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels (Mar. 
10, 2017), https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NMC/pdfs/announcements/2017/cg-mmc_policy_letter_01-17_final_3_9_17-date.pdf.
    \8\ 84 FR 40329, 40332, August 14, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority under Subtitle II and Chapter 700 of Title 46 United 
States Code, specifically 46 U.S.C. 3306 and 70034, has been delegated 
to the Coast Guard and allows us to establish and amend regulations for 
a person in charge (PIC) of fuel oil transfers. This rule is authorized 
by Subtitle II provisions to regulate lightering (46 U.S.C. 3715) and 
personnel qualifications for all inspected vessels, including nontank 
vessels (46 U.S.C. 3703), and by 46 U.S.C. chapter 700 provisions 
regarding waterfront safety, including protection of navigable waters 
and the resources therein (46 U.S.C. 70011).
    We are making this rule effective upon publication because it 
relieves a restriction and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) does not require us to 
wait 30 days before we make such rules effective. This rule relieves a 
restriction by allowing an LOD to be used to designate a PIC on an 
inspected vessel. Also, we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for 
making this rule effective upon publication because it would be 
contrary to the public interest not to do so. Currently, under 
provisions in 46 CFR 136.202, thousands of uninspected towing vessels 
are becoming inspected towing vessels. Making this rule effective May 
27, 2020 will enable more persons with an LOD currently serving as a 
PIC on an uninspected towing vessel to continue to do so without 
obtaining an MMC endorsement once that same vessel becomes an inspected 
vessel.

III. Discussion of Comments

    The Coast Guard received 10 written submissions during the 62-day 
comment period that ended October 15, 2019.
    A common theme for those who supported the proposed rule, was that 
the vessel-specific training for an LOD is more practicable and 
appropriate for fuel oil transfers compared to the broader, cargo-
transfer focused training for a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. Those who 
opposed the proposed rule generally viewed it as a change that would 
lower safety and environmental standards.
    The Coast Guard summarizes and addresses the comments below.

A. Decades-Long Use of LODs Which Focus on Fuel Oil Transfers

    1. LODs have been used safely for more than 2 decades: One 
commenter stated that the LOD option has been safely used on 
uninspected vessels for more than 2 decades and is a highly regulated 
process that ensures mariners serving as a PIC of fuel oil transfers 
are properly trained. The commenter noted that when vessel operators 
issue an LOD, they certify that the holder has received sufficient 
formal training and instruction to safely and adequately carry out the 
duties and responsibilities of transferring fuel oil as required by 
regulation. The commenter pointed out that ``33 CFR 156.120 details 28 
individual elements in the fuel transfer process that a PIC must 
understand and conduct, and that 33 CFR 156.150 requires documentation 
of each fuel transfer, including a signed declaration from the PIC 
certifying that each of those requirements was completed.'' They 
assessed the LOD option as providing an equivalent level of safety and 
environmental stewardship when compared to MMCs with a Restricted 
Tankerman-PIC endorsement.
    Response: We concur that LOD requirements are detailed, and that 
the operator or agent of the vessel must certify that the holder has 
received sufficient formal instruction to safely and adequately carry 
out these detailed requirements. While this formal instruction is 
received from the operator or agent of the vessel(s) identified in the 
LOD, the detailed requirements in 33 CFR 156.120 and 156.150 are 
standardized for any PIC engaged in fuel oil transfers.
    2. LODs allow for vessel-specific training focused on fuel oil 
transfers: One commenter noted that the LOD option creates important 
regulatory relief, allows for increased flexibility, and broadens the 
scope of available mariners to serve as a PIC for fuel oil transfers on 
inspected vessels. The commenter stated that it allows for a focus on 
vessel-specific training regarding fuel oil transfers, which can vary 
widely across the diverse nationwide marine fleet, and views this 
specialization in training as a positive addition, going above and 
beyond the requirements of a more general endorsement. Another 
commenter noted that a feature of the LOD is that it keeps scrutiny of 
training and oversight at the vessel level and that the commenter's 
company issues vessel specific LODs.
    Response: The Coast Guard concurs that the LOD option tends to 
focus training on fuel oil transfers for a specific vessel or a fleet 
of vessels that the LOD holder will be authorized to serve on as a PIC. 
The requirements in Sec.  155.715 specify that formal instruction is 
provided by the operator or agent of the vessel or vessels identified 
in the LOD.

B. Safety and Environmental Concerns and Restricted-Endorsement Policy 
Letter

    1. Some warn that restricted endorsement may increase risk level 
while some want endorsement continued: One commenter noted the cost 
burden \9\ to unlicensed deckhands of obtaining an endorsement for a 
Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels created by 
Policy Letter 01-17, but warned that this restricted endorsement may 
increase risk levels. This commenter wrote that Policy Letter 01-17 
waives training requirements (for approved firefighting and tankship 
course), while allowing uncredentialed deckhands with LODs \10\ to 
become credentialed mariners who may demand higher pay rates. The 
commenter observed that once a person uses a vessel-specific LOD to 
qualify for an MMC with an endorsement for Tankerman-PIC Restricted to 
Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels, as allowed by Policy Letter 01-17, 
they are free to work as a PIC on other towing vessels even if that 
vessel is quite different from the vessel for which they held an LOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The evaluation ($95) and issuance ($45) fees are described 
in 46 CFR 10.219, in the Table 1 to Sec.  [thinsp]10.219(a) row for 
MMC with rating endorsement: Original endorsement for qualified 
rating.
    \10\ The commenter is correct that the policy letter does not 
require applicants to have previously held mariner credentials. 
Applicants must be at least 18 years old and hold a valid 
Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC) or have enrolled 
for one. An alternative to holding an LOD, would be to ``provide 
evidence of participation, under the supervision of someone 
designated as PIC of a fuel transfer, in at least five fuel 
transfers on Towing Vessels during the preceding 5 years.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter requested that we retain the option for mariners 
to obtain and renew endorsements as Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel 
Transfers on Towing Vessels. They viewed this option as providing 
equivalent levels of safety and environmental stewardship as the LOD 
option and stated that keeping the restricted endorsement option would 
allow maximum flexibility for mariners and their employers. They also 
noted that mariners who have obtained an MMC with the restricted 
Tankerman-PIC endorsement may wish to maintain that credential for 
professional development reasons.
    Response: With respect to concerns about Policy Letter 01-17, this 
rule

[[Page 31679]]

provides more complete relief from the existing Sec.  155.710(e) 
requirement than Policy Letter 01-17 does, and it does so without 
waiving any training requirements for obtaining an MMC PIC endorsement. 
With this rule's addition of an LOD option, there are now two avenues 
to qualify as a PIC for the transfer of fuel oil: (1) Hold a valid MMC 
with either an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement; or (2) use the new 
option for inspected vessels of designating a PIC with an LOD as 
described in 33 CFR 155.715. Therefore, we are cancelling Policy Letter 
01-17 effective May 27, 2020. The Coast Guard supports mariners 
pursuing professional development but, for the reason stated above, we 
are cancelling Policy Letter 01-17 upon publication of this rule.
    2. Perceived decline in both safety and protection of the 
environment: One commenter opposed the proposed rule and stated that he 
sees too many accidents and spills from untrained crews that go 
unreported. The commenter stated that as a crew member he has seen a 
serious decline in safety and an increase in small accidents in the 
last few years, including 14-hour-work days in violation of STCW \11\ 
watch hours. The commenter said that companies offer low wages and are 
not willing to pay a meaningful wage to trained and competent workers. 
The commenter did not directly attribute the reduced level of safety to 
LODs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ STCW stands for the International Convention of Standards 
of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter wrote that easing PIC requirements was ``caving 
to pressure from industry'' and unfair to those who have already 
completed approved training to obtain a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. The 
commenter stated there is no substitute for loading-and-discharging 
training service requirements and recommended a PIC-Fueling endorsement 
for those who bunker and transfer aboard smaller, previously 
uninspected vessels. Additionally, the commenter stated that there has 
been a rise in accidents in the inland industry in the last few years. 
In suggesting a caving-to-industry trend, the commenter referenced 
recently issued gap-closure \12\ training requirements and indicated 
they disadvantaged U.S. mariners compared to foreign mariners. The 
commenter referenced the Deepwater Horizon accident as an example of 
why cutting costs to industry by lowering standards that provided 
safety to mariners and protection for the environment is dangerous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Gap-closing training refers to requirements in 46 CFR 
11.305 to 11.321 and 11.325 to 11.335, included in a 2013 final rule 
entitled ``Implementation of the Amendments to the International 
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping 
for Seafarers, 1978 [STCW Convention], and Changes to National 
Endorsements'' (78 FR 77795, 77805, December 24, 2013). These 
training requirements were implemented to ensure mariners with 
existing STCW endorsements met the requirements of the 2010 
amendments to the STCW Convention. Mariners had to complete this 
training before January 1, 2017, to maintain the validity of their 
STCW endorsements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The requirements for an MMC endorsement and a LOD have 
remained unchanged for many years, so the requisite training has not 
changed. We see no correlation, therefore, between the commenters' 
reference to either an increase in accidents in recent years or a 
reduced level of safety, and the requirements regulating personnel 
permitted to serve as a PIC of fuel oil transfers on an inspected 
vessel. To the extent the commenter may be concerned about the 
endorsement for a Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing 
Vessels introduced in 2017, effective May 27, 2020 we are cancelling 
the CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-17 enabling that restricted endorsement.
    Personnel designated as PICs through the use of an LOD are required 
to receive formal instruction from the operator or agent of the vessel, 
sufficient to ensure his or her ability to safely and adequately carry 
out the duties and responsibilities of the PIC.\13\ These duties 
include understanding discharge (spill) reporting procedures.\14\ Any 
individual who witnesses a spill or other reportable marine casualty 
should report that casualty to the Coast Guard. Enforcement of casualty 
reporting and applicable STCW requirements will continue independent of 
this regulatory initiative. The influence of market forces on how much 
is paid to those with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement or that have received 
sufficient formal instruction to obtain an LOD is beyond the scope of 
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 33 CFR 155.715.
    \14\ 33 CFR 156.120(w)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the second commenter, this rule, which is supported by 
recommendations of the MERPAC and the TSAC, does not change the 
requirements for having a designated PIC as described in 33 CFR 
155.700, the process for obtaining a Tankerman-PIC endorsement in 46 
CFR part 13, subpart B, or the requirements for an LOD in 33 CFR 
155.715. To qualify for a Tankerman-PIC endorsement, applicants must 
present evidence of supervised participation in at least five cargo 
loadings and five cargo discharges. While experience with cargo 
transfers is not required for an LOD, formal instruction is required. 
The holder of an LOD is required to receive sufficient formal 
instruction from the operator or agent of the vessel to ensure his or 
her ability to safely and adequately carry out the duties and 
responsibilities of the PIC described in 33 CFR 156.120 (requirements 
for transfer) and 156.150 (Declaration of inspection).
    The recommendation for a PIC-Fueling endorsement for those who 
bunker and transfer aboard smaller, previously uninspected vessels 
warrants future consideration, but that recommendation is beyond the 
scope of this rulemaking.

C. Miscellaneous

    1. Make changes proposed by NPRM effective faster by issuing a 
policy letter: One commenter, who referenced a method for training new 
deckhands so they can qualify for their vessel-specific LOD, 
recommended that we implement the LOD option via a policy letter 
pending the effective date of this rule.
    Response: We appreciate the concern and another commenter's concern 
about making the LOD option available as soon as possible, and we are 
making this rule effective upon publication. After we publish a rule, 
normally there is a 30-day waiting period before we can make it 
effective, but under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) this waiting period does not 
apply to rules that relieve a restriction. Starting May 27, 2020, this 
rule will begin relieving a restriction by allowing an LOD to be used 
to designate a PIC on an inspected vessel.
    2. Let Tankerman-Engineer endorsement serve to satisfy Sec.  
155.710(e) requirements: One commenter noted that the commenter's 
employer requires all officers, even engineers with no involvement in 
cargo transfers (on a tankship), to maintain a Tankerman-PIC 
endorsement. Even though 33 CFR 155.710(e) permits engineering officers 
to serve as PICs, the commenter suggests that we specifically add the 
Tankerman-Engineer endorsement as an option in addition to the 
Tankerman-PIC endorsement to satisfy the requirement in Sec.  
155.710(e). Observing that not all vessels subject to PIC requirements 
are oil tankers--making it difficult or impossible to satisfy tankship 
or self-propelled-tank-vessel-loading-and-discharging service 
requirements to obtain a Tankerman-PIC endorsement--the commenter wants 
the Coast Guard to ensure that the classroom requirements for the 
Tankerman-Engineer endorsement focus on fuel and bunker transfers. 
Finally, the commenter stated that if a PIC on a

[[Page 31680]]

ship is required to have a Tankerman endorsement (PIC or Engineer) to 
maintain responsibility for the transfer, the person working aboard the 
transferring barge should also be endorsed and educated to the same 
level of care.
    Response: The suggestion to modify the training requirements for 
the Tankerman-Engineer endorsement to focus on fuel and bunker 
transfers--and to add the Tankerman-Engineer as a means to satisfy 
Sec.  155.710(e)--warrants future consideration but is beyond the scope 
of this rulemaking. The LOD option that this rule makes available, 
however, enables those who are not able to satisfy Tankerman-PIC 
endorsement service requirements to obtain formal instructions on fuel 
oil transfers so they may serve as a PIC on the vessel(s) identified in 
the LOD.
    Regarding transfers from bunker barges, they are considered cargo 
transfers and the PIC on a tank barge required to be inspected under 46 
U.S.C. 3703, would need to meet requirements in 33 CFR 155.710(b). 
Those requirements include the option of having a Tankerman-PIC (Barge) 
endorsement in order to serve as the PIC of a cargo transfer. The 
requirements for a Tankerman-PIC (Barge) endorsement include experience 
on tank vessels.
    3. Request to extend use of LODs to drilling fluids and other 
offshore-supply-vessel cargos: Two commenters requested that the Coast 
Guard extend the use of the LOD for fuel transfers to transfers of 
drilling fluids and other cargos for Offshore Supply Vessels (OSVs). 
They stated that offshore oil and gas industry is serviced by a fleet 
of OSVs that not only routinely load and offload excess fuel, but also 
supply drilling fluids. They viewed the cargo systems of OSVs as no 
more complicated or dangerous than its fuel oil systems and stated that 
harmful nature of drilling fluids did not measure up to the harmful 
nature of fuel oil.
    Response: Extending the use of an LOD to non-fuel-oil transfers is 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The NPRM was clear regarding the 
scope of this rulemaking. We are amending 33 CFR 155.710(e), which only 
applies to fuel oil transfers. Drilling fluids are categorized as 
cargo, and therefore, would not qualify as a fuel oil transfer. 
Moreover, drilling fluids \15\ may contain oil and under 46 CFR 
125.110(e) we treat such fluids the same as oil cargo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As defined in 40 CFR 435.11(l), drilling fluid is the 
circulating fluid used in the rotary drilling of wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. No Changes to Regulatory Text

    We did not make any changes from the proposed rule based on the 
comments we received on the NPRM. The regulatory text of the final rule 
is the same as what we proposed in the NPRM.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This final rule amends 33 CFR 155.710(e), which sets forth the 
provisions for the qualifications of the PIC of any fuel oil transfer 
requiring a Declaration of Inspection. This rule does not change the 
existing requirements for the PIC on uninspected vessels, and the 
requirements for vessels transferring cargo also remains unchanged. 
This rule provides inspected vessels two options for meeting 
requirements to serve as the PIC of a fuel oil transfer. Vessel 
operators may comply with the current inspected vessel requirement of 
having a PIC with a valid MMC with either an officer or Tankerman-PIC 
endorsement or use the new option for inspected vessels of designating 
a PIC with an LOD as described in 33 CFR 155.715.

A. Amendments to Sec.  155.710(e)

    This rule revises the text of 33 CFR 155.710(e)(1) so that 
requirements for inspected and uninspected vessels are combined in that 
paragraph. Paragraph (e)(1)(i) presents the MMC endorsement options and 
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) presents the LOD option. This rule also 
redesignates the remaining paragraphs in that section and amends a 
reference in the redesignated paragraph regarding tank barges to 
reflect our removal of paragraph (e)(2).
    With respect to MMCs, this rule removes obsolete terminology such 
as merchant mariner ``licenses'' and ``Merchant Mariner Documents.'' 
The Coast Guard ceased issuing those types of documents in 2009 when we 
transitioned to the streamlined MMC. Also, the rule clarifies the first 
sentence of Sec.  155.710(e) by changing ``shall verify'' to ``must 
verify.''

B. Amendments to Sec.  155.715

    In Sec.  155.715, this rule changes the reference to Sec.  
155.710(e)(2) so that it refers to Sec.  155.710(e)(1) instead. This 
change reflects our amendments to Sec.  155.710(e). Also, to remove a 
long-standing conflict of referring to the same letter as both ``letter 
of instruction'' and ``letter of designation,'' this rule amends the 
reference to a letter of instruction by simply referring to it as ``the 
letter referenced in Sec.  155.710(e)(1).''
    This letter has become known by the title we gave it in the Sec.  
155.715 heading, ``letter of designation.'' Section 155.715 requires 
the letter to designate the holder as a PIC of the transfer of fuel oil 
and to state that the holder has received sufficient formal instruction 
from the operator or agent of the vessel to ensure his or her ability 
to safely and adequately carry out the duties and responsibilities of 
the PIC described in 33 CFR 156.120 and 156.150. Changing our reference 
to it as ``the letter referenced in Sec.  155.710(e)(1)'' does not 
change any of those requirements, but it does make it clear that 
``letter of designation'' is the correct way to refer to the letter 
referenced in Sec.  155.710(e) that must satisfy the requirements of 
Sec.  155.715.

C. This Rule Only Addresses Fuel Oil Transfers, Not LNG Fuel Transfers

    This rule does not apply to liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuel 
transfers. Both Sec. Sec.  155.710(e) and 155.715 apply solely to the 
transfer of ``fuel oil.'' Fuel oil means any oil used to fuel the 
propulsion and auxiliary machinery of the ship carrying the fuel.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As provided in Sec.  155.110, this 33 CFR 151.05 definition 
of ``fuel oil'' applies to Sec. Sec.  155.710 and 155.715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and 
Executive orders related to rulemaking. The regulatory text of this 
rule is unchanged, and the analysis for it is not substantively changed 
from what we proposed in the NPRM. We updated three figures used in the 
analysis to reflect changes realized after we published the NPRM. We 
update the number of towing vessel inspections completed to reflect 
inspections conducted from July through October 2019. We updated the 
total population of towing vessels to reflect knowledge gained from 
recent inspections. We also revised the assumed turnover rate of 30 
percent following additional analysis of data we obtained from the 
National Maritime Center.

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, of harmonizing rules,

[[Page 31681]]

and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce 
regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every 
one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified 
for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently 
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. DHS considers this 
rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. See the OMB 
Memorandum titled ``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled 
`Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''' (April 5, 
2017). Details on the estimated cost savings of this rule can be found 
in the rule's regulatory analysis (RA) that follows.
    We received no public comments on the estimated unit costs of the 
proposed rule, so we retained these estimates for this analysis; 
however, because our estimated population changed due to a revised 
turnover rate, the total estimated cost savings changed from the NPRM. 
We received additional data to update estimates in our assessment of 
the proposed rule. Updating estimates with new data does not alter the 
methodology demonstrated in the preliminary regulatory analysis; 
therefore, we adopt the methodology of the preliminary analysis for the 
proposed rule as final.
    This final rule is necessary to provide a less burdensome method of 
designating who may serve as the PIC of a fuel oil transfer on an 
inspected vessel by extending the LOD option to inspected vessels. The 
individuals expected to take advantage of this deregulatory action are 
the same individuals currently qualified as a PIC with an LOD on an 
uninspected towing vessel once the vessel receives its Certificate of 
Inspection. We estimate the total cost savings of the final rule over a 
10-year period of analysis to be about $266,767,725, discounted at 7 
percent. We estimate the annualized cost savings to be about 
$37,981,722, discounted at 7 percent.

              Table 1--Summary of Impacts of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                             Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability................  Extend the LOD option described in 33 CFR
                                155.710(e)(2) to inspected vessels for
                                fuel oil transfers. This will allow PIC
                                designation to be fulfilled by an LOD
                                rather than an MMC with an officer or
                                Tankerman-PIC endorsement.
Affected Population..........  The 11,540 individuals on 5,770 vessels
                                that transfer fuel oil and that have a
                                capacity to carry at least 250 barrels
                                or that receive fuel oil from a vessel
                                with a capacity to carry at least 250
                                barrels.
Cost Savings (2018 $           10-year period of analysis: $266,767,725.
 Discounted at 7%).            Annualized: $37,981,722.
Cost Savings (2016 $           Perpetual period of analysis:
 Discounted at 7% and           $26,323,316.
 discounted back to 2016).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Population
    (1) Vessel Population.
    Section 155.700 of 33 CFR requires each operator or agent of a 
vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more that engages in the 
transfer of fuel oil on the navigable waters or contiguous zone of the 
United States to designate the PIC of each transfer of fuel oil to or 
from the vessel. The affected population for this deregulatory action 
is a subset of all inspected vessels subject to the PIC requirements in 
33 CFR 155.710(e)(1). The recent change from uninspected to inspected 
status makes subchapter M vessels uniquely impacted by the MMC 
requirement. The Coast Guard is not aware of other inspected vessel 
populations that would likely make use of this rule.
    The total population is subject to change while inspections are 
ongoing. In the time since the analysis described in the NPRM, another 
194 COIs were issued to towing vessels.\17\ Table 2 shows the effect of 
the increased number of COIs. Through information gathered during 
ongoing inspections, TVNCOE revised the total population of inspected 
towing vessels expected to qualify under subchapter M by the end of the 
inspection period, adding 30 vessels and increasing the expected total 
from 5,740 to 5,770 vessels.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Monthly numbers of inspections completed from July 2018 
through October 2019 provided on October 21, 2019 by the National 
Towing Vessel Coordinator of the Office of Commercial Vessel 
Compliance.
    \18\ The Towing Vessel National Center of Expertise (TVNCOE) 
estimated the increase of 30 vessels after discovering and 
correcting pervasive errors in which vessels are classified as 
Subchapter M vessels in the Marine Information for Safety and Law 
Enforcement (MISLE) database.

       Table 2--Projection of Subchapter M Vessels Obtaining a COI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             New     Total subchapter M
                   Year                      COIs     inspected vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.....................................     253                    253
2019.....................................   1,177                  1,430
2020.....................................   2,031                  3,461
2021.....................................   1,236                  4,697
2022.....................................   1,073                  5,770
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Individual Population.
    We assume each vessel from the affected population to have at least 
two individuals able to serve as a PIC to ensure that at least one of 
them is available for duty at any point in a 24-hour period.\19\ From 
the population of 5,770 vessels, each carrying two PICs, we obtain an 
affected population of individuals equal to 11,540. The population of 
5,770 becomes constant in Year 3 of the analysis period or in 2022 and 
thereafter, once all affected vessels are inspected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Information collection request (ICR), ``Waste Management 
Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters of Instruction for Certain 
Persons-in-Charge (PIC) and Great Lakes Dry Cargo Residue 
Recordkeeping'' OMB control number 1625-0072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposed rule, we assumed an individual turnover rate of 30 
percent from an approved collection of information.\20\ In the interim, 
we were able to obtain more recent data that indicates a current 
turnover rate of 32.55 percent. For this analysis, we used data from 
the National Maritime Center (NMC) for individuals obtaining MMCs with 
issue dates from April 2009 to March 2020 and expiration dates from 
August 2009 to March 2025 \21\ to update

[[Page 31682]]

the turnover rate. In the data from NMC, every MMC issued and every 
mariner has a unique identifying number such that sorting by mariner 
reference number shows all the MMCs for that mariner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See page 84 FR 40335 of NPRM and page 4 of supporting 
statement for ICR 1625-0072.
    \21\ As per 46 CFR 10.205. An MMC is valid for a period of 5 
years. The issue date of a renewal can be postdated by up to 8 
months from the time of application to allow for maximum time on the 
renewed MMC. A future issue date (for example, March 2020) indicates 
that a mariner renewed an MMC before it expired so the date was set 
for a period not exceeding 8 months closest to the expiration of the 
current MMC to maximize the validity period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After cleaning the data for duplicates and printing errors (where 
the NMC issued a second credential with a new ID number within the same 
validity period), we applied a formula that marks each MMC as either 
renewed, not renewed, or ineligible to renew. We marked any MMC with an 
expiration date after July 18, 2019 (when the data was downloaded) as 
ineligible to renew. Otherwise, we assumed an MMC is renewed if the 
issue date is within 2,190 days of the previous MMC's issue date.\22\ 
The period of 2,190 days is equivalent to 6 years (6 years x 365 days 
in a standard calendar year), which represents the validity period of 5 
years plus a year-long grace period wherein a mariner cannot use the 
expiring MMC but could renew that MMC without having to retake the 
required formal training from the beginning. For example, an MMC issued 
in April 2009 would be eligible for renewal in March 2014. If there is 
no new MMC issued by March 2015, we assume that the mariner left the 
marine industry or otherwise no longer requires an MMC (turned over) in 
2015. We then tabulate how many MMCs in each calendar year were 
eligible to renew, how many of those eligible were renewed, and how 
many of those eligible were not renewed to produce a turnover 
percentage as shown below in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ {If(prior issue date <= [issues date + (365 x 
6)],``Renewed'', ``Not''),``Not''{time} 

                                      Table 3--Estimation of Turnover Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                MMCs eligible                     MMCs not
                     Year                         to renew      MMCs renewed       renewed      Rate of turnover
                                                      A               B               C         = ((C/A) x 100)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016.........................................           1,111             754             357             32.13%
2017.........................................           1,069             721             348             32.55%
2018.........................................             998             669             329             32.97%
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Average..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............             32.55%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We use a three-year average of turnover rates from the last three 
full calendar years to mirror the methodology used in the periodic 
renewal of a collection of information. As in the NPRM, the resulting 
rate of 32.55 percent turnover assumes that any mariner lost to 
turnover in a given year is replaced by a mariner with an original MMC 
in order to maintain a stable population of mariners able to serve the 
total population of vessels. Apart from this updated turnover rate, we 
retained the methodology for calculating renewals from the NPRM. All 
calculations using the turnover rate use the unrounded figure for 
accuracy, any replications using a rounded turnover rate will slightly 
differ from the calculations shown with the unrounded turnover rate.
    In table 4 below, we calculated renewals by multiplying the total 
number of original MMCs in a given starting year by the probability 
that an individual would still be employed as a PIC after five years. 
Where [(1-0.3255)[supcaret](5-1) = (0.6745[supcaret]4)] is the 
approximate probability of remaining, (0.6745) given a turnover rate of 
0.3255, compounded for each year after the first year of having the MMC 
in the 5 years before renewal. We show the application of the 
calculation below in Table 4. For Year 4, this is equivalent to 105 = 
[506 x (0.6745[supcaret]4)]. For Year 5, this is equivalent to 521 = 
[2,519 x (0.6745[supcaret]4)]. For Year 6, this is equivalent to 1,033 
= [4,993 x (0. 0.6745[supcaret]4)]. For Year 7, this is equivalent to 
978= [4,725 x (0.6745[supcaret]4)]. For Year 8, this is equivalent to 
1,077 = [5,204 x (0.6745[supcaret]4)]. For Year 9 and all subsequent 
years, renewals become 777 = [3,756 x (0.6745[supcaret]4)].

                                                         Table 4--Summary of Affected Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Total                                 Original     Original      Total
            Calendar year                  Effective year        affected   MMCs needed    New COIs    MMCs from    MMCs from     original     Renewals
                                                                 vessels                                new COIs     Turnover       MMCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018................................  .......................          253          506          253          506            0          506            0
2019................................  .......................        1,430        2,860        1,177        2,354          165        2,519            0
2020................................  Year 1.................        3,461        6,922        2,031        4,062          931        4,993            0
2021................................  Year 2.................        4,697        9,394        1,236        2,472        2,253        4,725            0
2022................................  Year 3.................        5,770       11,540        1,073        2,146        3,058        5,204            0
2023................................  Year 4.................        5,770       11,540            0            0        3,756        3,756          105
2024................................  Year 5.................        5,770       11,540            0            0        3,756        3,756          521
2025................................  Year 6.................        5,770       11,540            0            0        3,756        3,756        1,033
2026................................  Year 7.................        5,770       11,540            0            0        3,756        3,756          978
2027................................  Year 8.................        5,770       11,540            0            0        3,756        3,756        1,077
2028................................  Year 9.................        5,770       11,540            0            0        3,756        3,756          777
2029................................  Year 10................        5,770       11,540            0            0        3,756        3,756          777
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: We rounded the numbers in the table for readability, but we did not round the turnover rate in our calculations. Additionally, the values in each
  column are not additive.


[[Page 31683]]

    While we do not count cost savings for original MMCs obtained 
before 2020, we counted cost savings for avoided renewals of those MMCs 
since the renewal would occur after the effective year of the final 
rule, 2020.
Cost Savings to Industry
    Cost savings from this rule come from the avoided cost of obtaining 
an MMC for individuals that are able to use an LOD to qualify as a PIC 
rather than obtaining an MMC. All of the components of the average cost 
are unchanged and include tuition for Basic Fire Fighting and Dangerous 
Liquids, application fees, security screening fee, travel, and the 
opportunity cost of the time to attend training for an applicant. The 
renewal cost of $220 is also unchanged from the NPRM and includes 
application fees and security screening fee. As a result, the total 
average cost for an individual to obtain an original MMC is $8,958, 
which is the same estimate we used in the NPRM. Below is the analysis 
for estimating this total cost as it appeared in the NPRM.
    As of May 2019, the average cost of a Basic Fire Fighting course is 
$731.31 and ranges in length from 2 to 5 days depending on whether it 
is offered as a separate module or as part of the International 
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping 
for Seafarers Basic Training. We assume an average course length of 27 
hours, which would require 4 days of training. Similarly, the average 
cost of a Dangerous Liquids course is $985.62 with almost all offerings 
being 5 days in duration with an average of 38 hours of training. The 
length of the training in days assumes an 8-hour day, and that any part 
of an additional day would be considered a full day's opportunity cost 
in order to account for travel (that is, a mariner would not be able to 
leave training at noon and return to work). Because very few of the 
training facilities offer both courses--and none of the training 
facilities offer the courses concurrently--mariners would need to 
schedule each training course separately. See table 5 below for the 
summary of course costs.

                                          Table 5--Average Course Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Length (days
                     Course                           Tuition      Length (days)     rounded)     Length (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Fire Fighting.............................         $731.31            3.27               4              27
Dangerous Liquids...............................          985.62            4.80               5              38
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Summary.....................................        1,716.93            8.07               9              65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, 46 CFR 10.219 prescribes the fees for obtaining an MMC 
with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. This includes an evaluation fee of 
$95 and an issuance fee of $45. Every 5 years there is a cost to renew 
the credential with the endorsement, which includes a $50 evaluation 
fee and a $45 issuance fee.\23\ For the original issuance and renewal, 
there is a security screening expense of $125.25.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ From 46 CFR 10.219(a), Table 1--Fees. Using column 
``Evaluation then the fee is . . .'' and rows ``Original endorsement 
for ratings other than qualified ratings'' and ``Renewal endorsement 
for ratings other than qualified ratings.''
    \24\ Transportation Security Administration 30-Day notice. 
[Docket No. TSA-2006-24191] Revision of Agency Information 
Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential (TWIC[supreg]) Program (82 FR 14521, March 
21, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard assumes varying modes of travel for mariners 
getting to and from approved training based on the distribution of 
travel modes derived in the Vessel Security Officer (VSO) Interim 
Rule.\25\ The percentages below in table 6 reflect the same percentages 
from the VSO rule.\26\ In further analysis, we use the average cost per 
mariner weighted by the distribution of travel type.\27\ We estimate 
the total travel cost of the mariners to be about $103,374,546, 
undiscounted. We estimate the average travel cost for a mariner to be 
about $8,958, undiscounted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 73 FR 29060, May 20, 2008, ``Implementation of Vessel 
Security Officer Training and Certification Requirements-
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and 
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended'' rule corrected June 
17, 2008 (73 FR 34190).
    \26\ See Table 4.--TOTAL NATIONAL SHARE OR PERCENTAGE OF--Total 
National Share of Percentage of VSOs THAT WILL COMMUTE, DRIVE/LODGE, 
AND FLY/LODGE That Will Commute, Drive/Lodge, and Fly/Lodge in 73 FR 
29060, 29065.
    \27\ We use the average cost because the distribution in travel 
does not change in any given year. If the actual locations of 
individuals used to develop the baseline was known, then we could 
base the distribution on actual travel. However, this information is 
not known and could not be known for every individual in each year.

                        Table 6--Distribution of Training Costs by Mode of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Affected
                        Mode of transport                          Distribution       mariner       Cost (2018
                                                                        (%)         population         USD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commute.........................................................           26.50           3,058     $27,214,180
Drive/Lodge.....................................................           16.70           1,927     $15,672,417
Fly/Lodge.......................................................           56.80           6,555     $60,487,949
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             100          11,540    $103,374,546
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Average Cost per Mariner................................  ..............  ..............          $8,958
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    In table 7, we show the unit costs that comprise the total costs to 
individuals in table 9. Each method of travel has a different cost, 
while the costs of training courses and MMC applications are the same 
for all travel types. The total cost per mariner includes the fixed 
costs of the two approved training courses and travel costs. As travel 
costs are highly

[[Page 31684]]

variable, we obtained the most recent cost figures for travel and 
lodging, available from either 2017 or 2018, as described in the source 
reference column.

       Table 7--Unit Travel Cost Estimates (adjusted to 2018 USD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Item                   Unit cost         Source reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity cost of applicant   $60.66...........  The total opportunity
 time.                                              cost of time is the
                                                    base wage multiplied
                                                    by the loaded wage
                                                    factor to obtain
                                                    total compensation
                                                    including non-wage
                                                    benefits. $39.61 is
                                                    the mean wage
                                                    estimate from the
                                                    2019 National
                                                    Occupation
                                                    Employment and Wage
                                                    Statistics for
                                                    Captains, Mates, and
                                                    Pilots of Water
                                                    Vessels (53-5021)
                                                    https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes535021.htm. The
                                                    loaded wage factor
                                                    of (33.11/21.62) is
                                                    obtained by dividing
                                                    the total
                                                    compensation by
                                                    wages and salaries
                                                    for full-time
                                                    transportation
                                                    workers. These are
                                                    annual averages of
                                                    quarterly data
                                                    series
                                                    CMU2010000520610D
                                                    and
                                                    CMU2020000520610D
                                                    respectively,
                                                    obtained from BLS
                                                    Employer Cost for
                                                    Employee
                                                    Compensation https://www.bls.gov/data/.
Driving Mileage (rate per       $0.58............  ``Privately Owned
 mile).                                             Vehicle Mileage
                                                    Reimbursement
                                                    Rates'' from GSA
                                                    tables published on
                                                    January 1, 2019
                                                    https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates.
Non-Commuting Driving Time....  100 mile/27.08     For a mariner who
                                 mph commuting      would drive/lodge to
                                 speed.             the school 100 miles
                                                    round trip, we
                                                    divide 100 miles by
                                                    the average
                                                    commuting speed of
                                                    27.08 miles per hour
                                                    (mph). We obtained
                                                    27.08 mph from the
                                                    Federal Highway
                                                    Administration's
                                                    Summary of Travel
                                                    Trends, 2017. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/documents/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf page
                                                    79
Round-trip Air-Fare...........  $346.............  From the U.S
                                                    Department of
                                                    Transportation,
                                                    Bureau of
                                                    Transportation
                                                    Statistics. Average
                                                    price of a round-
                                                    trip airfare for
                                                    2018 in unadjusted
                                                    dollars. https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/Annual%20Fares%201995-2018.xlsx.
Round-trip Airport Transfer...  $61.28...........  We used the cost of a
                                                    round-trip airport
                                                    transfer from a
                                                    Coast Guard interim
                                                    rule, ``Validation
                                                    of Merchant
                                                    Mariners' Vital
                                                    Information and
                                                    Issuance of Coast
                                                    Guard Merchant
                                                    Mariner's Licenses
                                                    and Certificates of
                                                    Registry'',
                                                    published on January
                                                    13, 2006 (71 FR
                                                    2154). Figure found
                                                    in table 4, page
                                                    2,160. A later
                                                    figure could not be
                                                    found so this figure
                                                    was adjusted for
                                                    inflation using the
                                                    GDP deflator factor
                                                    of 1.23 times the
                                                    original cost of
                                                    $50. The round-trip
                                                    airport transfer
                                                    cost is based on
                                                    research of the
                                                    average private and
                                                    public transfer
                                                    costs, including
                                                    taxi or car rental
                                                    costs associated
                                                    with U.S. airports
                                                    and regional
                                                    destinations. It is
                                                    not a mathematical
                                                    or rigorous
                                                    estimate, but an
                                                    average transfer
                                                    cost based on
                                                    information
                                                    available from
                                                    associations and
                                                    trade groups,
                                                    airports, transit
                                                    authorities, and
                                                    governments.
Flying Excursion Time.........  16 hours.........  A mariner that would
                                                    fly/lodge in order
                                                    to attend a training
                                                    course or school
                                                    would incur an
                                                    opportunity cost of
                                                    flying. We assume
                                                    the total air
                                                    excursion time of 16
                                                    hours, equivalent to
                                                    two days of travel.
Incidentals and Meals (per      $64.57...........  Obtained from the
 diem).                                             Composite of General
                                                    Services
                                                    Administration's
                                                    domestic per diem
                                                    rates for meals/
                                                    incidentals (https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates rates) in training
                                                    site and REC cities
                                                    for January 2018.
                                                    Taxes ARE included
                                                    in the M&IE rate per
                                                    FAQ #12 https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates/frequently-asked-questions-per-diem#12.
Lodging (per night)...........  $142.16..........  Obtained from the
                                                    Composite of General
                                                    Services
                                                    Administration's
                                                    domestic per diem
                                                    rates for lodging
                                                    (https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates) training
                                                    site, and REC cities
                                                    for January 2018.
                                                    Taxes are not
                                                    automatically
                                                    included, so lodging
                                                    taxes and state
                                                    sales taxes were
                                                    added to the lodging
                                                    per diem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 8, ``MMC Costs for Mariners,'' shows how the above unit costs 
for travel and tuition contribute to the total average cost per 
mariner. The average cost of $8,957.93 is for each mariner expected to 
obtain an original MMC.

[[Page 31685]]

Tuition costs and travel costs do not apply for renewal if a mariner 
served at least 90 days of service during the preceding 5 years.\28\ If 
a mariner cannot fulfill that service requirement, we assume that they 
turnover and must complete the requirements for an original MMC. The 
Coast Guard estimates the average travel cost for a mariner that 
commutes to approved training is about $8,899.05. The average travel 
cost for a mariner that drives and stays overnight for approved 
training is about $8,132.31. Finally, we estimate the average travel 
cost for a mariner that flies and stays overnight for approved training 
to be about $9,228.15. This cost analysis uses an average because the 
distribution of travel is constant year to year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 46 CFR 13.120 Renewal of tankerman endorsement.

                                         Table 8--MMC Costs for Mariners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Training cost by travel mode
           Category                Derivation         Amount     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                     Commuting      Drive/Lodge      Fly/Lodge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuition.......................  Average price of       $1,716.93       $1,716.93       $1,716.93       $1,716.93
                                 $731.31 for
                                 Basic
                                 Firefighting,
                                 and $985.62 for
                                 Dangerous
                                 Liquids.
MMC Fees......................  $95 evaluation            140.00          140.00          140.00          140.00
                                 fee.
                                $45 issuance fee
Security Screening Fee........  $125.25.........          125.25          125.25          125.25          125.25
Round-trip Airfare............  346.00..........          346.00              NA              NA          346.00
Round-trip Airport transfer...  61.28...........           61.28              NA              NA           61.28
Lodging.......................  142.16 per              1,279.45              NA        1,279.45        1,279.45
                                 lodging night x
                                 9 lodging
                                 nights.
Commuting Meals & Incidental    $48.43 per diem           435.86          435.86              NA              NA
 Expenses.                       x 9 training
                                 days
                                 (equivalent to
                                 75% of full per
                                 diem).
Non-Commuting Meals &           $64.57 per diem           645.71              NA          645.71          645.71
 Incidental Expenses.            x (7 training
                                 days) + $48.43
                                 x (4 first and
                                 last days of
                                 travel 75% of
                                 total).
Commuting Motor Vehicle Costs.  100-mile commute          522.00          522.00              NA              NA
                                 x $0.58 per
                                 mile x 9
                                 training days.
Non-Commuting Motor Vehicle     100-mile round-            58.00              NA           58.00              NA
 Costs.                          trip x $0.58
                                 per mile.
Training Time (Opportunity      65 hrs. training        3,942.95        3,942.95        3,942.95        3,942.95
 Cost).                          x loaded hourly
                                 wage.
Commuting Driving Time          (100-mile round         2,016.05        2,016.05              NA              NA
 (Opportunity Cost).             trip / 27 mph
                                 commuting
                                 speed) x loaded
                                 hourly wage x 9
                                 days.
One Non-Commuting Driving Time  (100-mile round           224.01              NA          224.01              NA
 (Opportunity Cost).             trip / 27 mph
                                 commuting
                                 speed) x loaded
                                 hourly wage.
One Flying Time (Opportunity    16 hours x                970.57              NA              NA          970.57
 Cost).                          loaded hourly
                                 wage.
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Cost per Mariner....  ................  ..............        8,899.05        8,132.31        9,228.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the cost to individuals to generate a present-value 
discounted cost savings of about $265,559,822 over a 10-year period of 
analysis, in 2018 dollars using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate 
annualized cost savings to be about $37,809,744, using a 7-percent 
discount rate. In table 9, we show how the individual costs apply to 
the affected population, reflected in the number of original MMCs and 
renewals, to generate the total cost savings.

                                                                         Table 9--Estimated Cost Savings to Individuals
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total cost                Renewal
                                                                   Original       of                     fee +     Total annual    Total annual     Grand total     Grand total     Grand total
                          Calendar year                              MMCs      original    Renewals    security     cost of new       cost of       annual cost     annual cost     annual cost
                                                                                  MMC                  screening       MMCs          renewals                      discounted 7%   discounted 3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018............................................................         506  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
2019............................................................       2,519  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
2020............................................................       4,993      $8,958  ..........  ..........     $44,726,583  ..............     $44,726,583     $41,800,544     $43,423,867
2021............................................................       4,725       8,958  ..........  ..........      42,327,834  ..............      42,327,834      36,970,769      39,898,043
2022............................................................       5,204       8,958  ..........  ..........      46,615,639  ..............      46,615,639      38,052,248      42,659,914
2023............................................................       3,756       8,958         105        $220      33,649,426         $23,066      33,672,491      25,688,582      29,917,572
2024............................................................       3,756       8,958         521         220      33,649,426         114,814      33,764,240      24,073,436      29,125,330
2025............................................................       3,756       8,958       1,033         220      33,649,426         227,602      33,877,028      22,573,694      28,371,477
2026............................................................       3,756       8,958         978         220      33,649,426         215,396      33,864,821      21,089,309      27,535,199
2027............................................................       3,756       8,958       1,077         220      33,649,426         237,215      33,886,641      19,722,333      26,750,427
2028............................................................       3,756       8,958         777         220      33,649,426         171,233      33,820,659      18,396,198      25,920,719
2029............................................................       3,756       8,958         777         220      33,649,426         171,233      33,820,659      17,192,708      25,165,747
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..............  ..............     370,376,595     265,559,822     318,768,294
        Annualized..............................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..............  ..............  ..............      37,809,744      37,369,369
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding; we do not round the turnover rate in our calculations, which carries throughout the table.

Cost Incurred To Prepare Letter of Designation
    While the use of an LOD saves the individual approved training 
costs, the actual letter of designation still takes time to prepare. 
Using the time estimate from the existing collection of information for 
PICs, we assume the preparation of a letter takes approximately 10 
minutes at a loaded hourly wage of $53.39 for a cost of about 
$8.92.\29\ Over a 10-year period of analysis, we estimate the total 
discounted cost of writing LODs to be about $263,603 in 2018 dollars, 
using a

[[Page 31686]]

7 percent discount rate. We estimate the annualized cost to be about 
$37,531, using a 7 percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ From OMB Control Number 1625-0072 (ICR 201803-1625-007) - 
0.167 hours equals approximately 10 minutes from Table 12.3 in 
Appendix A of ICR 201803-1625-007 (OMB Control Number 1625-0072) 
last updated in 2018. $34.86 is the mean hourly wage estimate from 
the 2018 National Occupation Employment and Wage Statistics for 
Compliance Officers (13-1041) https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes131041.htm. The loaded wage factor of ($33.11/$21.62) is obtained 
by dividing the total compensation by wages and salaries for full-
time transportation workers. These are annual averages of quarterly 
data series CMU2010000520610D and CMU2020000520610D respectively, 
obtained from BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation (https://www.bls.gov/data/).

                       Table 10--Estimated Costs Incurred to Prepare Letter of Designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Individuals       Cost of      Total annual     Grand total     Grand total
              Year                 needing a new   preparing LOD      cost of       annual cost     annual cost
                                        LOD         per Mariner    preparing LOD   discounted 7%   discounted 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................           4,993           $8.92         $44,515         $41,603         $43,218
2...............................           4,725            8.92          42,127          36,796          39,709
3...............................           5,204            8.92          46,395          37,872          42,458
4...............................           3,756            8.92          33,490          25,549          29,756
5...............................           3,756            8.92          33,490          23,878          28,889
6...............................           3,756            8.92          33,490          22,316          28,047
7...............................           3,756            8.92          33,490          20,856          27,231
8...............................           3,756            8.92          33,490          19,492          26,437
9...............................           3,756            8.92          33,490          18,216          25,667
10..............................           3,756            8.92          33,490          17,025          24,920
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............         367,468         263,603         316,333
        Annualized..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          37,531          37,084
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding; we do not round the turnover rate in our calculations,
  which carries throughout the table.

Cost Savings to Government
    Without this deregulatory action, the Coast Guard would need to 
evaluate the MMC applications that would be submitted if an MMC with a 
Tankerman PIC endorsement were still required to serve as a PIC for 
fuel oil transfers. The avoided cost per MMC application is 55 minutes 
of review by a GS-8 employee for an avoided cost of about $44.92. As 
shown in table 11, over a 10-year period of analysis, we estimate the 
Coast Guard would save a discounted amount of about $1,471,506 in 2018 
dollars, using a 7 percent discount rate. We estimate the annualized 
savings amount to be about $209,509, using a 7 percent discount rate.

                                            Table 11--Estimated Cost Savings to Coast Guard of the Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Cost of                         Cost of                       Grand total     Grand total
             Effective year                Original MMC      reviewing       Renewals        reviewing      Grand total     annual cost     annual cost
                                           applications    original MMC                     renewed MMC     annual cost    discounted 7%   discounted 3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................           4,993          $44.92  ..............  ..............        $224,267        $209,595        $217,735
2.......................................           4,725           44.92  ..............  ..............         212,239         185,378         200,056
3.......................................           5,204           44.92  ..............  ..............         233,739         190,801         213,904
4.......................................           3,756           44.92             105           44.92         173,428         132,307         154,089
5.......................................           3,756           44.92             521           44.92         192,139         136,992         165,741
6.......................................           3,756           44.92           1,033           44.92         215,140         143,357         180,177
7.......................................           3,756           44.92             978           44.92         212,651         132,428         172,905
8.......................................           3,756           44.92           1,077           44.92         217,101         126,355         171,381
9.......................................           3,756           44.92             777           44.92         203,645         110,769         156,077
10......................................           3,756           44.92             777           44.92         203,645         103,523         151,531
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,087,993       1,471,506       1,783,594
        Annualized......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         209,509         209,092
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding; we do not round the turnover rate in our calculations, which carries throughout the table.

Net Cost Savings
    Using a perpetual period of analysis, the Coast Guard estimates the 
total annualized cost savings of the final rule to be $26,323,316 in 
2016 dollars, using a 7 percent discount rate and discounted back to 
2016 assuming implementation begins in 2020. The total cost savings is 
the sum of the cost savings to individuals no longer obtaining MMCs, 
shown in table 9, and the time cost savings to the Coast Guard, shown 
in table 11, of no longer reviewing MMCs. Net cost savings are the 
total cost savings minus the costs incurred, shown in table 12. We 
estimate the net cost savings of this final rule over a 10-year period 
of analysis to be about $266,767,725 in 2018 dollars, using a 7 percent 
discount rate.

                             Table 12--Estimated Net Cost Savings of the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Net cost       Annualized
                                                   Cost savings   Costs incurred      savings      cost savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total.....................................    $372,464,588        $367,468    $372,097,120  ..............

[[Page 31687]]

 
Discounted, 7%..................................     267,031,327         263,603     266,767,725     $37,981,722
Discounted, 3%..................................     320,551,888         316,333     320,235,556      37,541,376
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives
    We considered three alternatives in this final rule, including the 
preferred alternative. The first alternative is to let the policy 
letter expire and continue to require formal training for Tankerman-PIC 
for any fuel oil transfer. The second alternative is to continue to 
issue limited endorsement MMCs with Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel 
Oil Transfers on Towing Vessels. The third, and preferred, alternative 
is extend use of an LOD to qualify as a PIC for fuel oil transfers to 
inspected vessels.
    (1) MMC with officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement (No Limited 
Endorsement).
    Continue to require inspected vessels with a fuel oil capacity of 
250 barrels or more--or that obtain fuel oil from a vessel with a fuel 
oil capacity of 250 barrels or more--to have an individual holding an 
MMC with either an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement designated as 
the PIC of any fuel oil transfer. Under this alternative, any 
designated PIC of a fuel oil transfer would be required to hold an MMC 
with an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement, without a limited 
endorsement for fuel oil transfers.
    The Coast Guard rejected this alternative because it does not 
generate more benefits than the preferred alternative and there are no 
cost savings associated with it and it would not meet the Coast Guard's 
goal of reducing regulations under Executive Order 13771. Individuals 
would still bear the cost of obtaining an MMC, and after a vessel 
receives its COI, individuals previously qualified as PIC through the 
LOD options would not be able to be designated as a PIC until they 
obtain their MMC.
    (2) Continue to Issue Limited Endorsement MMCs with Tankerman-PIC 
Restricted to Fuel Oil Transfers on Towing Vessels.
    Under this alternative the Coast Guard would continue to utilize 
the CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-17 to issue MMC endorsements for Tankerman-
PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels. Under this 
continued action alternative, the existing policy letter would continue 
to provide a means for individuals on towing vessels previously 
designated as PIC of a fuel oil transfer using an LOD to be issued a 
limited endorsement Tankerman-PIC restricted to Fuel Transfers.
    Although one commenter on the NPRM requested that the limited 
endorsement be continued in addition to the use of the LOD, the Coast 
Guard rejected this alternative because while it achieves similar 
benefits as the preferred alternative, it provides neither a full 
solution nor an adequate long-term alternative for designating the PIC 
of a fuel oil transfer--and it is more costly than the preferred 
alternative. The policy letter only applies to one industry segment, 
and individuals who obtain an MMC according to the policy letter would 
still incur the cost of renewing their credential every 5 years.
    (3) Preferred Alternative--new regulatory action allowing use of 
LODs for inspected vessels.
    Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would provide the option 
for inspected vessels to designate the PIC of a fuel oil transfer 
utilizing an LOD. Under a new regulatory action, the Coast Guard would 
provide flexibility to all inspected vessels in how they designate the 
PIC of a fuel oil transfer. This is the preferred alternative because 
it relieves a regulatory burden for individuals who would have to 
obtain and renew a credential while also providing flexibility to 
industries--and it tends to provide the benefit of vessel specific 
training.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have 
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. We 
received no comments on the threshold analysis of the proposed rule, 
therefore we adopt the preliminary analysis as final.
    Our analysis of the impacts on small entities from the NPRM has not 
changed; we present this analysis for the final rule below.
    In lieu of current revenue figures that may be distorted by ongoing 
inspections, for this analysis we use the small entity impact analysis 
of the 2016 Subchapter M rule, which we assume will be closely 
representative of revenues after the inspection period is over. The 
2016 rule's small entity impact analysis used a sample of 304 vessels 
from the initially estimated population of 5,509.\30\ Of the 304 
vessels, about 59 percent were owned or operated by a small entity. We 
assume the same number of small entities would be impacted going 
forward but will know better once inspections are completed and all 
fleets resume active status. As this is a deregulatory action, most of 
the impact is cost savings to individuals, who do not qualify as small 
entities. The only impact to small entities is the cost imposed to 
industry as the time cost of preparing the LOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard found the average annual cost to be $75.91 based on 
the known fleet sizes of all towing vessel entities. For this analysis, 
we make the most conservative assumption that entities would need to 
prepare LODs for their entire fleet every year and compare that to the 
revenue of the lowest earning fleet.
    The average annual unit cost takes the number of vessels in a 
fleet--multiplied by the cost of preparing a letter, $8.92, and 
multiplied by 2--to account for each of the two PICs needed per vessel. 
This average varies by the number of vessels in an entity's fleet, see 
the distribution below. Note that the number of vessels in a fleet does 
not correlate with company size; a small business may have a large 
fleet or a large business may have a small fleet. On average, the cost 
incurred per entity is $75.91, which is on average 0.0152 percent of 
total annual revenues.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ While fleet size is known for all 1,295 entities covering 
the entire affected population of vessels, revenues are known only 
for a sample of 183 vessels of the original 5,509 vessels, data from 
the original FRFA of Inspection of Towing Vessels final rule (81 FR 
40003). In Table 14, ``Average cost'' is based on the entire 
population of entities for which the total annual revenues are 
known, ``Average Cost as a % of Total revenue'' is based only on 
entities for whom revenue is known.

[[Page 31688]]



               Table 13--Estimated Average Cost of the Final Rule on Small Entities by Fleet Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Average cost
          Fleet size category                  Description           Number of     Average cost    as % of total
                                                                     entities                         revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small_1...............................  Entity with only one                 611          $17.83          0.0011
                                         vessel.
Small_2-5.............................  Entity with 2 to 5                   571           52.25          0.0037
                                         vessels.
Medium................................  Entity with 6 to 25                  179          194.05          0.0292
                                         vessels.
Large.................................  Entity with > 25 vessels              32          873.17          0.0072
Average...............................  All fleet sizes.........  ..............           75.91          0.0152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the most conservative case, for a medium-sized fleet owned by 
the entity with the lowest revenue amount in the sample--which would 
have the highest possible cost as percentage of total revenues for the 
affected population--the cost imposed by this rule is still less than 1 
percent of total revenues. In this conservative example, the entity's 
estimated annual cost would be approximately $321 for a fleet of 18 
vessels, 0.76 percent of their $42,000 annual revenue amount.\32\ On 
average, the cost incurred is less than a quarter of one percent of 
revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The value of $42,000 comes from the original FRFA of 81 FR 
40003, June 20, 2016.

                           Table 14--Distribution of Revenue Impacts on Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Percentage of small
      Percent revenue impact          Average annual impact      Small entities with       entities with known
                                                                    known revenue              revenue (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1%...............................                   $75.91                       183                       100
1-3%..............................                    75.91                         0                         0
>3%...............................                    75.91                         0                         0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the most conservative case shows that the impact of this rule 
would be less than 1 percent of total annual revenues, we assume that 
the impact will be less than 1 percent of total annual revenues for 100 
percent of the small entities in our sample size. Therefore, the Coast 
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small 
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard 
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain 
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) requires 
the U.S. Coast Guard to consider the impact of paperwork and other 
information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(1)(B)(iii)(V) and 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), an agency may not 
collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an 
information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    The collection of information under this final rule falls under the 
same collection of information already required for letters of 
designation described in OMB Control Number 1625-0072. This final rule 
does not change the content of responses, nor the estimated burden of 
each response, but does increase the number of annual respondents and 
responses from 190 to 3,756.
    As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' 
comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and 
other similar actions. The title and description of the information 
collections, a description of those who must collect the information, 
and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of 
data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection.
    Title: Waste Management Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters 
of Designation \33\ for Certain Persons-in-Charge (PIC) and Great Lakes 
Dry Cargo Residue Recordkeeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ As stated in the Discussion of the Rule section, this rule 
is amending 33 CFR 155.715 to make it clear that the letter that has 
been referred to as both a ``Letter of Instruction'' and a ``Letter 
of Designation'' should consistently be called a ``Letter of 
Designation.'' We are amending the title of this collection of 
information to reflect that change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0072
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The Letter of 
Designation, which is issued by the operator or agent of a vessel, 
designates the holder as the PIC for the transfer of fuel oil and 
documents that the holder has received sufficient formal instruction 
from the operator or agent of the vessel to meet the requirements of 33 
CFR 155.715. As amended by this rule, Sec.  155.710(e) will now permit 
LODs to be used on inspected vessels in addition to uninspected 
vessels.
    Need for Information: This information is needed to ensure that: 
(1) Certain U.S. vessels develop and maintain a waste plan; (2) certain 
U.S. vessels maintain refuse discharge records; (3) certain individuals 
that act

[[Page 31689]]

as fuel oil transfer PIC receive an LOD for both vessel safety and 
prevention of pollution; and (4) certain Great Lakes vessels conduct 
dry cargo residue recordkeeping.
    Use of Information: To ensure that fuel oil transfer competency 
standards are met, all PICs on uninspected or inspected vessels must 
carry a Letter of Designation if they do not hold an MMC with either an 
officer endorsement or a Tankerman-PIC endorsement.
    Description of Respondents: Compliance officers for entities 
conducting transfers of fuel oil and needing to designate a PIC of such 
transfers.
    Number of Respondents: The currently OMB-approved number of 
respondents is 190, we are requesting an increase of 3,566 respondents 
for a total of 3,756. The reason for the increase is the number of PICs 
who choose the LOD option, or 11,540 PICs multiplied by the attrition 
rate of 0.3255, or PICs who leave the industry over a given period of 
time.
    Burden of Response: 0.167 hours per response.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The currently OMB-approved burden 
hours is 32, we are requesting an increase of 595 hours (11,540 PICs x 
0.3255 x 0.167 hours, the time it takes for a PIC to create a letter of 
instruction) for a total of 627 hours. The reason for the increase is 
due to the increase in the number of PICs who choose the LOD option.
    As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this 
rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information. You are 
not required to respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    We received no comments on this collection of information, so we 
are updating the population numbers as necessary and are adopting the 
collection of information from the NPRM as final.

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 rule under Executive Order 13132 and 
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 
13132. Our analysis follows.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled 
that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 
8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, 
equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as 
the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress 
intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's 
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the 
States. See the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Locke and 
Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). This rule, as 
promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 3306 and 3703, concerns personnel 
qualifications because it will amend requirements for who may serve as 
the PIC of fuel oil transfers on inspected vessels. Therefore, because 
the States may not regulate within these categories, this rule is 
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption 
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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 $100,000,000 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this rule will not result 
in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 
in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This 
rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), 
because it will 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 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 and Incorporation by Reference

    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 (for example, 
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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing 
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made 
a 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 Record of Environmental Consideration supporting 
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions

[[Page 31690]]

on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 
This rule is categorically excluded under paragraph L56 of Appendix A, 
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. Paragraph L56 
pertains to the training, qualifying, licensing, and disciplining of 
maritime personnel. This rule involves letters of designation to assign 
PICs of fuel oil transfers on inspected vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155

    Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
part 155 as follows:

PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS

0
1. The authority citation for part 155 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  3 U.S.C. 301 through 303; 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 
1903(b), 2735; 46 U.S.C 3306, 3703, 70011, 70034; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 155.1020 also issued under section 
316 of Pub. L. 114-120. Section 155.480 also issued under section 
4110(b) of Pub. L. 101-380.

    Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or 
hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 40, 
150, 151, and 153


0
2. Amend Sec.  155.710 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (e) introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and 
add in its place the word ``must'';
0
b. Revise paragraph (e)(1);
0
c. Remove paragraph (e)(2);
0
d. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (e)(2) and (3), 
respectively; and
0
e. In newly redesignated paragraph (e)(2), remove the text ``or (2)''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  155.710   Qualifications of person in charge.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) On each inspected vessel required by 46 CFR chapter I to have 
an officer aboard, and on each uninspected vessel, either:
    (i) Holds a valid merchant mariner credential issued under 46 CFR 
chapter I, subchapter B, with an endorsement as master, mate, pilot, 
engineer, or operator aboard that vessel, or holds a valid merchant 
mariner credential endorsed as Tankerman-PIC; or
    (ii) Carries a letter satisfying the requirements of Sec.  155.715 
and designating him or her as a PIC, unless equivalent evidence is 
immediately available aboard the vessel or at his or her place of 
employment.
* * * * *


Sec.  155.715   [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  155.715, remove the text ``letter of instruction required 
in Sec.  155.710(e)(2)'' and add in its place the text ``letter 
referenced in Sec.  155.710(e)(1)''.

    Dated: May 21, 2020.
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-11366 Filed 5-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P