Mariner Credentialing Program Transformation, 18706-18741 [2024-04351]

Download as PDF 18706 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules [Docket No. USCG–2021–0834] reach OMB on or before the comment due date listed on their website. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document call or email Mr. Charles J. Bright, CG–MMC– 1, Coast Guard; telephone 202–372– 1046, email Charles.J.Bright@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RIN 1625–AC86 Table of Contents for Preamble DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Parts 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 Mariner Credentialing Program Transformation Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard’s Mariner Credentialing Program issues merchant mariner credentials and medical certificates, approves training courses and programs, and approves other qualifications such as a Qualified Assessor and a Designated Examiner. Under this rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to allow for the electronic submission of information required for credentialing to allow for the future implementation of a new information technology system to support the mariner credentialing process. The Coast Guard also proposes to require the electronic payment of mandatory fees for merchant mariner credentials through Pay.Gov, to remove the requirement for prospective mariners to take an oath before an authorized official, and to change the requirements for the Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariners. Finally, the Coast Guard proposes technical amendments to update addresses and websites, to remove antiquated terminology, and to amend language to use gender-neutral terms. SUMMARY: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 13, 2024. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2021–0834 using the Federal DecisionMaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. Collection of information. Submit comments on the collection of information discussed in section VI.D of this preamble both to the Coast Guard’s online docket and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) using their website www.reginfo.gov/public/ do/PRAMain. Comments sent to OIRA on the collection of information must ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 DATES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 I. Public Participation and Request for Comments II. Abbreviations III. Basis and Purpose IV. Background V. Discussion of Proposed Rule VI. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates G. Taking of Private Property H. Civil Justice Reform I. Protection of Children J. Indian Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards M. Environment I. Public Participation and Request for Comments The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2021– 0834 in the search box and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions. Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select ‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive. Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS’s eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). Public meeting. We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we will consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting. II. Abbreviations ACH Automated Clearing House BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CBO Congressional Budget Office CFR Code of Federal Regulations CG–MMC Coast Guard Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing CG–719B Application for Merchant Mariner Credential DHS Department of Homeland Security EFT Electronic Funds Transfer Form CG–718A Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner FR Federal Register FRED Federal Reserve Economic Data GS General Schedule GSA General Services Administration ICR Information Collection Request IT Information Technology MCP Mariner Credentialing Program MMC Merchant Mariner Credential MMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NMC National Maritime Center NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget OPM Office of Personnel Management RA Regulatory analysis RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act REC Regional Exam Center § Section U.S.C. United States Code USCG United States Coast Guard III. Basis and Purpose The legal basis of this proposed rule is title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 7101(b) and 7301(b), which authorize the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish the experience and professional qualifications required for the issuance of merchant mariner licenses and documents. The DHS Secretary has delegated the rulemaking E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 authority under 46 U.S.C. 7101 and 7301 to the Coast Guard through DHS Delegation No. 00170.1(II)(92)(e) and (f), Revision No. 01.3. Additionally, 14 U.S.C. 102(3) grants the Coast Guard broad authority to issue and enforce regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which includes establishing the experience and professional qualifications required for the issuance of credentials. The purpose of this proposed rule is to revise title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), subchapter A, part 1, and subchapter B, parts 10–16, to allow for the electronic submission of information to the Coast Guard for the issuance of a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) and the supporting administrative processes, including requiring the payment of mandatory fees through the federal governmentrecognized system, Pay.gov. The Coast Guard also proposes removing the requirement for prospective mariners to take an oath before an authorized official and changing requirements for the completion and issue of a Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner (Form CG–718A). In addition, the Coast Guard proposes technical amendments, such as updating addresses and websites, removing antiquated terminology, and adopting gender-inclusive language by replacing gender-specific terms. IV. Background The Coast Guard’s Mariner Credentialing Program (MCP) issues MMCs and Medical Certificates to applicants who have met the regulatory criteria established in 46 CFR subchapter B. This includes the evaluation of individual qualifications and medical fitness, administering examinations and issuing the MMC. In addition, the MCP also conducts supporting processes, such as approving mariner training courses and programs; approving course instructors; conducting course oversight and auditing; and approving Qualified Assessors (QA) and Designated Examiners (DE).1 The National Maritime Center (NMC) and its field units, called Regional Exam Centers (REC) and Monitoring Units (MU), conduct these MCP processes, which have traditionally relied on handwritten applications, mailed correspondence, and recordkeeping in paper-based files. It was not until the early 1990s that the Coast Guard implemented its Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation 1 Qualified Assessor and Designated Examiner are as defined in 46 CFR 10.107 and 10.405. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 (MMLD) database to partially automate the process. MMLD is a database used by the NMC to issue MMCs, medical certificates and manage mariner information. MMLD is internal to the Coast Guard and does not allow for direct interaction with maritime stakeholders. Even with the addition of MMLD, all aspects of the MCP rely heavily on the paper-based submittal of information. This includes the submission of handwritten, paper forms, such as Form CG–719B, Application for Merchant Mariner Credential, CG–719K, Application for Medical Certificate, and supporting documentation, as well as conducting paper-based examinations that are mailed to mariners, or administered in person, by the Coast Guard. In recent years, the Coast Guard has accepted Adobe Acrobat versions of the paper applications and information through emails to improve customer service and efficiency during the COVID–19 pandemic. However, this still requires the transfer of the mariner’s information from emailed documentation by manual entry of all information into the MMLD database for reviewing and processing. This process is time-consuming, inefficient, and does not provide effective customer service. These inefficiencies also make the Coast Guard susceptible to fraudulent activities related to accepting documents that cannot be validated and may contain falsified information or incorrect data. For example, if a mariner submits a training course completion or sea service document, it is difficult to validate this information against the course provider completed course information submitted to the Coast Guard or vessel information such as propulsion type or registered tonnage. The Coast Guard is working to replace MMLD with a more technologically advanced, secure, agile, and userfriendly system that would reduce risk and improve customer service to mariners and the maritime industry. The anticipated replacement system will be web-based, allowing for direct virtual interaction between the Coast Guard and maritime industry stakeholders. Currently over 50 percent of MMC applications submitted are incomplete, resulting in delays to request and receive the missing information. The replacement system would aim to eliminate these delays and would allow for more efficient processing, tracking, and feedback on the status of the credential or medical certificate. In addition, system users would be able to electronically provide required information directly to the Coast Guard for review or approval. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18707 These users would include maritime training providers, maritime employers, and other entities submitting required information on behalf of the mariner, such as course completion data, documentation of sea service, or assessments of competency. This would increase the ability to validate and protect information and reduce the likelihood of fraud from the falsification of such mariner records. As the primary source of consolidated data on merchant mariners and their qualifications, this would also support national defense requirements by allowing for accurate data analysis of merchant mariners needed to support contingency operations. The future MCP system would enable the electronic submission of information for the processing of credentials and other qualifications and approvals, as well as reconciling the collection of mandatory fees through Pay.gov. Allowing for the electronic submission of certain data and requiring electronic payments requires a regulatory update to 46 CFR part 1 of subchapter A and parts 10–16 of subchapter B. While the development and testing of the new system will take time, these regulatory changes are required to set the conditions for the implementation of the new system’s capabilities. Mariners must pay mandatory fees for the Coast Guard evaluation of an MMC application, administration of an examination, and issuance of an MMC. The Coast Guard is not proposing to change the amount of any of the mandatory fees. Regulations establish the amount and method for the payment of fees; specifically, 46 CFR 10.219(d)(3) allows for payments by cash, check, money order, or credit card. Accepting cash, checks, and money orders as payments is costly and inefficient, often creating issues with fee reconciliation for mariners. Cash must be converted to a money order, checks and money orders must be deposited via standard mail to the Federal Lockbox, and all deposits must be reconciled. The Coast Guard currently does not have an efficient way to track mandatory fees, particularly cash and money orders, in MMLD or the Coast Guard financial management system. This has led to overpayments and underpayments of mandatory fees, delays in processing refunds, and delays in issuing mariner credentials when proper fees have not been received. There are also no automated mechanisms to identify the need for a refund. Instead, a refund usually occurs only after it is requested by the individual receiving services. These inefficiencies typically delay refunds to individuals. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 18708 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules Requiring electronic payment via Pay.gov would allow for more efficient processing of mandatory fees, including easier reconciliation, refunds, and protection of financial information, and would eliminate the burden of Coast Guard personnel handling nonelectronic forms of payment. From 2015 to 2019, most payments of mandatory fees affected by this proposal were made electronically through Pay.gov.2 Cash payments were not accepted during the COVID–19 pandemic. Only a few cash payments have been received since 2019 and this trend is anticipated to continue.3 Credit or debit card (or a purchased credit card) and check payments, via bank automated clearing house (ACH) payments, would still be accepted as a means of payment through Pay.gov. In addition, this proposal would align Coast Guard regulations with U.S. Treasury regulations on the management of federal agency receipts, disbursements, and the operation of cash management. Specifically, 31 CFR part 206 prescribes regulations for promoting efficient, effective cash management through improved billing, collection, deposit, and payment of funds. These objectives seek to improve funds’ availability and the efficiency and effectiveness with which funds are transferred. Specifically, 31 CFR 206.4 establishes that all funds are to be collected and disbursed by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) when costeffective, practicable, and consistent with current statutory authority. In addition, 31 CFR 206.4(b)(1) specifies that EFT will be adopted as the presumed collection method when fees and fines are recurring or of large dollar amounts. The Coast Guard also proposes to remove the requirement for original applicants to take an oath before an authorized official and to change the requirements for the completion and submission of Form CG–718A. Taking the oath before an authorized official is duplicative because the oath is part of Form CG–719B that the original applicant must attest to when they provide their signature. Requiring an oath before an authorized official or notary, places an undue burden on the original applicant who may need to pay for notary services. The signature and 2 Approximately 80 percent of payments received from 2015–2019 were through Pay.gov. This increased to over 90 percent during the years from 2020–2022. 3 The number of cash payments recorded by the Coast Guard: CY 2020—31, CY2021—2, and CY2022—19. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 attestation on Form CG–719B legally binds the original applicant to that oath without the additional requirements and potential cost. Form CG–718A, Certificates of Discharge, and associated processes are used to document a mariner’s time on a vessel including the capacity the mariner sailed (3rd Mate, 2nd Engineer, etc.), date joining the vessel, and date leaving the vessel among other information. By reviewing and attesting to the information on Form CG–718A, the vessel master and mariner agree to its correctness. This information can be used to verify the mariner’s time for salary, sea service, and for other purposes. Form CG–718A process is clarified to ensure proper information is obtained and provided to the mariner and the Coast Guard by the vessel master and shipping company. This updates the process from paper and carbon copy forms, allowing for updated methods, such as electronic forms, electronic signatures, and improved recordkeeping, in the modern-day maritime industry. The information required for Form CG–718A would remain the same, but the method of obtaining, processing, and retaining the Form would allow for electronic processing by the owner, operator, Master, or Chief Engineer of the vessel. Finally, the Coast Guard proposes technical amendments, such as updating addresses and websites, removing antiquated terminology, and adopting gender-inclusive language by replacing gender specific terms. This would align with other sections of Coast Guard regulations, where outdated terminology has been removed or updated when provided the opportunity to do so through rulemaking. It would also provide a clearer understanding of Coast Guard and governmental requirements. V. Discussion of Proposed Rule This rule proposes to allow for the electronic submission of MMC applications and supporting documents to the Coast Guard, and to require electronic payment of mandatory fees through Pay.gov. This rule also proposes to remove the requirement for original MMC applicants to take an oath before an authorized official or notary because the Coast Guard has determined it is a redundant part of the original MMC application process. This rule further proposes to amend the process for issuing certificates of discharge for mariners after completing a voyage to clarify the procedures and allow for electronic processing and PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 recordkeeping. Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to make non-substantive changes to antiquated terminology and out-of-date website and address information to clarify existing regulatory text in the affected subparts of the CFR. To prepare for the future acquisition of an information technology (IT) system to replace the antiquated and inefficient MMLD system used by the MCP, this rule proposes to amend 46 CFR subchapter A, part 1, and subchapter B, parts 10–16, to allow for electronic submission of information, in a manner specified by the Coast Guard, to obtain MMCs, medical certificates, and the approval of mariner training courses and programs, Qualified Assessors, and Designated Examiners. Providing for the electronic submission of required information would streamline the credentialing process and would prepare for the fully electronic IT system that will be used by the MCP and industry. This proposed rule requires electronic payment of mandatory fees through Pay.gov. Manual processing of the remaining cash, checks, credit cards, or money orders that are still allowed requires significant work hours by NMC and REC personnel, is difficult to validate and protect using the current system, and does not meet the requirements of the U.S. Treasury. Currently, applicants can make payments in person at an REC using cash, check, credit card, or money order. With this proposed rule, the Coast Guard would no longer directly accept payments made using these methods at RECs. Applicants who wish to continue to use cash or money orders could obtain a prepaid credit card to pay fees using Pay.gov. Applicants who wish to pay via personal check can make an ACH payment through Pay.gov. As noted in IV. Background, the Coast Guard anticipates the use of cash or money orders to continue to decrease, based upon previous payment statistics. This also reflects the overall public trend in the United States to make payments using a credit card, debit card, or check. The 2019 Federal Reserve Payments Study and subsequent updates indicate a continued trend to using cards and ACH with the growth rate of core noncash payments being 6.7 percent per year from 2015 to 2018, higher than the growth rate of 5.1 percent per year from 2012 to 2015.4 4 The 2019 Federal Reserve Payments Study, p14, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/ pressreleases/files/2019-payments-study20191219.pdf. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Credit and debit card usage numbers declined with the onset of the COVID– 19 pandemic, mostly from the lack of inperson transactions, but general growth continued, including the percentage of ACH payments.5 Electronic payment would reduce the burden on Coast Guard personnel who process nonelectronic payments (cash, check, money orders) and improve customer service to mariners by allowing for better reconciliation and more efficient processing of payments and refunds. This rule also proposes changes to 46 CFR 14.307 regarding entries on certificates of discharge for mariners after completing a voyage to clarify the procedures and allow for electronic processing and recordkeeping. The process would be clarified by requiring that each master or person in charge must, for each individual mariner being discharged from the vessel, prepare a Form CG–718A in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Coast Guard. The prescribed format may include the current CG–718A or other means provided by the Coast Guard, which would allow for electronic processing if available in a new MCP system. If a Master or persons in charge of a vessel do not use a Coast Guardprescribed format, the mariner must be provided with all the same information included on Form CG–718A. This ensures the vessel Master or operating companies provide the required information to the mariner but allows for them to use vessel or company specific means, such as a payroll system incorporated in their vessel administrative systems. Following each voyage, every mariner being discharged must validate the information on Form CG–718A by signing it. The proposed change from signing in ‘‘permanent ink’’ to ‘‘by signing’’ allows for more modern methods such as electronic signature or document verification. Finally, when the mariner departs the vessel, the Master or individual in charge must give Form CG–718A to the mariner, which could be provided electronically with the proposed changes. The proposed changes to Form CG–718A’s process creates a more modern and electronic means of processing the document. 5 Developments in Noncash Payments for 2019 and 2020: Findings from the Federal Reserve Payments Study, p7, https:// www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/ developments-in-noncash-payments-for-2019-and2020-20211222.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 Under this proposed rule, there would be no change to the certificate of discharge transmission process under 46 CFR 14.311. In addition, this proposed rule would remove the requirement to take an oath before an authorized official while certifying an Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (Form CG–719B). By signing the form, an individual attests that they do ‘‘solemnly swear or affirm’’ to abide by the requirements of the oath. This legally binds a mariner, so no additional requirement before an authorized official is necessary. The Coast Guard also anticipates that the future MCP system will allow for electronic signatures and additional verification of identity, negating the need for the requirement to take an oath before an authorized official. Finally, the Coast Guard proposes technical amendments to 46 CFR parts 1 and 10 through 16 as part of this rulemaking. These amendments would account for updates to websites and addresses, remove antiquated language (such as ‘‘licenses’’ and ‘‘Merchant Mariner Document (MMD),’’ as those credentials are no longer issued by the Coast Guard), and make non-substantive changes to ensure gender-neutrality throughout. VI. Regulatory Analysis We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders follows. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18709 rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. A regulatory analysis (RA) follows. For this regulatory analysis, the term ‘‘applicants’’ refers to all individuals who pay mandatory fees associated with an MMC application. The proposed changes and estimated cost savings for § 10.219(d) would affect these applicants. The phrase ‘‘original applicants’’ refers to individuals who are applying for their first MMC and therefore are currently required to take an oath before an authorized official. The number of original applicants is a subset of all applicants because they must also pay fees. The proposed changes and cost savings to § 10.225(c) would affect only original applicants. In this rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to update 46 CFR subchapter A, part 1, and subchapter B, parts 10 through 16. The proposed rule would: • Require electronic payment of merchant mariner credentialing fees in § 10.219(d); 6 • Remove the requirement for an oath to be administered by an official who serves as a notary public (or an authorized official who can administer an oath) on Form CG–719B in § 10.225(c); • Allow for the electronic submission of certain documents in §§ 1.03– 15(h)(2)(i) for appeals involving course approvals and merchant mariner personnel issues and 10.219(i) for requests involving no-fee MMCs; • Consolidate, condense, and clarify regulatory text for the processing of Form CG–718A in §§ 14.307(a), (b), and (c) when a mariner completes a voyage; and • Make non-substantive, editorial changes to current regulatory text, such as pronoun changes, address changes, the removal of certain terms, and other minor grammatical changes. Table 1 presents a summary of the impacts of the proposed rule. 6 The proposed rule affects all applicants who apply for MMCs. Mandatory fees include evaluation, examination, and issuance fees. The Coast Guard data does not differentiate between these fees in the data it collects; the data the Coast Guard collected for this analysis are for any fees where applicants may pay for any or all of them at one time. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18710 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE NPRM Category Summary Applicability—46 CFR subchapter A, part 1, and subchapter B, parts 10–16. —Requires applicants for an MMC to pay evaluation, examination, and issuance fees electronically through Pay.gov; 7 —Removes requirement for original applicants to take an oath before an authorized official; —Provides the option of electronic submission of additional documents to support MMC applications and Coast Guard approvals; and —Makes editorial changes that clarify, remove, condense, and add non-substantive regulatory text. —Applicants for MMCs; and —Approximately 36,838 applicants,8 annually. Assumption 1 (Cost Savings to applicants of MMCs): Approximately $2.6 million over 10-year period of analysis. Annualized, approximately $364,945. Assumption 2 (Cost Savings to applicants of MMCs): Approximately $3.0 million over 10-year period of analysis. Annualized, approximately $433,379. Federal Government Cost Savings: Approximately $215,655 over 10year period of analysis. Annualized, approximately $30,704. Total Cost Savings of Proposed Rule: Assumption 1: Approximately $2.8 million over 10-year period of analysis. Annualized, approximately $395,650. Assumption 2: Approximately $3.3 million over 10-year period of analysis. Annualized, approximately $464,084. —There are no regulatory provisions of the proposed rule that would impose net costs on individuals, companies, or the maritime industry. —The proposed rule would remove non-electronic and in-person payments options for applicants. —This proposed rule would remove requirements in § 10.219(d) and § 10.225(c), which would produce net cost savings to applicants. —Provides cost savings from the option of electronic submission of certain documents in parts 1.03–15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i). —Provides flexibility with option of electronic submission of certain documents; —Clarifies submission of Form CG–718A in part 14.307; allows for additional signature methods and retention procedures. Affected Population .................................................................................. Total Cost Savings of Proposed Rule (7-percent discount rate-all estimates in table, $2021). Unquantifiable Costs ................................................................................ Unquantifiable Cost Savings .................................................................... Unquantifiable Benefits ............................................................................. Note: Cost savings estimates in each assumption include estimates for § 10.219(d). ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 We discuss the economic impact of these items individually in the cost savings section of this RA. We request public comment on the numerical estimates and assumptions in the RA for this proposed rule. This proposed rule would generate cost savings to applicants, including original applicants, for two proposed changes in 46 CFR 10.219(d) and 10.225(c), and for the Federal Government in § 10.219(d). For part 10.219(d), each applicant would save about $13.53 for a credit 7 Readers can access the National Maritime Center’s (NMC) website and Pay.gov to obtain information about the payment of fees at www.dco.uscg.mil/nmc/fees/. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022. 8 For this regulatory analysis, the term ‘‘applicants’’ refers to all individual applicants who pay mandatory fees. The proposed changes and estimated cost savings for § 10.219(d) would affect these applicants. The phrase ‘‘original applicants’’ refers to individuals who apply for their first MMC and therefore are required by existing regulation to take an oath before an authorized official. The proposed changes and cost savings to § 10.225(c) would affect only original applicants. We also assume the affected population of applicants has bank accounts. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 card payment and about $11.82 for a cash payment with this proposed rule. For part 10.225(c), under Assumption 1, for all applicants, an individual applicant would save about $14.95; and under Assumption 2, for half of the applicants (6,976), each applicant who goes to a bank branch would save about $14.95; for the other half (6,976) of the applicants who go to a notary service, half of whom pay by credit card (3,488) and half of whom pay by cash (3,488); each applicant who pays by credit card would save about $25.37, and by cash, about $24.15. First, the proposed changes in § 10.219(d) would require an applicant for an MMC to pay the required evaluation, examination, and issuance mandatory fees by electronic means through Pay.gov. Currently, an applicant can make a payment in person at an REC using cash, check, credit card or money order. With this proposed rule, the Coast Guard would no longer directly accept payments made using these methods; as a result, this proposed rule would remove the payment options made with cash, check (in person), credit card (in person), and money PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 order, and payments made by standard mail. The cost savings that we estimate for § 10.219(d) are for applicants who would no longer expend the time to visit an REC to pay the fees by cash, check, credit card, and for payments made by check through standard mail. For the purpose of this analysis, we analyzed payments made by cash and credit card because they represented the majority of payments made in person at RECs. We also analyzed check and money order payments made by applicants outside of RECs. In addition to cash and credit card payments, applicants can also make payments by check and money order in person at an REC. However, the Coast Guard does not collect data to show where applicants made these payments. For this analysis and based on Coast Guard information from RECs, where most applicants pay by cash or credit card, we then assumed applicants made check and money order payments by standard mail outside of an REC. The changes we propose to § 10.219(d) would also generate cost savings for the Federal Government for Coast Guard employees who would no E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules longer expend the time to process inperson payment transactions at RECs. The cost savings associated with § 10.225(c) would be from the removal of the requirement to have an oath administered by a person legally qualified to administer an oath, or a notary public, near an original applicant’s place of residence (in the town or city where an original applicant resides) before an original applicant receives an MMC.9 The Coast Guard does not estimate the Federal Government would realize any cost savings associated with this proposed change. The remaining changes of the proposed rule would not generate any costs or cost savings to the maritime industry, individuals, or the Federal Government. Lastly, this proposed rule would not alter any current OMBapproved Coast Guard information collection request (ICR). ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 10.219(d) We estimate the total discounted cost savings for the proposed change to § 10.219(d) for applicants who pay mandatory fees at RECs (typically by cash or credit card) and for applicants who pay by check and money order outside of an REC through standard mail would be approximately $1.0 million, rounded, over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. The cost savings are associated with the time (transaction time) applicants would save from making inperson payments to using Pay.gov. We estimate the annualized cost savings for applicants who pay in-person at RECs and by cash would be approximately $3,439 rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the annualized cost savings for applicants who pay in-person at RECs by credit card would be approximately $134,735, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the annualized cost savings for applicants who pay by check and money order through standard mail would be approximately $6,951 rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. Finally, we estimate the total 9 A notary public is an individual who has met the requirements to provide notary public services to the general public in order to verify a person’s identity. Currently, in the case of Form CG–719B, when an original applicant applies for an MMC either at an REC or near an original applicant’s place of residence (either at a bank or bank branch or where there is a notary service in the U.S.), the original applicant must sign the form in the presence of a notary public. The notary public must also sign the form; this process serves as the oath for the original applicant in accordance with the information contained in Form CG–719B. Readers can access www.nationalnotary.org to obtain more information about notary services in the U.S. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 annualized cost savings of part 10.219(d) to applicants who pay inperson at RECs and by check and money order to be approximately $145,125 ($3,439 + $134,735 + $6,951), rounded. We estimate the discounted cost savings to the Coast Guard for the proposed change to § 10.219(d) would be approximately $215,655 over a 10year period of analysis, using a 7percent discount rate. In addition, we estimate the annualized cost savings to the Coast Guard for this regulatory provision would be approximately $30,704, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. § 10.225(c) In this regulatory analysis, we make two assumptions associated with the proposed removal of the requirement to take an oath before an authorized official in § 10.225(c). These assumptions apply to applicants who pay the mandatory fees and take an oath at a location other than an REC or at their place of residence (for the purpose of this regulatory analysis, we refer to individuals who are affected by the proposed changes to § 10.225(c) only as ‘‘original applicants’’). These two assumptions are necessary, because the Coast Guard does not have data on whether original applicants obtain an oath through a notary public service at a bank near their place of residence, which is (Assumption 1), where an individual can obtain an oath for an original application along with a notary public signature, which we assume to be free of charge; or elsewhere, other than a bank, which is (Assumption 2), where there is a cost for the notary public service.10 Therefore, if the reader accepts Assumption 1 to be representative of the current actions by applicants, then the cost savings the Coast Guard estimates for this assumption would be the cost savings of the proposed rule, in addition to the cost savings from the proposed change to § 10.219(d). If the reader accepts Assumption 2 to be representative of the current actions by applicants, then the cost savings the Coast Guard estimates for this assumption would be the cost savings of the proposed rule, in addition to the cost savings from the proposed change to § 10.219(d). 10 The Coast Guard collects information on the number of payment transactions for original applications and for other payments of MMC fees. For the purpose of this analysis, we assumed each payment transaction represents one individual or mariner. There may be more than one payment transaction for an application, but for tractability of this analysis, we assumed a one-to-one ratio. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18711 Other assumptions may be made about the locations or establishments where original applicants obtained an oath through a notary public service, such as through legal services, at a title application company, or other such local business services, but we believe these assumptions capture the actions that applicants take when they apply for MMCs. The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on these two assumptions, and whether a third assumption should be considered along with or instead of these two assumptions. Lastly, for the purpose of this analysis, the Coast Guard assumes applicants have bank accounts. We request comments from the public on the validity of this assumption. Assumption 1 for § 10.225(c): Our first assumption is that original applicants, who are affected by this part of the proposed rule, can obtain an oath through a notary public service at a or bank branch (which we assume to be free of charge) near where they reside.11 Under this assumption, we estimate this proposed rule would save original applicants (an estimated 13,951 annually, rounded) a discounted amount of approximately $1.5 million over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. The cost savings include the cost of the travel time for an applicant who would have traveled to obtain a notary public, the mileage cost, and the time an applicant would have waited at a bank to obtain a notary public. We estimate the annualized cost savings for original applicants would be approximately $219,820, using a 7-percent discount rate. These figures do not include the cost savings for the proposed change to § 10.219(d). Assumption 2 for § 10.225(c): Our second assumption is that half of the original applicants can obtain an oath through a notary public service at a bank or bank branch near where they reside, which we assume to be free of charge. The other half of original applicants (an estimated 6,976 annually, rounded) can obtain this service at a state office, an establishment that provides notary public services, or a similar entity which charges for notary public service. Assumption 2 considers the cost savings associated with the 11 The Coast Guard acknowledges that some banks or bank branches may not provide a notary public service free of charge; however, we assumed applicants with a bank account at a given bank do not incur a cost for a notary public service if they are a member of that bank. Readers can access these websites for more information on notary public services at banks: https://www.bankofamerica.com/ signature-services/notary/, and https:// www.citizensbank.com/learning/notary-publicservices.aspx. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18712 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules proposed removal of the oath and the notary public service for the affected population of all original applicants, or 13,951. Under this assumption, we assumed half of the applicants would obtain a notary public at a bank, where it is free of charge, and half at an establishment other than a bank, where there would be a cost for a notary public. The cost savings for half of the original applicants who obtain a notary public at a bank would be from the time it would take to travel to a bank, the mileage cost, and the time to wait at a bank for a notary public. The cost savings for the other half of original applicants who obtain a notary elsewhere would be the same as applicants that go to a bank with the addition of the cost savings from not having to pay for a notary public. With this assumption, the Coast Guard estimates the proposed rule would save original applicants a discounted amount of approximately $2.0 million over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings for original applicants would be approximately $288,255, using a 7-percent discount rate. These figures do not include the cost savings for the proposed change to § 10.219(d). For each assumption, the Coast Guard adds the same cost savings estimate for original applicants who would be required to pay the fees electronically under the proposed changes to § 10.219(d), or $145,125 annualized, rounded. Specifically, for Assumption 1, the Coast Guard estimates the total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule to applicants would be approximately $2.6 million over a 10year period of analysis, using a 7percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the total annualized cost savings of the proposed rule under this assumption would be approximately $364,945. For Assumption 2, the Coast Guard estimates the total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule to applicants would be approximately $3.0 million over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the total annualized cost savings of the proposed rule under this assumption would be approximately $433,379. In addition, the Coast Guard expects this proposed rule to generate benefits in the form of cost savings to MMC applicants. These benefits would include: • A simplified payment transaction through electronic means (Pay.gov), saving applicants time and money; and • Reduced time burden for original applicants who would no longer need to obtain an oath before an authorized official, which saves time and money. This proposed rule would also generate unquantifiable benefits, which would include: • Flexibility for applicants by providing the option to electronically submit documents including the no-fee determination of eligibility request and the certificate of discharge; unquantifiable cost savings for applicants who would choose the option to electronically submit certain documents; • Removal, addition, and clarification of regulatory text for Form CG–718A and other non-substantive regulatory text changes. Table 2 presents a summary of the estimated impacts of the proposed rule. TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE NPRM BY AFFECTED CFR PART, SUBPART, AND SECTION 46 CFR section(s) affected Description of proposed rule change Estimated cost or cost savings Part 1—Organization, General Course and Methods Governing Marine Safety Functions, Subpart 1.01—Organization and General Flow of Functions: 1.01–15(e). Subpart 1.03—Rights of Appeal: 1.03– 15(h)(2)(i). Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes, which includes updated website for merchant mariner credentialing. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Adds option of electronic submission for appeals for course approvals. None. Part 10—Merchant Mariner Credential, Subpart A—General: 10.107. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Subpart B—General Requirements for All Merchant Mariner Credentials: 10.203(b); 10.203(c); 10.205(g); 10.209(a); 10.209(d). 10.209(d)(1); 10.209((d)(2); 10.209(d)(3). Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact. Manner of submission would include option of electronic submission of appeals. Unquantifiable benefit of option for electronic submission of appeal, current paper-based appeal process would still be accepted. No estimated impact. Clarifies the definition of ‘‘regional examination center or REC’’; adds definitions for ‘‘written,’’ ‘‘writing,’’ and ‘‘in writing.’’. No estimated impact ............................. 10.209(i) ................................................. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Economic impact 10.211(f), (i), (j), (k), and (l) ................... 10.213(f) ................................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Editorial: removes regulatory text for applicant to retain photocopy of credential and submission of certain documents in paragraph (d)(2). Other non-substantive regulatory text changes in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3). Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 None. None. No estimated cost impact for removal of photocopy of credential and submission of certain documents because requirement is still retained in §§ 10.227 and 10.231. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18713 TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE NPRM BY AFFECTED CFR PART, SUBPART, AND SECTION—Continued 46 CFR section(s) affected Description of proposed rule change Economic impact Estimated cost or cost savings 10.219(d) ................................................ Condenses paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) into one paragraph; requires payments to be made electronically. Cost savings in time saved for payment transaction for applicants who chose to pay in person at an REC and would now be required to submit payment electronically. Cost savings from mail-in checks. This would remove the in-person option for applicants who chose to pay in person at an REC. 10.219(i)(1) ............................................. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Adds option of electronic submission of request for determination of a request for a fee waiver. 10.223(c)(iv)(5) ....................................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Removes the requirement for an oath to be administered by any Coast Guard designated individual or any person legally permitted to administer oath in jurisdiction of individual’s place of residence. Other minor nonsubstantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact; manner of submission would include option for electronic submission. Unquantifiable benefit of option for electronic submission of request for determination of eligibility, current paper-based request would still be accepted. No estimated impact ............................. Estimated annualized cost savings of approximately $145,125 to applicants; 10-year discounted cost savings of approximately $1.0 million at 7-percent discount rate. Federal Government annualized cost savings of approximately $30,704; 10-year discounted cost savings of approximately $215,655 at 7-percent discount rate. Unquantifiable cost savings. 10.225(c) [Please note, the cost savings estimates the Coast Guard presents for each assumption in this subpart do not include the estimates in § 10.219(d)]. 10.227(d)(4); 10.227(e)(1)(i); 10.227(e)(1)(iv); 10.227(e)(4) and (5); 10.227(e)(6)(ii); 10.227(g)(2)(ii); 10.227(h) and (i). 10.231(c)(5); 10.231(d)(2) ...................... 10.232(a); 10.232(a)(4); 10.223(d); 10.223(d)(3); 10.223(d)(6). 10.233(a), (b), and (c) ............................ 10.235(c), (d), (h), and (i) ...................... 10.239, table 1 ....................................... Subpart C—Medical Certification: 10.302(a). 10.305(c), (d), and (e); 10.306(e) .......... Subpart D—Training Courses and Programs: 10.404(b)(1)(iv), (v), and (vii); (c)(1) and (c)(6). 10.405(a)(3); (b)(3) and (d); 10.409(e) .. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Part 11—Requirements for Officer Endorsements, Subpart A—General: 11.101(b); 11.102(a). Subpart B—General Requirements for Officer Endorsements: 11.201(a), (c)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (h), (i) and (k); 11.211(c); 11.217(a). Subpart C—STCW Officer Endorsements: 11.301(g); 11.337(a). Subpart D—Professional Requirements for National Deck Officer Endorsements: 11.401(a), (b), and (d). 11.402(c)(2) and (3), and (d) ................. 11.404(a)(2) and (b); 11.405(a); 11.406(a)(1) and (2), and (c); 11.407(c) and (d). 11.412(a)(1) and (2), and (b) ................. 11.414(a)(1)(iii) ....................................... 11.418(a)(1) and (2), and (b) ................. 11.420(a) ................................................ 11.422(b)(4) and (c); 11.424(a)(1) and (b). 11.425(a)(2), (b), and (d) ....................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Cost savings for original applicants who obtain an oath other than through a designated Coast Guard individual because it is free of charge at an REC. Cost savings is from original applicants who do not need notary public signature on Form CG– 719B. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. Assumption 1: Estimated annualized cost savings is approximately $219,820; 10-year discounted cost savings approximately $1.5 million at 7-percent discount rate. Assumption 2: Estimated annualized cost savings is between $288,255; 10-year discounted cost savings approximately $2.0 million at 7-percent discount rate. None. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18714 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE NPRM BY AFFECTED CFR PART, SUBPART, AND SECTION—Continued 46 CFR section(s) affected Description of proposed rule change 11.426(a)(1) ........................................... 11.427(a)(2), (b), and (d) ....................... 11.428(b); 11.429(c) .............................. 11.433(a)(1) and (3); 11.435(a)(1) and (2); 11.437(a)(3). 11.442(a)(1) and (2); 11.444(a)(2); 11.446(a)(1) and (b). 11.450(c) and (d); 11.452(a) and (b); 11.454(c) and (d); 11.457(a) and (b). 11.462(c) and (c)(4)(v) and (vi), and (d)(4)(iv), (v), and (vi). 11.464(d), (g), and (h) ........................... 11.465(a), (d), and (e); 11.466(b) .......... 11.470(b)(1) and (2), (c), (d)(1) and (d)(2), and (d)(2)(i), (e), (f)(2), (g), (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(2)(i), (i), (j)(2), and (j)(2)(i), and (k). 11.472(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) ................... 11.474(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2), and (b). 11.480(b), (d), (f), and (h) ...................... 11.482(b), (c), and (d) ............................ 11.491(a) ................................................ Subpart E—Professional Requirements for National Engineer Officer Endorsements: 11.501(c), (d), and (e). 11.502(b) ................................................ 11.503(a), (c)(2), (3), and (4), and (d) ... 11.510(a)(2); 11.512(a)(1) ..................... 11.514(a)(1) and (2) ............................... 11.542(a)(1) and (2), and (b) ................. 11.544(a)(1) and (2), and (b) ................. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subpart F—Credentialing of Radio Officers: 11.603; 11.604. Subpart G—Professional Requirements for Pilots: 11.701(d); 11.703(d); 11.705(c); 11.707(b); 11.709(b); 11.713(a) and (b). Subpart H—Registration of Staff Officers and Miscellaneous Endorsements: 11.805(a) and (b); 11.807(d); 11.821(b)(2). Subpart I—Subjects of Examinations: 11.903(c)(1). 11.920 table 2 title ................................. Part 12—Requirements for Rating Endorsements—Subpart A—General: 12.103(a). Subpart B—General Requirements for Rating Endorsements: 12.201(a)(2). Subpart C—Requirements for National Deck Rating Endorsements: 12.401(a) and (c)(3); 12.405(a) and (b)(2); 12.407(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(3); 12.409(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(3). Subpart E—General Requirements for a Qualified Member of the Engine Department (QMED): 12.501(b)(2) and (c)(3); 12.505(a); 12.625(a)(1); 12.627(a)(1). Subpart G—Entry-Level National Ratings and Miscellaneous Ratings: 12.707; 12.709(a); 12.711(a). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Economic impact Estimated cost or cost savings regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. Editorial; non-substantive text changes. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. regulatory No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18715 TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE NPRM BY AFFECTED CFR PART, SUBPART, AND SECTION—Continued 46 CFR section(s) affected Description of proposed rule change Subpart H—Non-Resident Alien Members of the Steward’s Department on U.S. Flag Large Passenger Vessels: 12.809(a) and (b); 12.811(b)(5)(iii) and (e). Part 13—Certification of Tankerman, Subpart A—General: 13.103(a) and 13.107(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). 13.111(d)(3) and (4); 13.119; 13.120(a), (b), (c), and (d); 13.127(a)(4) and (5). Subpart B—Requirements for Tankerman-PIC Endorsement: 13.201(c) and (c)(3). 13.203(a), (b), and (c)(2); 13.205 .......... Subpart C—Requirements for Tankerman-PIC (Barge) Endorsement: 13.301(c) and (c)(3); 13.303(a) and (c)(2); 13.305. Subpart D—Requirements for Tankerman-Assistant Endorsement: 13.401(c), (d), and (e). 13.405(a), (b), and (b)(2) ....................... Subpart E—Requirements for Tankerman-Engineer Endorsement: 13.501(c) and (c)(3); 13.503(a); 13.505(a). Part 14—Shipment and Discharge of Merchant Mariners, Subpart A—General: 14.205; 14.207(a). Subpart C—Discharge of Merchant Mariners: 14.307(a), (b), and (c). Subpart D—Oceanographic Research Vessels: 14.403(a)(1) and (2); 14.405(c) and (d). Part 16—Chemical Testing, Subpart B—General: 16.201(c) and (f). 16.210(b); 16.220(a)(1), (3), and (5), and (c); 16.230(b)(1) and (c). Subpart E—Management Information System: 16.500(b). None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. Removes regulatory text in paragraph (a), which includes the number of copies of Form CG–718A and other mariner information. Removes paragraphs (d) and (e) and consolidates regulatory text changes into paragraphs (b) and (c). Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact. Removal and consolidation of information in current paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) into proposed paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) is currently required on Form CG– 718A. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. No estimated impact ............................. None. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 The affected population of this proposed rule are applicants for an MMC (includes original applications) who pay MMC fees in person at an REC or outside of an REC through standard mail. Based on historical data from the NMC, the Coast Guard analyzed information on applicants who paid mandatory fees electronically through Pay.gov over a 7-year period from 2015 to 2021. Based on payment data from the NMC, one payment transaction represents one applicant for all transactions. The Coast Guard did not include 2022 in the dataset because at the time of the writing of this analysis it was not a complete data year. Under this assumption, we assumed an applicant makes one trip to an REC and pays for all transactions at that time instead of taking time to make multiple trips and paying separately for transactions. For applicants who paid 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Estimated cost or cost savings No estimated impact ............................. Affected Population VerDate Sep<11>2014 Economic impact Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes. Jkt 262001 fees in person at RECs, the Coast Guard used a 5-year data period from 2015– 2019 because after 2019, in-person transactions became very sporadic at RECs due to COVID–19 pandemic protocols and the data are not representative of the transactions over this period of time. The Coast Guard then established two population groups. For § 10.225(c) of this proposed rule, the Coast Guard defined the population as original applicants who paid mandatory fees by money order, check, and through Pay.gov, which gave us the number of applicants who took the oath outside of an REC and obtained a notary public service near where they reside. This is for individuals who applied for an original MMC only. As an annual average, the NMC recorded approximately 13,951 payment transactions for original applications between 2015 and 2021. For § 10.219(d) of this proposed rule, the Coast Guard defined part of the PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 population as applicants who paid the fees by cash or credit card in person at RECs for original applications, which gave us an estimated the number of individuals who likely took the oath at RECs, where it is free of charge.12 As an annual average, the NMC recorded approximately 1,206 in-person payment transactions for original applications between 2015 and 2019. For all other fees paid by applicants other than original applicants, the NMC recorded an annual average of 9,043 in-person payment transactions between 2015 and 2019. The Coast Guard estimates the total average annual population of applicants, who paid fees in person at 12 Based on NMC data, most applicants paid fees by cash or check at RECs; however, a small, unknown number of applicants paid by check or money order. The Coast Guard does not maintain data on applicants who paid by check or money order at RECs, which may result in an underestimation of applicants who paid fees in person by these two methods. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18716 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules an REC during this period, to be approximately 10,249 applicants. Between 2015 and 2021, the Coast Guard also recorded an annual average of approximately 12,638 payments made by applicants who paid by check or money order outside of an REC through standard mail. Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the total average annual population affected by this proposed rule would be approximately 36,838 (13,951 + 10,249 + 12,638) applicants (see table 3). TABLE 3—AFFECTED POPULATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE Affected CFR section Affected group Original applicants who paid fees electronically and took oath outside of an REC for original applications (relatively near place of residence). All applicants including a subset of original applicants who paid fees in person at RECs. Population 10.225(c) 13,951. 10.219(d) 10,249 (9,958 by credit card and 291 by cash; 1,206 from original applicants and 9,043 from other applicants). 12,638. All applicants who paid by check or money order through standard mail .................. 10.219(d) Total ...................................................................................................................... ........................ 36,838. Note: The populations that the Coast Guard presents in this table are annual averages. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Cost Savings Analysis Two proposed changes in this rule (in 46 CFR 10.219(d) and 10.225(c)) would result in quantifiable cost savings for MMC applicants. The other proposed changes would have no quantifiable economic impact on individuals, companies, or businesses, and would not result in costs or cost savings to them. The proposed option in 46 CFR 1.03– 15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i)(1) for electronic submission of certain documents that currently must be submitted by paper copy (see table 2) would likely have cost savings associated with it, but we are not able to quantify these savings in this analysis because the Coast Guard does not have data to show how many electronic submissions we would receive in the future. Additionally, because of the COVID–19 pandemic, the Coast Guard is not able to accurately determine a future trend of the number of documents that applicants would choose to submit to the Coast Guard electronically. In table 2, we presented a summary of the estimated impacts of the proposed rule and provided a description of the change for each affected CFR section. Where the description reads ‘‘Editorial; non-substantive regulatory text changes,’’ we propose to make changes that include the addition, deletion, consolidation, and clarification of regulatory text and would not have cost or cost savings associated with them. These proposed changes include minor grammatical revisions, such as changes to punctuation and pronoun changes; the clarification of regulatory text by removal, deletion, or consolidation of terms; definitional changes; and changes that update Coast Guard website addresses. This includes changes in § 10.209(d)(2), ‘‘General Application VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 Procedures,’’ where the Coast Guard proposes to remove the regulatory text governing the submission of certain documents by applicants. There would be no costs or cost savings to individuals that would be associated with this proposed change because the Coast Guard would still retain this requirement in §§ 10.227 and 10.231. For § 1.03–15(h)(2)(i), ‘‘General,’’ the Coast Guard proposes to add the option of electronic submission of an appeal for course approvals and merchant mariner personnel to the Coast Guard. There are no quantifiable cost or cost savings associated with this proposed change because the Coast Guard does not have data on the future use of electronic submission for appeals. The Coast Guard would still accept the current paper-copy submission method for appeals. For § 10.219(i)(1), ‘‘Determination of Eligibility,’’ the Coast Guard proposes to add the option of electronic submission of an eligibility request to the Coast Guard for the items listed in 10.219(h). There are no quantifiable cost or cost savings associated with this proposed change because the Coast Guard does not have data on the future use of electronic submission with this item. The Coast Guard would still accept the current paper-copy submission method for these requests. For § 14.307, ‘‘Entries on certificate of discharge,’’ the information the Coast Guard proposes to remove in current paragraphs (d) and (e) is currently contained in form CG–718A, ‘‘Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner;’’ therefore, there is no cost or cost savings associated with this proposed change.13 The Coast Guard 13 This form is part of a currently OMB-approved Coast Guard ICR with a control number of 1625– 0012. Readers can access NMC’s website at https:// www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/ to PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 proposes to remove, consolidate, and condense the existing regulatory text into paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section. The proposed changes to this section do not change the current OMBapproved ICR or alter its burden estimates because the Coast Guard is not making any changes to the reporting requirements in form CG–718A. Cost Savings Analysis for Proposed Changes to § 10.219(d)/Electronic Payment of Fees The Coast Guard proposes to amend § 10.219(d) to remove the option for applicants to pay merchant mariner credentialing fees in person at an REC by cash or credit card (applicants who pay in person may also pay by check or money order; because the Coast Guard does not collect data on where these payments were made and based on payment data from the NMC and subject matter experts who work at the NMC, most applicants pay by cash or with a credit card in person) since credit card transactions are processed by individual RECs and cash payments are not accepted through standard mail. The Coast Guard would instead require all payments to be made electronically through the Government’s payment system at Pay.gov.14 For payments made view this form and obtain information about the application process. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022. 14 Pay.gov accepts three payment types: credit card, prepaid card, and ACH payments. The Coast Guard does not collect data on the usage of prepaid cards for applicants who use Pay.gov. The Coast Guard also did not estimate a cost (and subsequent cost savings) to obtain these cards in this analysis because applicants can obtain these cards when they are at grocery stores or other locations without making a separate trip to specifically obtain the cards. In this analysis, we assume for the unknown number of applicants who choose to use a prepaid card to pay fees, already possess the card. We request comments from the public on the use of prepaid cards with Pay.gov. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 by check outside of an REC, applicants mailed the checks to the Coast Guard by standard mail. With the proposed rule, the Coast Guard would still accept payment by check, but applicants would be required to use a bank ACH payment through Pay.gov. Applicants who mailed checks to the Coast Guard would save the postage cost with this proposed rule. The Coast Guard expects that applicants have access to the requisite technology to pay credentialing fees through Pay.gov. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey, approximately 95 percent of American households have one or more electronic devices such as a desktop or laptop computer, a smartphone, or tablet.15 This included over 90 percent of households that have an internet subscription that would facilitate access to Pay.gov.16 Even if an applicant or household does not have access to a computer at home or the internet individually, in this case, the Coast Guard assumes for the purpose of this analysis, that an applicant may access a smartphone, cellphone, or computer to submit an application to the Coast Guard without incurring a cost.17 The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on the requirement for applicants to pay MMC fees solely using Pay.gov, to register with Pay.gov, and their ability to access the internet for this purpose. Additionally, with this proposed rule, we assume that a small population of applicants affected by part 10.219(d) of this proposed rule, who submit applications at RECs currently, would choose to continue to visit RECs and would continue to print receipts as proof of payment. However, the Coast Guard is not able to determine the number of applicants who would continue to visit RECs for this purpose. Therefore, there is an unquantifiable cost of printing the receipts for a small number of applicants who visit RECs to 15 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2021, S2801 Types of Computers and internet Subscriptions: ACS 1-year Estimates Subject Tables, Types of Computers, https:// data.census.gov/table?q=Computer+ and+internet+Use&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S2801. 16 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2021, S2801 Types of Computers and internet Subscriptions: ACS 1-year Estimates Subject Tables, Types of internet Subscriptions, https://data.census.gov/table?q=Computer+and+ internet+Use&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S2801. 17 The Coast Guard acknowledges that there may be a small portion of applicants in the affected population who may not own a computer or have access to the internet to submit a MMC payment. Readers can access these websites for further information on access to the internet and the ownership of mobile phones in the United States: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/ internet-broadband/ and https:// wwww.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 submit their applications. This would result in a small, unknown reduction in the total estimated cost savings of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on the number of applicants who choose to visit RECs with this proposed rule and their ability to print receipts at home when they make fee payments using Pay.gov. Applicants may visit an REC for many reasons; for example, to take an examination, to ask questions about the application process, submit an application, pay the mandatory fees, obtain an oath from an authorized individual, or for other reasons. This is notable in the following cost savings analysis, because the Coast Guard does not include travel cost savings estimates for the affected applicants in our analysis of the impact of the proposed change to § 10.219(d). The Coast Guard reasons that, although it is possible for applicants to visit RECs exclusively to pay MMC fees, the Coast Guard does not retain data on the number of applicants who do so. In practice, the Coast Guard assumes applicants do not visit an REC to solely pay the fees. Therefore, the Coast Guard cannot attribute travel costs to applicants who pay the mandatory fees in person at an REC. For example, applicants may visit RECs to ask questions about the application process and may decide to pay the fees during the same visit. Or applicants may visit RECs to obtain an oath, not realizing that RECs accept in-person payment, and may decide to pay the fees during this visit. The Coast Guard also assumes that applicants pay the mandatory fees at one time. The proposed requirement for applicants to pay MMC fees electronically through Pay.gov would eliminate the flexibility to pay these fees by cash, and money order, by standard mail, and directly at an REC (see footnote number 13). However, with Pay.gov, the Coast Guard believes applicants would find this payment method to be more convenient and secure because applicants would be able to pay MMCs fees from their home instead of traveling to an REC and expending the time and money by making a payment in person, as we discuss later in this analysis. The Coast Guard acknowledges that there may be a small subset of the applicant population that would still prefer to pay MMC fees in person instead of through Pay.gov after an effective final rule. The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on how the proposed removal of the payment options (cash and money orders) and in-person payments at RECs affects applicants who currently use PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18717 these payment methods to pay MMC fees. The Coast Guard collects data for all payment transactions including transactions for original MMC applications. Between 2015 and 2019, the Coast Guard recorded an annual average of 1,167 credit card transactions for original applications made in person by applicants at an REC. It also recorded an average annual of 8,791 credit card transactions for other fees for a total average annual of 9,958 credit card transactions over these 5 years. During the same period, the Coast Guard recorded an average annual of 39 cash payment transactions for original applications made in person by applicants at an REC. It also recorded an average annual of 252 cash transactions for other fees for a total average annual of 291 cash transactions for these 5 years. Therefore, the total average annual number of transactions made in person was approximately 10,249 over the 5-year time period. The NMC estimates it takes applicants approximately 5 minutes, or 0.083 hours (rounded), to complete a payment through Pay.gov. The NMC estimates it takes a certain amount of time for applicants to make in-person application payments at an REC. For applicants who pay by credit card, the NMC estimates it takes approximately: • 8 minutes, or approximately 0.13 hours (rounded), to enter RECs due to security checks; • 3.5 minutes, or approximately 0.06 hours (rounded) to wait in line for a clerk; and • 7.5 minutes, or approximately 0.13 hours (rounded) to make the payment and complete the transaction, for a total of approximately 0.32 hours. Therefore, the net amount of time (time difference) applicants would save by making payments electronically rather than by credit card in person is approximately 0.237 hours (0.32 ¥ 0.083 hours). For applicants who pay by cash, the NMC estimates it takes approximately: • 8 minutes, or approximately 0.13 hours (rounded) to enter RECs due to security checks; • 3.5 minutes, or approximately 0.06 hours (rounded) to wait in line for a clerk; and • 6.0 minutes, or approximately 0.10 hours to make the payment and complete the transaction, for a total of approximately 0.29 hours. Therefore, the net amount of time applicants would save from making payments electronically rather than making cash payments in person is approximately 0.207 hours (0.29 ¥ 0.083 hours). E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18718 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 The payment time for Pay.gov does not account for the time to create a personal account on Pay.gov. Individual payments may be made without creating an account. Pay.gov provides the same capabilities to pay credentialing and other fees and obtain a receipt without creating an account. For this analysis, the Coast Guard assumes individuals will not create an account since credentialing fees are typically only paid once every five years aligning with the validity of a mariner credential. Using Pay.gov infrequently does not necessitate the need to create an account. The Coast Guard requests comment on this assumption and whether Pay.gov users would create an account to pay credentialing fees. Anyone meeting the citizenship requirement under 46 CFR 10.221 and of an eligible age can apply for an MMC, regardless of their current employment status. For this regulatory analysis, the Coast Guard assumed applicants for an original MMC are currently employed (this would be for original applications where an oath is currently required); this allows the Coast Guard to construct a cost savings analysis, because we can then obtain applicants’ wage rates, the labor time, and the cost savings associated with the removal of the inperson payment option. Additionally, because the Coast Guard does not know the current occupations of individuals who apply for an original MMC and pay fees in person at an REC, the Coast Guard used the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) ‘‘Occupational and Employment Statistics’’ database and May 2021 wage estimates to obtain the general occupational code (BLS code 00–0000) for all civilian workers in the U.S., which is the largest occupational category of workers the Coast Guard found at BLS’ website.18 The unloaded mean hourly wage rate for this labor category is $28.01. The Coast Guard does not collect employment data on applicants; nevertheless, the Coast Guard acknowledges that the assumption of employment may lead to an overestimation of cost savings for the proposed rule. Because fees are also paid in person at an REC mostly by applicants other than original applicants, the Coast Guard used the BLS occupational 18 The BLS defines civilian workers to be ‘‘private industry workers and State and local government workers.’’ This includes individuals in the private nonfarm economy excluding households and the public sector excluding the Federal Government. Readers can view BLS’ glossary of terms at https:// www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm. Readers can access BLS’ website at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/ oes_nat.htm#00-0000 to obtain information about the wages used in this analysis. The Coast Guard accessed BLS’ web page in the summer of 2022. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 category, Water Transportation Workers (BLS code 53–5000) to obtain the unloaded mean hourly wage rate for all applicants who pay fees in person at RECs. The unloaded mean hourly wage rate in 2021 for this occupational category is $38.84. Because the Coast Guard used different occupational categories, this required us to use two load factors to obtain an average load factor. To obtain a loaded mean hourly wage rate for civilian workers, the Coast Guard used BLS’ ‘‘Employer Costs for Employee Compensation’’ database to calculate the load factor for this group of workers in the U.S. The Coast Guard used the same database to obtain a load factor for the occupational category of Water Transportation Workers. The Coast Guard then used the average load factor for these two groups of workers in the U.S. The Coast Guard applied the load factor to the average unloaded mean hourly wage rate using fourth quarter data from 2021 for all applicants. The Coast Guard determined the average load factor for the two occupational categories to be about 1.47, rounded.19 The Coast Guard then 19 A loaded mean hourly wage rate is what a company pays per hour to employ a person, not the hourly wage an employee receives. The loaded mean hourly wage rate includes the cost of nonwage benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). The Coast Guard calculated the load factor by accessing BLS’ website at https://www.bls.gov/ and selecting the topic ‘‘Subjects’’ from the menu on this web page. From the categories listed on this page, under the category titled ‘‘Data Tools,’’ the Coast Guard selected the category ‘‘Top Picks, One Screen, Multi-Screen, and Maps.’’ On the next page titled, ‘‘Databases, Tables, and Calculators by Subject,’’ the Coast Guard selected used the category ‘‘Pay and Benefits’’. Under the category, ’’Employer Costs for Employee Compensation’’, we selected the ’’MultiScreen’’ feature. This took us to https:// www.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cm. At this page, titled, ‘‘Create Customized Tables’’, or screen 1, the Coast Guard then selected the category of ‘‘Civilian Workers’’. At screen 2, the Coast Guard first selected the category ‘‘Total Compensation,’’ then we continued to select ‘‘All Workers’’ at screens 3, 4, and 5. At screen 6, for ‘‘Area’’ the Coast Guard selected ‘‘United States.’’ At screen 7, the Coast Guard selected the category ‘‘Cost of Compensation.’’ At screen 8, the Coast Guard selected the category ‘‘not seasonally adjusted.’’ At screen 9, the Coast Guard selected the series ID, CMU1010000000000D. The Coast Guard used the ‘‘Cost of Compensation’’ for quarter 4 of 2021, or $40.35. The Coast Guard performed this process again to obtain the value for ‘‘Wages and Salaries,’’ which we selected on screen 2. On screen 9, the Coast Guard selected the series ID CMU1020000000000D and obtained a value of $27.83. The Coast Guard divided $40.35 by $27.83 and obtained a load factor of 1.45, rounded. The Coast Guard used the same methodology to obtain the load factor for the 5 occupational categories for applicants other than original applicants. However, instead of using the category of ‘‘Civilian Workers’’, the Coast Guard selected ‘‘Private Industry Workers’’ at screen 1, ‘‘Transportation and Material Moving Occupations’’ at screen 3, ‘‘All Workers’’ at screens 4 and 5, ‘‘United States’’ at screen 6, ‘‘Cost of Compensation’’ at screen 7, ‘‘not seasonally PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 multiplied this average load factor by the unloaded mean hourly wage rate for applicants, who pay fees in person at RECs, and obtained a loaded mean hourly wage rate of approximately $57.09, rounded ($38.84 × 1.47). Applicants (including original applicants) who currently pay the fees by credit card at an REC would be required to pay them electronically using Pay.gov under this proposed rule. This would affect approximately 9,958 applicants annually. The Coast Guard estimates the undiscounted cost for these applicants to be approximately $47,186 annually (9,958 × $57.09 × 0.083 hours). The Coast Guard estimates the undiscounted baseline cost for applicants who currently pay the fees by credit card in person at an REC to be approximately $181,921 annually (9,958 × $57.09 × 0.32 hours), rounded. Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the undiscounted net cost savings to applicants who currently pay the fees in-person by credit card and would be required to pay them electronically through Pay.gov to be approximately $134,735 annually ($181,921 ¥ $47,186), rounded. Similarly, applicants (including original applicants) who currently pay the mandatory fees by cash at an REC would be required to pay them electronically using Pay.gov under this proposed rule. This would affect approximately 291 applicants annually. The Coast Guard estimates the undiscounted cost for these applicants to be approximately $1,379 annually (291 × $57.09 × 0.083 hours). The Coast Guard estimates the undiscounted baseline cost for applicants who currently pay the fees by cash in person at an REC to be approximately $4,818 annually (291 × $57.09 × 0.29 hours), rounded. Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the undiscounted net cost savings to applicants who currently pay the fees by cash and would need to pay them electronically through Pay.gov to be approximately $3,439 annually ($4,818 ¥ $1,379), rounded. The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted net cost savings to 10,249 (9,958 by credit card + 291 by cash) applicants who currently pay the mandatory fees in-person by credit card and cash and adjusted’’ at screen 8, and the series ID at screen 9, CMU 2010000520000D. The Coast Guard again used the ‘‘Cost of Compensation’’ for quarter 4 of 2021, or $33.57. The Coast Guard then selected ‘‘Wages and Salaries,’’ at screen 2. On screen 9, the Coast Guard selected the series ID CMU2020000520000D and obtained a value of $22.75. The Coast Guard divided $33.57 by $22.75 and obtained a load factor of 1.48, rounded. The Coast Guard then used the average of these two load factors, which is 1.47, rounded. The Coast Guard accessed this BLS’ website in June 2023. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18719 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules would need to pay them electronically through Pay.gov to be approximately $138,174 annually ($134,735 by credit card + $3,439 by cash), rounded. See table 4. TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF UNDISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS FOR APPLICANTS WHO CURRENTLY PAY IN PERSON AT AN REC AND WOULD USE PAY.GOV WITH PROPOSED RULE Credit card users Item Cash users Current In-Person Transactions Loaded Wage Rate .................................................................................................................................................. Population ................................................................................................................................................................ Time Estimate .......................................................................................................................................................... Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................................................................... $57.09 9,958 0.32 181,921 $57.09 291 0.29 4,818 Wage Rate ............................................................................................................................................................... Population ................................................................................................................................................................ Time Estimate .......................................................................................................................................................... Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................................................................... 57.09 9,958 0.083 43,805 57.09 291 0.083 1,280 Net Cost Savings .............................................................................................................................................. 134,735 3,438 If In-Person Transactions Made Through Pay.gov Total Cost Annual Savings ........................................................................................................................ $138,174 Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Lastly, the proposed rule would create cost savings for applicants, other than original applicants, who paid mandatory fees by check or money order in the past and mailed the payment to the Coast Guard through standard mail, or USPS. Over the 7-year period from 2015 to 2021, the Coast Guard recorded an annual average of 12,638 payments (10,146 by check and 2,492 by money order) where an applicant used a check or money order. Because this regulatory analysis is in 2021 dollars, the cost of a forever stamp from the USPS in 2021 was $0.55.20 With this proposed rule, applicants would still be able to use a check or money order to make mandatory fee payments with Pay.gov; however, payments made by check must be made with an ACH payment and for money orders, a prepaid card (see footnote number 15). The Coast Guard did not estimate cost savings for applicants who currently mail checks or money orders to the Coast Guard and would be required to use Pay.gov because we do not estimate that there would be a time difference between these two payment methods and Pay.gov. The total undiscounted cost for these payment types is approximately $6,951 annually, rounded. The proposed rule would create cost savings in the same amount annually. The Coast Guard estimates the total 10-year discounted cost savings for applicants who would no longer be able to mail a check or money order (cost savings would be from the cost of a forever stamp) to pay for mandatory fees would be approximately $48,820, rounded, using a 7 percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings would be approximately $6,951, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. In table 5, the Coast Guard presents the 10-year discounted cost savings to applicants who currently paid the fees in person and would be required to pay them electronically under this proposed rule and applicants who paid the fees by check or money order and sent their payments by standard mail to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost savings for the electronic payment of fees by applicants would be approximately $145,125 annually, rounded ($138,174 from inperson payments + $6,951 from mailed checks and money orders). The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted 10year cost savings for these applicants would be approximately $1.0 million, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings would be approximately $145,125, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. TABLE 5—ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED RULE TO APPLICANTS WHO WOULD USE PAY.GOV (2021 DOLLARS, 10-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS, 7- AND 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES) Net cost savings from cash and credit card payments ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Year 1 2 3 4 5 ........................................................................................... ........................................................................................... ........................................................................................... ........................................................................................... ........................................................................................... Cost savings from check and money order $138,174 138,174 138,174 138,174 138,174 $6,951 6,951 6,951 6,951 6,951 Total cost savings to use Pay.gov $145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 20 Readers can access USPS’ website at https:// www.usps.com to find past postal rates or search online for USPS’ ‘‘Postal News’’. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 7 Percent $135,631 126,758 118,465 110,715 103,472 3 Percent $140,898 136,794 132,810 128,942 125,186 18720 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5—ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED RULE TO APPLICANTS WHO WOULD USE PAY.GOV (2021 DOLLARS, 10-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS, 7- AND 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES)—Continued Net cost savings from cash and credit card payments Year Cost savings from check and money order Total cost savings to use Pay.gov 7 Percent 3 Percent 6 ........................................................................................... 7 ........................................................................................... 8 ........................................................................................... 9 ........................................................................................... 10 ......................................................................................... 138,174 138,174 138,174 138,174 138,174 6,951 6,951 6,951 6,951 6,951 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 96,703 90,376 84,464 78,938 73,774 121,540 118,000 114,563 111,226 107,987 Total .............................................................................. Annualized .................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,019,296 145,125 1,237,944 145,125 Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Federal Government Cost Savings for Proposed Change to § 10.219(d) This proposed rule would create cost savings for the Coast Guard in the amount of time that would be saved by REC personnel who would no longer process in-person payment transactions. The NMC estimates it takes fee clerks at an REC approximately 5 minutes, or 0.083 hours (rounded), to process credit card payments. Similarly, the NMC estimates it takes mandatory fee clerks approximately 25 minutes, or 0.42 hours (rounded), to process cash payments. This includes the processing time the fee clerk takes to go to a bank and obtain a money order in order to complete the payment transaction. There is no difference in the time it takes for a fee clerk at an REC to process a check mailed to the Coast Guard and the time it would take with this proposed rule to process an ACH payment. There is also no difference in the time it takes for a fee clerk to process a money mailed to the Coast Guard and the time it would take with this proposed rule to process a prepaid card used from a money order. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not estimate cost savings for the Federal Government from not processing checks and money orders mailed to the Coast Guard by applicants. A fee clerk at an REC has a Federal Government General Schedule (GS) grade level of GS–5. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) lists the hourly pay for Federal Government employees who work in the United States.21 Because RECs are geographically dispersed across the U.S., the Coast Guard used the hourly wage rate for the category ‘‘Rest of the United States’’ from OPM’s pay tables. OPM reports the hourly pay for a person with the grade level of a GS–5, step 5 (the midpoint of the pay grade) as $19.15 in 2021. The Coast Guard calculated the share of total compensation of Federal Government employees to account for the non-wage benefits to determine the load factor that the Coast Guard applied to the hourly wage rate of employees. In a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report titled ‘‘Comparing the Compensation of Federal and PrivateSector Employees, 2011 to 2015,’’ the CBO reports total compensation of Federal Government employees to be approximately $64.80, and wages and salaries to be approximately $38.30.22 From these values, the Coast Guard determined the load factor to be about 1.69, rounded ($64.80 ÷ $38.30). The Coast Guard then multiplied this value by the hourly wage rate of $19.15 to obtain a loaded hourly wage rate of $32.36, rounded, for a GS–5, step 5 fee clerk at an REC. The Coast Guard estimates the baseline undiscounted cost for REC fee clerks to process credit card transactions to be approximately $26,749 annually, rounded ($32.36 × 9,958 credit card transactions annually × 0.083 hours). The Coast Guard estimates the baseline undiscounted cost for REC payment clerks to process cash transactions to be approximately $3,955 annually, rounded ($32.36 × 291 cash transactions annually × 0.42 hours). RECs would no longer accept in-person payments with this proposed rule, these costs combined would become cost savings to the Coast Guard of approximately $30,704 annually, rounded ($26,749 + $3,955). See table 6. TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL UNDISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS TO THE COAST GUARD FROM PROPOSED CHANGE TO § 10.219(d) Estimate of time saved (hours) ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Applicants’ payment type Wage rate Cost savings estimate Credit Card Payment ................................................................................................................... Cash Payment ............................................................................................................................. 0.083 0.42 $32.36 32.36 $26,749 3,955 Total Annual Cost Savings ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 30,704 In table 7, the Coast Guard estimates the total discounted 10-year cost savings of this proposed rule to the Coast Guard to be approximately $215,655, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized 21 Readers can view the General Schedule of salaries for Federal Government employees at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/payleave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/21Tables/html/ RUS_h.aspx. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the fall of 2022. 22 Readers can view the report at, https:// www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017- 2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf. The Coast Guard accessed this report in the fall of 2022. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules cost savings to be approximately 18721 $30,704, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. TABLE 7—ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS TO THE COAST GUARD FROM PROPOSED CHANGE TO § 10.219(d) (2021 DOLLARS, 10-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS, 7- AND 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES) Year Cost savings 7 Percent 3 Percent 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 5 ................................................................................................................................................... 6 ................................................................................................................................................... 7 ................................................................................................................................................... 8 ................................................................................................................................................... 9 ................................................................................................................................................... 10 ................................................................................................................................................. $30,704 30,704 30,704 30,704 30,704 30,704 30,704 30,704 30,704 30,704 $28,696 26,818 25,064 23,424 21,892 20,460 19,121 17,870 16,701 15,609 $29,810 28,942 28,099 27,280 26,486 25,714 24,965 24,238 23,532 22,847 Total ...................................................................................................................................... Annualized ............................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 215,655 30,704 261,914 30,704 Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Cost Savings Analysis for Proposed Change to § 10.225(c), Removal of the Oath Requirement The Coast Guard proposes to remove the current requirement in § 10.225(c) for applicants for an original MMC to take an oath administered by any Coast Guard-designated individual or any person legally permitted to administer oaths in the jurisdiction where the person taking the oath resides. Typically, if an oath is not administered by a designated Coast Guard official, it is administered by a notary public.23 When an individual applies for an MMC, the individual must complete Form CG–719B. They must either submit this form by email, in person, or send it by standard mail to an REC.24 Currently, if applicants use a notary public to administer their oath, the notary must sign the form along with the applicant. The signature of the applicant is a testament to the validity and accuracy of the information the individual is providing to the Coast Guard and is an attestation to the statements in Section 4, ‘‘Mariner’s Consent/Certification,’’ of the form. With this proposed rule, original applicants would no longer need the signature of the notary public on Form CG–719B. This would not change the 23 An oath an original applicant must take is a pronouncement that an original applicant will abide by the rules and regulations aboard a vessel, faithfully execute his or her duties, and obey the superior officers of the vessel. 24 This form is part of a currently-approved OMB ICR with a control number 1625–0040 and a title of ‘‘Applications for Merchant Mariners Credentials and Medical Certificates.’’ Readers can access NMC’s website at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/ national_maritime_center/ to view this form and obtain information about the application process. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 current OMB-approved ICR (OMB control number 1625–0040) or alter its burden estimates, because the signature of the notary public on the form is a burden that amounts to a few seconds of time. With the proposed rule, an applicant’s signature alone would be sufficient for Form CG–719B. Currently, applicants for an original MMC who submit their application in person at an REC can also take the oath there. There is no cost to original applicants who take the oath before a designated official at an REC and therefore, no cost savings. However, original applicants, who do not visit an REC to submit their application, would need to seek the service of a notary public elsewhere. Original applicants can obtain notary public service at a bank or another location where there are notary public services. The Coast Guard assumes there is no cost for a notary public service at a bank if an individual has a bank account there. Other establishments that provide legal services may also provide notary public services, in addition to State and local Government offices, including shipping companies.25 However, these offices and establishments usually charge for the public notary service. Therefore, as mentioned previously in this RA, the Coast Guard presents two assumptions that will each generate different cost savings estimates for the proposed change to § 10.225(c). With each assumption, the Coast Guard assumes all applicants who apply for an original MMC are currently employed: 25 The Coast Guard acknowledges that Credit Unions, similar to banks in the U.S., may also offer notary public services, free of charge, for its members. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 • Assumption 1—Approximately 13,951 individuals who applied for an original MMC and took an oath before a designated official who administers the oath, or a notary public at a bank where they have an account free of charge. Assumption 2—Half the individuals, or approximately 6,976, who applied for an original MMC took an oath along with a notary public service at a bank, and half obtained an oath elsewhere (perhaps at a state office or an establishment that provides legal services including notary public services), where a cost would be associated with the notary public service. Earlier in this analysis, the Coast Guard established that one payment transaction represents one original application with one oath. Presumably, original applicants seek a notary public service at a bank, where it is free of charge; this is our basis for Assumption 1. However, because the Coast Guard does not have data on where original applicants obtained an oath along with a notary public service, it is possible that a certain number of original applicants obtained an oath along with a notary public service outside of a bank; this is our basis for Assumption 2. As such, the Coast Guard divided the population evenly in Assumption 2. With the Coast Guard’s assumption that original applicants who apply for MMCs are employed, this allows us to estimate the cost savings associated with the proposed change to § 10.225(c) as we did for the proposed change to § 10.219(d). Because original applicants who apply for MMCs are members of the general public and not yet mariners, the Coast Guard does not collect data on where these original applicants reside. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18722 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 know where original applicants reside relative to the location of banks or bank branches, or other establishments that offer notary public services. This required the Coast Guard to estimate the approximate distance original applicants would need to travel to get to a bank for Assumption 1, so the Coast Guard then would be able to estimate the cost savings for them, because they no longer would need to travel to a bank to obtain a notary public service. To perform this analysis, the Coast Guard required several pieces of information to determine the distance original applicants must travel to a bank or bank branch (and a notary public service in Assumption 2): 1. The number of bank branches in the United States; 2. The total U.S. population and the U.S. adult population; and 3. The number of square miles of the United States. The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank compiles and reports U.S. economic data (Federal Reserve Economic Data, or ‘‘FRED’’). One of the data items it reports is the number of bank branches in the United States. FRED shows that there are 30.46 bank branches per 100,000 adults in the United States.26 The U.S. Census Bureau in the U.S. Department of Commerce reports population data for the United States. As of July 1, 2021, the U.S. Census Bureau reports the U.S. population to be 331,893,745.27 The U.S. Census Bureau reports the number of individuals below the age of 18 to be 22.2 percent of the total U.S. population.28 Therefore, the 26 Readers can access the St. Louis Federal Reserve’s ‘‘FRED’’ website at https:// fred.stlouisfed.org/#. At this page, readers should use the search feature and type the words ‘‘bank branches’’ in the search field. The resulting web page will show a graph of the data and the value that the Coast Guard used for this analysis. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022. With the acknowledgement that Credit Unions also offer notary public services (see footnote number 15), the Coast Guard did not include them in this analysis because the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) reports the total number of Federally-insured Credit Unions in its ‘‘Quarterly Credit Union Data Summary 2002 Q2’’ in the United States (4,853 as of June 30, 2022) and not per a certain population or certain group of individuals as FRED reports it. Therefore, the Coast Guard cannot simply add the NCUA’s number to FRED’s number because we would be combining incongruent data. Readers can view this report at https://www.ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/ quarterly-data-summary-2022-Q2.pdf. The Coast Guard accessed this website in the summer of 2022. Readers should also note that the number of bank branches has been in decline since 2000. See the first link to the report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland in footnote number 29. 27 For more information U.S. census statistics, readers can access the U.S. Census Bureau’s website at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ US/PST045221. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022. 28 ibid. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 number of adults in the United States (individuals who are 18 years of age or older) is approximately 258,213,334, rounded ((1¥0.222) × 331,893,745). The Coast Guard divided this population by 100,000 to normalize the value to 100,000 (so it can be scaled to and combined with FRED’s data) and obtained the value of approximately 2,582 (rounded). To determine the number of bank branches for every adult in the U.S., the Coast Guard multiplied 30.46 (number of bank branches) by 2,582 to obtain approximately 78,648 (rounded) bank branches. Finally, as of 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau’s Quick Facts shows the number of square miles in the United States to be 3,533,038, rounded.29 The Coast Guard then divided this value by 78,648 bank branches to obtain the number of bank branches per square mile in the United States, or approximately one bank branch for every 45 square miles, or an area of 6.7 by 6.7 miles. This is equivalent to approximately one bank branch every 6.7 miles.30 The Coast Guard acknowledges that this methodology may not be completely representative of the geographic distribution of bank branches in the United States (the distribution of bank branches may change in the future considering the steady decline in its numbers, particularly since 2010); the distance we estimated is an approximation based on the known statistics we present in this analysis from different sources. The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on this methodology. Table 8 outlines the inputs used in these calculations. TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF INPUTS FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO § 10.225(c) Inputs Values Number of bank branches in the United States. 30.46 (per 100,000 adults). 29 ibid. 30 The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland reports the average distance to a bank branch in urban and rural areas of the United States to be about 1.5 miles and 4.3 miles, respectively, in 2020 (an average of about 2.9 miles combined), which is significantly less than the distance we calculated in this analysis. Readers can view the Cleveland Federal Reserve’s report at this link, ‘‘Has Bank Consolidation Changed People’s Access to a Full-Service Bank Branch?’’ (clevelandfed.org). In a working paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, it reports the median distance traveled to a bank branch to be 5 miles on page 16 of the paper. Readers can view this paper at https://www.chicagofed.org/-/media/ publications/working-papers/2023/wp202315.pdf?sc_lang=en. The Coast Guard accessed these links in July 2023. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF INPUTS FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO § 10.225(c)—Continued Inputs Values U.S. population ...................... U.S. adult population (18 or older). Number of square miles in the United States (land area). Number of bank branches in the United States. Number of square miles per bank branch (and notary public service). 331,893,745. 258,213,334. 3,533,038. 78,648. 45. For this analysis, the Coast Guard assumed that 13,951 original applicants would travel the same distance of 6.7 miles to obtain a notary public service at a bank or bank branch. Using these data and assumptions, it is possible to construct a cost savings analysis based on the original applicants’ travel time to a bank branch to obtain the service of a notary public. The population of original applicants applying for an MMC who seek notary public services outside of an REC is approximately 13,951 annually (see Table 3). The Coast Guard does not collect data on how original applicants travel to a bank or a notary public service and acknowledges that original applicants can choose among different modes of transportation, including walking or taking public transportation, to do so. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the Coast Guard assumed original applicants use their personal vehicles to accomplish this task, which allows the Coast Guard to estimate the travel cost for original applicants. To construct this analysis for Assumptions 1 and 2, the Coast Guard assumed that 13,951 original applicants would travel approximately 6.7 miles one way or about 13.4 miles round-trip to an establishment that has a notary public service. See table 9. TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF TRAVEL DISTANCE FOR ORIGINAL APPLICANTS WHO OBTAIN THE SERVICE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC AT A LOCATION OTHER THAN AN REC (e.g., A BANK) Number of original applicants Distance traveled one way (miles) Distance traveled round trip (miles) 13,951 ....... 6.7 13.4 The Coast Guard shows the costsaving elements for Assumption 1 and 2 in table 10. The Coast Guard estimated E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 that the 13,951 original applicants affected by the proposed change to § 10.225(c) would save the travel time or labor cost for travel (the value of travel time savings or VTTS), the mileage cost, and the cost of time waiting at a bank or a notary public service.31 The Coast Guard included these cost savings in both Assumption 1 and 2. Under Assumption 2, half of these original applicants, or about 6,976, would also save the cost of the time it takes to complete a payment transaction, either by credit card or by cash, at a notary public service. The Coast Guard assumed half of these original applicants currently pay by credit card and half by cash, for about 3,488 original applicants choosing each payment method. The Coast Guard acknowledges that there is a greater concentration of banks and establishments with notary public services in urban and metropolitan areas of the United States. Additionally, considering that the population density of urban areas is greater than in rural areas, it is likely that the population of original applicants is higher in urban areas than in rural areas of the United States. Therefore, it is likely that a greater proportion of original applicants who apply for MMCs reside in urban and metropolitan areas and may travel shorter distances to reach these places, which would result in lower cost savings than the Coast Guard estimated in this analysis. Nevertheless, this analysis represents an analysis of averages because the Coast Guard does not know where original applicants who apply for MMCs reside. The Coast Guard acknowledges that bank branches (and notary public services) are not equally distributed in the United States; the travel distance of 6.7 miles we estimated in this analysis is an approximate distance to a bank branch or notary public service; the travel 31 The Department of Transportation (DOT) has guidance on VTTS for individuals who use different modes of travel in the United States. The VTTS is divided into two categories, local and intercity travel. See table 1 on page 13 of the memorandum. Within these two categories, there are two subcategories, personal and business travel, in the first column of the table. Based on SME input from the NMC, applicants would most likely obtain an oath on their personal time. Therefore, we used the category, local personal travel. In the second column of the table, the Coast Guard used the category ‘‘surface modes (except high-speed rail)’’. Therefore, we used the value of 50 percent of the mean hourly wage rate for the VTTS. Readers can access DOT’s memorandum at https:// www.transportation.gov/office-policy/ transportation-policy/revised-departmentalguidance-valuation-travel-time-economic. At this link, to access the memorandum, readers should select the pdf document titled, ‘‘2016 Revised Value of Travel Time Guidance.pdf’’. The Coast Guard accessed this link in July 2023. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 18723 VTTS, the mileage cost, and the time waiting at a bank branch to obtain a notary public signature on Form CG– 719B under this proposed rule.32 To obtain the time it takes to travel TABLE 10—APPLICABLE COST-SAVING ELEMENTS FOR ASSUMPTIONS 1 AND this distance, the Coast Guard first 2 FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO accessed the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) website to § 10.225(c) access the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) web § 10.225(c) § 10.225(c) Cost savings page to obtain the mean road speeds on Assumption Assumption element 1 2 all roads.33 The 2015 report shows the free-flow speed estimates (mph) for Travel time ........ Yes ............ Yes. three road classes: limited access, major Mileage cost Yes ............ Yes. arterial, and minor arterial roads/ savings. collector roads. The Coast Guard used Waiting time at Yes ............ Yes. the mean speed for the minor arterial/ bank branch. collector road class, which may be more Waiting time at No .............. Yes. representative of roads used by notary public service. applicants. NHTSA estimates the mean Time for payNo .............. Yes. speed for minor arterial/collector roads ment transto be about 49.73 miles per hour action at no(mph).34 The Coast Guard then divided tary public the distance of about 6.7 miles (one service. way) by 49.73 mph to obtain the time Cost of notary No .............. Yes. it takes to travel this distance, or public service. approximately 0.13 hours, rounded. The Coast Guard then divided the round-trip In addition to the two main assumptions for the proposed change to distance of about 13.4 miles by 49.73 mph to obtain the time it takes to travel § 10.225(c) that the Coast Guard presented earlier, we present a summary this distance, or approximately 0.27 of the other assumptions (some of which hours, rounded. The Coast Guard recognizes that an unknown portion of we may have presented earlier in the applicants, who live in urban areas, may analysis), that we included in the travel at lower speeds than applicants in analysis for Assumptions 1 and 2: 1. Original applicants for an MMC are suburban and rural areas of the United States to get to a bank branch or notary currently employed in another public service. As a result, travel speeds occupation; may be lower than the 49.73 mph speed 2. Affected original applicants live we estimated in this regulatory analysis. approximately 6.7 miles from a bank The Coast Guard requests comments branch or notary public; 3. Affected original applicants travel 32 For this analysis, the Coast Guard did not an equal distance of 6.7 miles to a bank account for the time it would take an applicant to branch or a notary public service; park at a bank branch or notary public service. The 4. The wait times and payment Coast Guard requests comments from the public on transaction times at bank branches and whether we should account for this time in the notary public are the same as wait times regulatory analysis, in addition to the travel time. 33 At DOT’s homepage, under the heading at an REC; and ‘‘Explore DOT,’’ the Coast Guard selected the topic 5. Original applicants use their ‘‘Roadways and Bridges.’’ At this page, under the privately-owned vehicle to travel to a heading ‘‘Other Associated Agencies,’’ the Coast bank branch or a notary public service. Guard selected the NHTSA link. There is no direct distance may vary for some applicants who reside in suburban and rural areas of the United States. Cost Savings Analysis for Assumption 1 for the Proposed Change to § 10.225(c) With Assumption 1, the Coast Guard assumed 13,951 original applicants currently obtain a notary public service for the purpose of the oath at a bank, where there is no charge for the service if original applicants have an account at the bank. Because the Coast Guard does not know where original applicants live in proximity to the location of bank branches, the Coast Guard assumed all 13,951 original applicants travel about 6.7 miles one-way or about 13.4 miles round-trip to a bank branch. Under this assumption, 13,951 original applicants would save the labor travel time or PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 link, so in the search feature, the Coast Guard typed the words ‘‘traffic survey.’’ The Coast Guard then selected the link titled ‘‘National Traffic Speeds Survey III: 2015 Traffic Tech.’’ One result will appear, or a pdf version of the report that the Coast Guard used in this analysis. Readers can access the report at, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/ files/traffic_tech/812489_tt-national-traffic-speedssurvey-iii-2015.pdf. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022. 34 Readers should view the classification of roadways by DOT’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to understand the types of roadways used in DOT’s survey found in footnote number 34. The 2013 document describes the classification of roadways by the FHWA and is titled, ‘‘Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures’’, which readers can find at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/ processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_ classifications/fcauab.pdf. The Coast Guard accessed this link in July 2023. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18724 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules from the public on the travel speed, the roads, and travel distance we used in this analysis. With this information, the Coast Guard then calculated the labor cost for all original applicants who currently expend the time to travel this distance to obtain a notary public service. Earlier, the Coast Guard established the loaded mean hourly wage rate for original applicants who apply for an MMCs to be approximately $40.61 (recall that this labor rate is for original applicants who need to take an oath; it is different than the labor rate for the mandatory fee portion of this analysis). Using the value of 50 percent for the VTTS for personal time (see footnote number 32), the Coast Guard calculated the labor cost for the time to travel the 13.4-mile round-trip distance for one original applicant to be approximately $5.48 ($40.61 × 0.50 × 0.27 hours). Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted labor travel time cost or VTTS, for 13,951 original applicants would be approximately $76,452 annually, rounded (13,951 original applicants × $5.48). Next, the Coast Guard calculated the mileage cost for these original applicants to travel the round-trip distance. The Coast Guard used the General Services Administration’s (GSA) reimbursement rates for original applicants who use their privatelyowned vehicles.35 The GSA reports the rate per mile to be $0.585. Using the round-trip distance of 13.4 miles, the Coast Guard estimates the cost for one individual to make this trip to be approximately $7.84, rounded (13.4 miles × $0.585). The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted travel or mileage cost for 13,951 original applicants would be approximately $109,376 annually, rounded (13,951 original applicants × $7.84). Lastly, the Coast Guard calculated the waiting time at a bank branch for 13,951 original applicants to obtain a notary public signature on Form CG–719B. Because the Coast Guard assumed that waiting times at RECs would be similar to waiting times at bank branches, we used the same waiting time that we used for original applicants who wait to pay the fees at an REC, or approximately 3.5 minutes (readers should refer to the earlier discussion of this estimate), or 0.06 hours, rounded. The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost for 13,951 original applicants who currently wait at bank branches for a notary public service to be approximately $33,993 annually, rounded (13,951 × $40.61 × 0.06 hours). The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost for 13,951 original applicants affected by the proposed changes to § 10.225(c) and who currently travel to bank branches to obtain a free notary public service to be approximately $219,820 annually, rounded ($76,452 + $109,376 + $33,993). This estimate is for Assumption 1 of the analysis. Therefore, in this proposed rule, the Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost savings to these original applicants, who would no longer need to obtain notary public service at bank branches, would be approximately $219,820 annually, rounded. See table 11. TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF UNDISCOUNTED COST-SAVING ELEMENTS FOR ASSUMPTION 1 FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO § 10.225(c), 2021 DOLLARS Cost savings estimate Cost savings element Population affected Labor Travel Time Cost Savings (VTTS) ................................................................................................................ Mileage .................................................................................................................................................................... Waiting Time at Bank Branch .................................................................................................................................. $76,452 109,376 33,993 13,951 13,951 13,951 Total Annual Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................... 219,820 ........................ Note: Readers should not add together the populations in the third column. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted cost savings, under Assumption 1, over a 10-year period of analysis would be approximately $1.5 million, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings would be approximately $219,820, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. See table 12. TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 1 FOR § 10.225(c) ONLY [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Year VTTS 1 ............................................................... 2 ............................................................... 3 ............................................................... 4 ............................................................... 5 ............................................................... 6 ............................................................... 7 ............................................................... 8 ............................................................... 9 ............................................................... 10 ............................................................. $76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 35 At GSA’s home web page, the Coast Guard used the menu feature and selected the category titled, ‘‘Travel.’’ At this page, the Coast Guard selected the topic titled ‘‘POV Mileage.’’ The next page shows VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 Waiting time at bank branch Mileage $109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 $33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 the results for ‘‘Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) Mileage Reimbursement Rates.’’ The Coast Guard used the category ‘‘If use of privately owned automobile is authorized or no Government- PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Total cost savings $219,820 219,820 219,820 219,820 219,820 219,820 219,820 219,820 219,820 219,820 7 Percent $205,440 192,000 179,439 167,700 156,729 146,476 136,893 127,937 119,568 111,746 3 Percent $213,418 207,202 201,167 195,308 189,619 184,097 178,734 173,528 168,474 163,567 furnished automobile is available.’’ Readers can access this information at https://www.gsa.gov/ travel-resources. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18725 TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 1 FOR § 10.225(c) ONLY—Continued [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] VTTS Mileage Waiting time at bank branch Total cost savings ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ Year Total .................................................. Annualized ........................................ 7 Percent 1,543,926 219,820 3 Percent 1,875,112 219,820 Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Cost Savings Analysis for Assumption 2 for the Proposed Change to § 10.225(c) Because the Coast Guard does not collect data on where original applicants obtain a notary public service, with Assumption 2, the Coast Guard assumed half of the original applicants who currently apply for an MMC obtain a notary public service at a bank branch free of charge and half at a notary public, where there is a fee for the service. The half of the affected population who currently obtain a notary public service at a location other than a bank branch under this assumption consists of approximately 6,976 original applicants. As in Assumption 1, 13,951 original applicants travel the same distance of about 6.7 miles one-way or about 13.4 miles round-trip to a bank branch or a notary public service. For the time and the associated labor cost, it does not make a difference if these original applicants travel to a notary public service rather than a bank branch; they still incur the same labor cost for the travel time as in Assumption 1. The Coast Guard estimated earlier this total undiscounted labor cost, or labor travel time cost (VTTS), for 13,951 original applicants to be approximately $65,151 annually, rounded. Similarly, these original applicants incur a mileage cost. As in Assumption 1, it does not make a difference if they travel to a notary public service rather than a bank branch; they still incur a mileage cost. The Coast Guard estimated earlier the total undiscounted travel or mileage cost, for 13,951 original applicants, to be approximately $109,376 annually, rounded. Again, as in Assumption 1, 13,951 original applicants incur the cost to wait at a bank branch or a notary public service. The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost for 13,951 original applicants who currently wait at bank branches or at a notary public service to be approximately $33,993 annually, rounded. With Assumption 2, the Coast Guard added the cost for half of the original applicants, or about 6,976, who pay for the notary public service outside of a bank branch. Similar to the payment of mandatory fees presented earlier, the Coast Guard assumed original applicants pay for a notary public with either a credit card or cash. For this analysis, the Coast Guard assumed half of the original applicants who currently pay for a notary public pay by credit card and half by cash. For the approximately 3,488 original applicants who currently pay by credit card, the Coast Guard used the same time estimate for this method of payment as we did for the payment of fees earlier, or approximately 0.13 hours (7.5 minutes each). The Coast Guard estimated the total undiscounted cost for these original applicants who currently pay by credit card would be approximately $18,414 annually, rounded (3,488 × $40.61 × 0.13). The Coast Guard estimated the time for original applicants who currently pay by cash to be approximately 0.10 hours (6.0 minutes each). For the approximately 3,488 original applicants who currently pay by cash, the Coast Guard estimated the total undiscounted cost would be approximately $14,165 annually, rounded (3,488 × $40.61 × 0.10). The last of the five cost elements for Assumption 2 (which would become cost-saving elements with this proposed rule) is the cost for the notary public service itself. The Coast Guard obtained the cost for notary public services in the U.S. from the organization National Notary (NationalNotary.org). Readers should refer to footnote 11 for more information. This organization provides cost data for 2022 for notary public services throughout the United States, including Washington, DC and U.S. territories. The Coast Guard included fees from all 50 states and Washington, DC in this analysis.36 Because the organization provides a fee schedule for verbal oaths, the Coast Guard used these fees as a proxy for the signature of the notary public on Form CG–719B. The fee varies from state to state with the lowest amount being $1 and the highest $15. Ten states do not have a fee schedule or do not charge a fee altogether; nevertheless, the Coast Guard took the statistical average of the fees for all 50 states and Washington, DC, for an amount of approximately $5.14, rounded. The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost for original applicants in this assumption who pay for a notary public service to be approximately $35,855 annually, rounded (6,976 × $5.14). The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost for original applicants in Assumption 2 for the proposed changes to § 10.225(c) in this proposed rule to be approximately $288,255 annually, rounded ($76,452 + $109,376 + $33,993 + $18,414 + $14,165 + $35,855). Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost savings to original applicants who would no longer need to obtain a notary public service at bank branches or notary public services to be approximately $288,255 annually, rounded. See table 13. TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF UNDISCOUNTED COST-SAVING ELEMENTS FOR ASSUMPTION 2 FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO § 10.225(c), 2021 DOLLARS Cost-savings element Unit inputs Population affected Cost-savings estimate Labor Rate of Applicants .......................................................... $40.61 ..................................... 13,951 ..................................... ........................ 36 National Notary also includes fees for U.S. territories, with the highest amount being $20. The VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 Coast Guard did not include the fees for U.S. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 territories in this analysis, because we have sufficient national data for this analysis. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18726 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF UNDISCOUNTED COST-SAVING ELEMENTS FOR ASSUMPTION 2 FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO § 10.225(c), 2021 DOLLARS—Continued Cost-savings element Unit inputs Population affected Cost-savings estimate Labor Travel Time (VTTS) ........................................................ Mileage Rate ............................................................................. Waiting Time at Bank Branch and Notary Service ................... Payment by Credit Card ........................................................... Payment by Cash ..................................................................... Avg. Notary Fee ........................................................................ 0.27 hours ............................... $0.58 per mile ......................... 0.06 hours ............................... 0.13 hours ............................... 0.10 hours ............................... $5.14 ....................................... 13,951 ..................................... 13,951 ..................................... 13,951 ..................................... 3,488 of 6,976 ......................... 3,488 of 6,976 ......................... 6,976 of 13,951 ....................... $76,452 109,376 33,993 18,414 14,165 35,855 Total Annual Cost Savings ................................................ ................................................. ................................................. 288,255 Note: Readers should not add together the populations in the third column of the table. The individual population for each item less than 13,951 is a subset of the total affected population of 13,951. Readers should use the estimated loaded labor rate of $40.61 to obtain the cost savings estimate in the last column of the table, except for the notary fee. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted cost savings under Assumption 2 over a 10-year period of analysis to be approximately $2.02 million, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimated the annualized cost savings to be approximately $288,255, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. See table 14. TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 2 FOR § 10.225(c) ONLY [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] Year VTTS Mileage Waiting time at bank branch or notary service Time to pay notary by cash or credit card Notary cost Cost savings 7 Percent 3 Percent 1 ........................................ 2 ........................................ 3 ........................................ 4 ........................................ 5 ........................................ 6 ........................................ 7 ........................................ 8 ........................................ 9 ........................................ 10 ...................................... $76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 76,452 $109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 109,376 $33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 33,993 $32,579 32,579 32,579 32,579 32,579 32,579 32,579 32,579 32,579 32,579 $35,855 35,855 35,855 35,855 35,855 35,855 35,855 35,855 35,855 35,855 $288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 $269,397 251,773 235,302 219,908 205,521 192,076 179,510 167,767 156,791 146,534 $279,859 271,707 263,794 256,110 248,651 241,409 234,377 227,551 220,923 214,488 Total ........................... Annualized ................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,024,579 288,255 2,458,869 288,255 Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 As noted earlier, the cost savings that the Coast Guard estimated for Assumptions 1 and 2 for the proposed change to § 10.225(c) do not include the cost savings from the proposed change to § 10.219(d). However, in table 1 of this RA, where we present the total cost savings estimates of the proposed rule, the Coast Guard included the cost savings estimates for the proposed change to § 10.219(d), because the Coast Guard must add the cost savings from § 10.225(c) to the cost savings estimate for § 10.219(d). Also recall that only one of the two main assumptions of this analysis would hold. The Coast Guard presented two different scenarios, because we do not know where affected original applicants currently obtain a notary public service. For Assumption 1 and including the cost savings estimates from the proposed change to § 10.219(d), the Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost savings of the proposed rule to be approximately $364,945 annually, rounded ($219,820 from Assumption 1 and § 10.225(c) + $145,125 from § 10.219(d)). The Coast Guard estimated the 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule to be approximately $2.6 million, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimated the annualized cost savings to be approximately $364,945, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. See table 15. TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF TOTAL DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 1 (INCLUDES COST SAVINGS FROM §§ 10.225(c) AND 10.219(d) [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] § 10.225(c) Cost savings Year 1 ........................................................................................... 2 ........................................................................................... 3 ........................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 § 10.219(d) Cost savings $219,820 219,820 219,820 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 $145,125 145,125 145,125 Total cost savings— Assumption 1 $364,945 364,945 364,945 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 7 Percent $341,070 318,757 297,904 3 Percent $354,316 343,996 333,977 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18727 TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF TOTAL DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 1 (INCLUDES COST SAVINGS FROM §§ 10.225(c) AND 10.219(d)—Continued [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] § 10.225(c) Cost savings Year § 10.219(d) Cost savings Total cost savings— Assumption 1 7 Percent 3 Percent 4 ........................................................................................... 5 ........................................................................................... 6 ........................................................................................... 7 ........................................................................................... 8 ........................................................................................... 9 ........................................................................................... 10 ......................................................................................... 219,820 219,820 219,820 219,820 219,820 219,820 219,820 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 364,945 364,945 364,945 364,945 364,945 364,945 364,945 278,415 260,201 243,178 227,270 212,401 198,506 185,520 324,249 314,805 305,636 296,734 288,091 279,700 271,553 Total .............................................................................. Annualized .................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,563,222 364,945 3,113,056 364,945 Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Readers should compare the total cost savings estimate and annualized cost savings estimate for the proposed rule in table 15 with the total cost savings estimate of the proposed rule for Assumption 1 in table 1. For Assumption 2 and including the cost savings estimates from the proposed change to § 10.219(d), the Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost savings of the proposed rule to be approximately $433,379 annually, rounded ($288,255 from Assumption 2 and § 10.225(c) + $145,125 from § 10.219(d)). The Coast Guard estimates the 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule for Assumption 2 to be approximately $3.0 million, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings to be approximately $433,379, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. See table 16. TABLE 16—SUMMARY OF TOTAL DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 2 (INCLUDES COST SAVINGS FROM §§ 10.225(c) AND 10.219(d) [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] § 10.225(c) Cost savings Year § 10.219(d) Cost savings Total cost savings— Assumption 2 7 Percent 3 Percent 1 ........................................................................................... 2 ........................................................................................... 3 ........................................................................................... 4 ........................................................................................... 5 ........................................................................................... 6 ........................................................................................... 7 ........................................................................................... 8 ........................................................................................... 9 ........................................................................................... 10 ......................................................................................... $288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 288,255 $145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 145,125 $433,379 433,379 433,379 433,379 433,379 433,379 433,379 433,379 433,379 433,379 $405,027 378,530 353,767 330,623 308,993 288,779 269,887 252,231 235,730 220,308 $420,757 408,502 396,603 385,052 373,837 362,948 352,377 342,114 332,149 322,475 Total .............................................................................. Annualized .................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,043,875 433,379 3,696,814 433,379 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Readers should compare the total cost savings estimate and annualized cost savings estimate for the proposed rule in table 16 with the total cost savings estimate of the proposed rule for Assumption 2 in table 1. Including Federal Government cost savings, the Coast Guard estimates the 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule under Assumption 1 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 to be about $2.8 million ($2,563,222 from table 15 and $215,564 from table 7), rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the annualized cost savings to be approximately $395,650, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate ($364,945 from table 15 + $30,704 from table 7). See table 17. Including Federal Government cost savings, the Coast Guard estimates the PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule under Assumption 2 to be about $3.3 million ($3,043,875 from table 16 and $215,564 from table 7), rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the annualized cost savings to be approximately $464,084, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate ($433,379 from table 16 + $30,704 from table 7). See table 17. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18728 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules TABLE 17—TOTAL DISCOUNTED ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7-percent discount rate] § 10.225(c) Cost Savings Assumption 1 Assumption 2 § 10.219(d) Cost Savings ........................................................................................................................................ § 10.219(d)—Applicants ........................................................................................................................................... § 10.219(d)—Federal Government .......................................................................................................................... $219,820 145,125 30,704 $288,255 145,125 30,704 Total cost savings under each Assumption (annualized) ................................................................................ 395,650 464,084 Note: Readers should add together the cost savings in each of the two columns separately under the individual Assumptions to obtain the total cost savings. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Unquantifiable Benefits of the Proposed Rule This proposed rule would create unquantifiable benefits for MMC applicants. This includes the flexibility to submit documents electronically contained in the proposed changes to §§ 1.03–15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i)(1). Because this would be an option in the future, the Coast Guard does not have data at this point to estimate the cost savings that would be associated with the electronic submission of documents, if applicants were to choose this option. The use of Pay.gov would provide a benefit to applicants because it is a free and secure service that allows applicants to make payments to most Federal Government agencies. Pay.gov uses the latest industry-standard payment methods and encryption technology to safely collect, store, transmit, and protect applicants’ personal information throughout the payment process. Applicants can access and make payments through Pay.gov 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and every day of the year, including holidays. In table 2 the Coast Guard lists the unquantifiable benefit where the proposed regulatory text changes would be more than minor grammatical changes. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Analysis of Alternatives (1). Industry would continue to meet the current requirements in subchapter A, part 1 and subchapter B, parts 10– 16 of title 46 of the CFR (current baseline without regulatory action). This alternative represents the current state of the MCP with no updates to 46 CFR subchapter A, part 1 and subchapter B, parts 10–16. The Coast Guard rejected this alternative, because it would not require that applicants pay mandatory fees electronically through Pay.gov. This alternative would maintain all the current, estimated, undiscounted costs between $219,820 and $288,255 annually, rounded (see the estimated costs under Assumptions 1 and 2, respectively, in the preferred VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 alternative). The Coast Guard would also continue to request applicants provide receipt of payment when using Pay.gov (e.g., attach receipt to applications and provide receipt for MCP services) although this is not required. Applicants would still have the option of paying mandatory fees in person at an REC through cash, check, credit card and money order. Although in-person payments would remain an option, these applicants would not realize potential cost savings by using Pay.gov. In-person and standard mail payments made by applicants maintains the options that currently exist, which some applicants may find more convenient (for in-person payments, perhaps as a customer service benefit) over payments by electronic means. We request comments from the public on the benefit of the Coast Guard maintaining these payment options for applicants. This alternative would also not result in time and cost savings to original applicants, who would still be required to take an oath before an authorized individual. Additionally, this alternative would not clarify existing regulatory text. (2) The Coast Guard would update regulatory requirements to align with a new MCP IT system and update mandatory fees with an incentive for electronic payment. With this alternative, the Coast Guard would replace the current MMLD database and would propose changes to 46 CFR parts 10 through 14 and 16 to increase electronic submission of documents to support the credentialing process. With this alternative, the Coast Guard would provide an incentive to applicants to electronically pay mandatory fees through Pay.gov. It would be beneficial to applicants, who would save time and money; however, the Coast Guard is unable to estimate a cost savings for this item under this alternative, because it would require a lengthy analysis of the Coast Guard’s mandatory fee program. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 The Coast Guard rejected this alternative, because the update would require additional regulatory action to allow for future changes in the system, and any changes to mandatory fees would require further study and analysis by the Coast Guard and would require the use of limited additional time and resources. (3) The Coast Guard would update regulatory requirements to align with a new MCP IT system and require electronic payment, but would not address mandatory fees. With this alternative, the Coast Guard would not propose to update the mandatory fees together with the requirement for the electronic payment of fees by individuals through a new MCP IT system. However, the Coast Guard kept the proposed requirement under the preferred alternative (proposed rule) for the electronic payment of fees by applicants saving them approximately $145,125 annually, rounded (see the analysis for the preferred alternative for the derivation of this estimate), because it would not be connected to a new MCP IT system. The Coast Guard rejected this alternative, because the new system is at the beginning stages of development, and, as a result, the Coast Guard is unable to estimate the economic impact of this new system on applicants and companies. Therefore, the Coast Guard cannot accurately determine any adjustments to mandatory fees based on the new system capabilities, potential costs to support the system, or cost savings generated from the system. (4) Preferred Alternative—Update 46 CFR subchapter A, part 1 and subchapter B, parts 10–16 to update regulatory requirements to align with a new MCP IT system, require the electronic payment of fees and the option of electronic submission of supporting documents for an MMC application, remove the requirement for an oath to be administered by an authorized individual, and make E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 editorial and non-substantive changes that clarify existing regulatory text. This is the preferred alternative because applicants would be required to pay mandatory fees electronically using Pay.gov, and the Coast Guard would create an option for electronic submission of documents to the Coast Guard. This would save MMC applicants time and money because they would no longer be paying these mandatory fees in person at an REC. However, this preferred option would remove the flexibility for applicants who wish to continue to pay the mandatory fees in person. We analyzed the time and cost difference between the different payment methods and the proposed requirement to use Pay.gov previously in this regulatory analysis. This alternative also aligns with Department of the Treasury regulations for promoting efficient, effective cash management through improved billing, collection, deposit, and payment of funds. The Coast Guard also proposes to remove the requirement for an oath to be taken by original applicants when they submit their MMC application. This would also save time and money for original applicants who would no longer need to travel to a bank or a bank branch or a notary public service to have the oath administered. Lastly, the Coast Guard proposes to make numerous editorial changes to the affected CFR subchapters that would clarify existing regulatory text. The Coast Guard analyzed and presented the cost savings and other unquantifiable benefits associated with this alternative earlier in this RA. B. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-forprofit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Based on the analysis in section A, Regulatory Planning and Review, we found this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most provisions of this proposed rule would affect individuals who apply for an MMC and would not directly regulate small entities. These include provisions that would require electronic payment of merchant mariner credentialing fees in § 10.219(d), remove the requirement for an oath to be VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 administered by an authorized official on Form CG–719B in § 10.225(c), and allow for the electronic submission of certain documents in § 1.03–15(h)(2)(i) for appeals involving course approvals and merchant mariner personnel issues and in § 10.219(i) for requests involving no-fee MMCs. Since individual members of the public that are applying for MMCs are not considered to be small entities under the RFA, we have found that no small entities are impacted by these provisions of the proposed rule. One substantive change of this proposed rule would allow for electronic signature on Form CG–718A in §§ 14.307(a), (b), and (c) when a mariner completes a voyage. However, the Coast Guard is not changing the previously accepted method of a standard signature by pen and ink. Therefore, the owner or operator of a vessel and mariner may continue to choose this signature method, but a part of the population may also choose the option of an electronic signature. The Coast Guard estimates that these two methods take nearly the same amount of time and would not result in measurable cost savings either to the owner or operator of a vessel, who may be a small entity, or to the mariner if they choose the electronic signature method. The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on this assumption and if there is a time difference between a standard signature and an electronic signature. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because based on our analysis, most of provisions of the proposed rule would affect applicants and not directly regulate or affect small entities. We determined that the time difference between the standard signature method and the option of the electronic signature method in §§ 14.307(a), (b), and (c), for those who choose this method, to be nearly the same and would not result in any measurable cost savings to vessel owners or operators, who may be small entities, and mariners. C. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 121, we offer to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18729 Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency’s responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). D. Collection of Information The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the U.S. Coast Guard to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Coast Guard has determined that the proposed rule would not result in a new collection nor modify an existing collection of information. Thus, this proposed rule would not change the burden in the collections currently approved by OMB under OMB Control Numbers 1625–0012 with a title of ‘‘Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariners’’ and 1625–0040 with a title of ‘‘Applications for Merchant Mariners Credentials and Medical Certificates.’’ E. Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows. It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18730 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. See the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). Because this proposed rule involves the credentialing of merchant marine officers under 46 U.S.C. 7101, it relates to personnel qualifications for vessels subject to a pervasive scheme of federal regulation, and is therefore foreclosed from regulation by the States. Therefore, because the States may not regulate within these categories, this rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule would have implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 F. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble. G. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights). H. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 Reform), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. I. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. J. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. K. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. L. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. If you are aware of voluntary consensus standards that might apply, please identify them by sending a comment to the docket using one of the PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 methods listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your comment, please explain why you think the standards might apply. M. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This proposed rule would be categorically excluded under paragraphs L54 and L56 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–001– 01, Rev. 1. Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations that are editorial or procedural. Paragraph L56 pertains to regulations concerning the training, qualifying, licensing, and disciplining of maritime personnel. This proposed rule involves regulatory changes that are needed for implementation of a new information technology system that would replace the current MMLD database used by the Coast Guard to process mariner credentials. This new system features an electronic platform for activities such as mariners providing documents for applying for or maintaining mariner credentials, or submitting associated fees. In addition, the rule includes technical amendments, such as updates, to addresses and websites necessary for accessing or using MMLD. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects 46 CFR Part 1 Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 46 CFR Part 10 Penalties, Personally identifiable information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 46 CFR Part 11 Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen. ■ b. In paragraph (h)(2)(ii), removing the period after the words ‘‘2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE’’. The revision reads as follows: 46 CFR Part 12 Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. § 1.03–15 * * * * (h) * * * (2) * * * (i) Appeals involving course approvals and merchant mariner personnel issues must be in writing and mailed or electronically submitted to the Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG–MMC), U.S. Coast Guard, Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593–7509, by email to MMCPolicy@ uscg.mil, or as prescribed by the Coast Guard. * * * * * 46 CFR Part 13 Cargo vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 46 CFR Part 14 Oceanographic research vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 46 CFR Part 15 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Vessels. 46 CFR Part 16 Drug testing, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 46 CFR parts 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 as follows: Title 46—Shipping PART 1—ORGANIZATION, GENERAL COURSE AND METHODS GOVERNING MARINE SAFETY FUNCTION 1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 14 U.S.C. 503; 46 U.S.C. 7701; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93; Secs. 101, 888, and 1512, Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3; § 1.01–35 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507; and § 1.03–55 also issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306(j). § 1.01–15 Organization; Districts; National Maritime Center. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * (e) Applicants for merchant mariner credentials may apply to the Coast Guard National Maritime Center or any of the NMC detachments. Applicants may contact the National Maritime Center at 100 Forbes Drive, Martinsburg, West Virginia 25404, by telephone at 1– 888–I–ASK–NMC (1–888–427–5662), by email at IASKNMC@uscg.mil, or online chat at website https:// www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_ center/. A list of NMC detachment locations is available through the website. * * * * * ■ 3. Amend § 1.03–15 by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(i); and VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PART 10—MERCHANT MARINER CREDENTIAL 4. The authority citation for part 10 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 14 U.S.C. 503; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. chapter 73; 46 U.S.C. chapter 75; 46 U.S.C. 2104; 46 U.S.C. 7701, 8903, 8904, and 70105; Executive Order 10173; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 5. In part 10, revise the following references wherever they appear: ■ a. ‘‘his or her’’ to read ‘‘their’’; and ■ b. ‘‘he or she’’ to read ‘‘they’’. ■ 6. Amend § 10.107 by: ■ a. Revising the definition of ‘‘Regional examination center or REC’’; and ■ b. Adding a definition of ‘‘Written, writing, or in writing’’. The revision and addition read as follows: ■ § 10.107 Definitions in subchapter B. * 2. Amend § 1.01–15 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ * General. * * * * * Regional examination center or REC means a field office of the National Maritime Center that performs activities as required by this subchapter on behalf of the National Maritime Center. * * * * * Written, writing, or in writing means handwritten in ink, mechanically or electronically printed, or any form of expression that can be read, reproduced, or later communicated including electronically submitted and stored information. * * * * * § 10.203 [Amended] 7. Amend § 10.203 as follows: a. In paragraph (b), remove the text, ‘‘, license, MMD, COR, or STCW endorsement’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the text, ‘‘an MMD and an MMC serve’’ and ■ ■ PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18731 replace it with the text, ‘‘an MMC serves’’. ■ 8. Amend § 10.209 by: ■ a. In paragraph (a), removing the word ‘‘satisfies’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘satisfy’’; ■ b. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1) through (d)(3); and ■ c. In paragraph (e)(3), removing the words ‘‘the applicant’s fingerprints,’’. The revisions read as follows: § 10.209 General application procedures. * * * * * (d) The application may be submitted in a manner prescribed by the Coast Guard that may include in person, by mail, or other electronic means. A complete MMC application, which is described in §§ 10.223, 10.225, 10.227, 10.229, and 10.231 may include— (1) The application, consent for National Driver Register (NDR) check, and oath, and the evaluation fee required by § 10.219 of this part; (2) The applicant’s continuous discharge book, certificate of identification, and MMC if expired; (3) Proof, in a manner prescribed by the Coast Guard, which may include forms or other means, that the applicant passed the applicable vision, hearing, medical, or physical exam as required by subpart C of this part, or an unexpired medical certificate issued by the Coast Guard; * * * * * ■ 9. Amend § 10.211 by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (c); ■ b. In paragraph (f), removing the word ‘‘furnish’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘furnishes’’; and ■ c. In paragraph (i), removing the words ‘‘has applied’’ and adding, in their place, the words ‘‘have applied’’. The revision reads as follows: § 10.211 Criminal record review. * * * * * (c) Criminal Convictions. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will provide to the Coast Guard the applicant’s FBI number and criminal record generated in the TWIC review process. This information will be used by the Coast Guard to determine whether the applicant has a record of any criminal convictions. * * * * * § 10.217 [Amended] 10. In § 10.217(a), remove the text ‘‘https://www.uscg.mil/nmc’’, and add, in its place, the text ‘‘https:// www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_ center/’’. ■ 11. Amend § 10.219 by revising paragraphs (d) and (i)(1) to read as follows: ■ E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18732 § 10.219 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules Fees. * * * * * (d) Unless the Coast Guard provides additional payment options, fee payment must be for the exact amount and must be made by electronic payment in a manner specified by the Coast Guard. For information regarding current forms of electronic payment, go to the National Maritime Center’s (NMC) website, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/ national_maritime_center/. * * * * * (i) * * * (1) An organization may submit a written request in a manner prescribed by the Coast Guard that may include mail, email, or electronic means to U.S. Coast Guard National Maritime Center, 100 Forbes Drive, Martinsburg, WV 25404, at email IASKNMC@uscg.mil, in order to be considered an eligible organization under the criteria set forth in paragraph (h) of this section. With the written request, the organization must provide evidence of its status as a youth-oriented, not-for-profit, charitable organization. * * * * * ■ 12. Revise § 10.223(c)(5) to read as follows: § 10.223 Modification or removal of limitations or scope. * * * * (c) * * * (5) Any expired MMC held by the applicant. If still valid at the time of application, the applicant must surrender the old, original credential to the Coast Guard within 30 days of issuance of the new credential. If requested at the time of submission, the old MMC may be returned to the applicant after cancellation. * * * * * ■ 13. Revise § 10.225(c) to read as follows: ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 * VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 § 10.225 Requirements for original merchant mariner credentials. * * * * * (c) Oath. Every person who receives an original MMC must first solemnly swear or affirm, that they will faithfully and honestly, according to their best skill and judgment, without concealment or reservation, perform all the duties required by law and obey all lawful orders of superior officers. This affirmation remains binding for any subsequently issued MMC and endorsements added to the MMC, unless specifically renounced in writing. § 10.227 [Amended] 14. Amend § 10.227 as follows: a. Remove the word ‘‘present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’ wherever it appears; ■ b. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’ wherever it appears; ■ c. In paragraph (d)(4): ■ i. Remove the word ‘‘uncanceled’’ and add, in its place, the words ‘‘expired or uncanceled’’; and ■ ii. Remove the word ‘‘photocopy’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘copy’’; ■ d. In paragraph (e)(1)(iv), remove the words ‘‘license or’’; ■ e. In paragraph (e)(5), remove the words ‘‘holds a currently valid’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘hold a currently valid’’; ■ f. In paragraph (e)(6)(ii), remove the words ‘‘license or’’; ■ g. In paragraph (h), remove the words ‘‘A license, MMD, COR, STCW endorsement, MMC, and any endorsements thereon, are’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘An MMC, and any endorsements thereon, is’’; and ■ h. In paragraph (i)(1), remove the words ‘‘presentation of’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘providing evidence of’’. ■ ■ PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 § 10.231 [Amended] 15. Amend § 10.231 as follows: a. In paragraph (c)(5): i. Remove the word ‘‘uncanceled’’ and add, in its place, the words ‘‘expired or uncanceled’’; and ■ ii. Remove the word ‘‘photocopy’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘copy’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the word ‘‘was’’, and add, in its place, the word ‘‘were’’. ■ ■ ■ § 10.232 [Amended] 16. Amend § 10.232 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the word ‘‘presented’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘provided’’; ■ b. In paragraph (a)(4), remove the word ‘‘licensed’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘credentialed’’; and ■ c. In paragraph (d)(6), remove the word ‘‘license’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘credential’’. ■ ■ § 10.233 [Amended] 17. Amend § 10.233 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the text ‘‘license, MMD, COR, or’’; ■ b. In paragraph (b), after the words ‘‘made in writing’’ add the words ‘‘and provided in a manner specified by the Coast Guard’’; and ■ c. In paragraph (c), after the word ‘‘Invalid’’, add the words ‘‘or expired’’. ■ ■ § 10.235 [Amended] 18. Amend § 10.235 by removing the text ‘‘, license, MMD, and COR’’ wherever it appears. ■ 19. Amend Table 1 to § 10.239 by revising the row ‘‘MODU licenses’’ to read as follows: ■ § 10.239 Quick reference table for MMC requirements. * * * * * Table 1 to § 10.239: Quick Reference Table for MMC Requirements * * * * * E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 VerDate Sep<11>2014 MODU ......... Endorsement category § 11.201(e) Note: exceptions. Minimum age ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * U.S., § 10.221(a)(1) § 11.201(d). Citizenship * * § 10.302(a) .. Medical and physical exam * * OIM: § 11.470 B.S.: § 11.472 BCO: § 11.474 ChEng: § 11.542 Asst. Eng: § 11.544. Experience * * N/A: Note exceptions in § 11.201(g) for original national or STCW endorsements. Recommendations and character check * * § 11.201(h): note exceptions. Firefighting * * § 11.201(j); § 11.903; § 11.920. Professional exam * * N/A Demonstration of professional ability original § 11.201 (c)(2) renewal § 10.227(e). Recency of Service § 11.201(i). First aid and CPR Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18733 18734 § 10.302 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules [Amended] 20. In § 10.302(a), remove the words ‘‘as appropriate’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘or as directed by the Coast Guard’’. ■ § 10.305 [Amended] 21. In § 10.305(c), remove the word ‘‘a’’ before the words ‘‘medical certificate’’. ■ § 10.404 [Amended] 22. Amend § 10.404 as follows: a. Remove the text ‘‘, license, or document’’ wherever it appears; and ■ b. Remove the words ‘‘has witnessed’’ wherever they appear and add, in their place, the words ‘‘have witnessed’’. ■ ■ § 10.405 [Amended] [Amended] 24. In § 10.407(g)(3), remove the text ‘‘paragraph (d)’’ and add, in its place, the text ‘‘paragraph (e)’’. ■ § 10.409 31. Amend § 11.217(a) by removing the word ‘‘presents’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provides’’. Authority: 14 U.S.C. 503; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, 8906, and 70105; Executive Order 10173; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. Section 11.107 is also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507. 27. In part 11, revise the following references wherever they appear: ■ a. ‘‘his or her’’ to read ‘‘their’’; and ■ b. ‘‘he or she’’ to read ‘‘they’’. ■ [Amended] 28. In § 11.102(a), remove the period after the text ‘‘2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE’’. ■ [Amended] 29. Amend § 11.201 as follows: a. In paragraph (a): i. Remove the word ‘‘possesses’’ and add, in its place, the words ‘‘possess’’; and ■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘him or her’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘them’’; ■ b. In paragraph (c)(4), remove the word ‘‘has’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘have’’; ■ c. In paragraph (g)(1), remove the text ‘‘license, merchant mariner document Jkt 262001 32. Amend § 11.301(g) by removing the words ‘‘of the license’’. ■ § 11.402 [Amended] [Amended] [Amended] 35. Amend § 11.402 as follows: a. In paragraph (c)(2), remove the words ‘‘is endorsed’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘are endorsed’’; and remove the words ‘‘license or’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (c)(3): ■ i. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the text ‘‘an MMC’’; and ■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘mate’s license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘mate’s’’. ■ ■ § 11.404 [Amended] 36. Amend § 11.404 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, remove the words ‘‘or license’’. ■ ■ § 11.405 [Amended] 37. Amend § 11.405(a) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 11.406 [Amended] 37. Amend § 11.406 as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ ■ PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 § 11.407 Sfmt 4702 [Amended] 38. Amend § 11.407 as follows: a. In paragraph (c), remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (d), remove the words ‘‘or license’’. ■ ■ § 11.412 [Amended] 39. Amend § 11.412 by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. [Amended] 40. Amend § 11.414(a)(1)(iii) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 11.418 [Amended] 34. Amend § 11.401 as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘license or’’ wherever they appear; and ■ b. in paragraph (d), remove the word ‘‘present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. 26. The authority citation for part 11 is revised to read as follows: ■ ■ ■ § 11.301 b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ‘‘or license’’. § 11.414 [Amended] ■ ■ ■ ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 11.217 § 11.401 PART 11—REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICER ENDORSEMENTS 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 30. Amend § 11.211(c)(1) as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘or license’’ wherever they appear; and ■ b. Remove the words ‘‘licenses or’’. ■ ■ 33. Amend § 11.337(a) by removing the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. [Amended] VerDate Sep<11>2014 ■ [Amended] ■ 25. In § 10.409(e), remove the word ‘‘present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. § 11.201 § 11.211 § 11.337 ■ § 11.102 ■ ■ 23. In § 10.405, remove the words ‘‘has attained’’ wherever they appear and add, in their place, the words ‘‘have attained’’. ■ § 10.407 (MMD), or MMC’’ and add, in its place, the text ‘‘merchant mariner credential (MMC)’’; ■ d. In paragraph (g)(2) remove the words ‘‘license, certificate of registry,’’ wherever it appears, and add, in their place, the text ‘‘MMC’’; and ■ e. In paragraphs (h)(1), (i), and (k) remove the word ‘‘present’’ wherever it appears and add, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. [Amended] 41. Amend § 11.418 by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 11.420 [Amended] 42. Amend § 11.420(a) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 11.422 [Amended] 43. Amend § 11.422 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(4), remove the words ‘‘license or’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ‘‘or license’’. ■ ■ § 11.424 [Amended] 44. Amend § 11.424 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ‘‘license or’’. ■ ■ § 11.425 [Amended] 45. Amend § 11.425 as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (d), remove the word ‘‘presentation’’ and add, in its place, the words ‘‘providing evidence’’. ■ ■ § 11.426 [Amended] 46. Amend § 11.426(a)(1) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 11.427 [Amended] 47. Amend § 11.427 as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (d), remove the word ‘‘presentation’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘providing evidence’’. ■ ■ E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules § 11.428 [Amended] 48. Amend § 11.428(b) by removing the words ‘‘license or’’. b. In paragraph (d), remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. § 11.429 § 11.457 ■ ■ [Amended] 49. Amend § 11.429(c) by removing the words ‘‘license or’’. [Amended] 50. Amend § 11.433(a) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ 59. Amend § 11.457 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ‘‘present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ‘‘license or’’. § 11.462 [Amended] 51. Amend § 11.435 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the words ‘‘license or’’. ■ ■ § 11.437 60. Amend § 11.462 by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. [Amended] § 11.442 [Amended] 53. Amend § 11.442(a) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. § 11.444 [Amended] 54. Amend § 11.444(a)(2) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 11.446 [Amended] 55. Amend § 11.446 by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 11.450 [Amended] 56. Amend § 11.450 as follows: a. In paragraph (c), remove the words ‘‘licenses or’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (d), remove the word ‘‘license’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘endorsement’’. ■ ■ § 11.452 [Amended] 57. Amend § 11.452 as follows: a. In paragraph (a): i. Remove the words ‘‘license or’’; and ii. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ‘‘license or’’. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 ■ ■ ■ ■ § 11.454 [Amended] 58. Amend § 11.454 as follows: a. In paragraph (c), remove the word ‘‘presentation’’ and add, in its place, the words ‘‘providing evidence’’; and ■ ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 § 11.501 [Amended] § 11.465 § 11.502 [Amended] [Amended] ■ 62. Amend § 11.465 by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. § 11.466 ■ ■ [Amended] 63. Amend § 11.466(b) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. § 11.470 [Amended] 64. Amend § 11.470 as follows: a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ wherever it appears and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; ■ b. In paragraph (d)(2)(i), remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; ■ c. In paragraphs (e), (g), (i), and (k), remove the words ‘‘license or’’; and ■ d. In paragraph (j)(2)(i), remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ ■ § 11.472 [Amended] 65. Amend § 11.472 as follows: a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ wherever it appears and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ‘‘license or’’. [Amended] 66. Amend § 11.474 as follows: a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ wherever it appears and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; ■ b. In paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii), remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ c. In paragraph (b), remove the words ‘‘license or’’. ■ ■ § 11.480 [Amended] 67. In § 11.480(d), remove the word ‘‘present’’ and add, in its place, the ■ PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 § 11.503 [Amended] 72. Amend § 11.503 as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear, and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (c)(2), remove the words ‘‘licensed or’’. ■ § 11.510 [Amended] 73. Amend § 11.510(a)(2) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 11.512 [Amended] 74. Amend § 11.512(a)(1) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 11.514 [Amended] 75. Amend § 11.514(a) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ ■ ■ § 11.474 [Amended] 71. Amend § 11.502(b) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ ■ ■ [Amended] 69. Amend § 11.491(a) by removing the words ‘‘license or’’. ■ 61. Amend § 11.464 by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ 52. In § 11.437(a)(3): a. Remove the words ‘‘holding a license or’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘holding an’’; and ■ b. Remove the words ‘‘this license’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘this MMC endorsement’’. [Amended] 68. Amend § 11.482 as follows: ■ a. Remove the words ‘‘license or’’ wherever they appear; and ■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 70. Amend § 11.501 as follows: ■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ‘‘licenses or’’; and ■ a. In paragraphs (d) and (e), remove the words ‘‘license or’’ wherever they appear. § 11.464 ■ ■ § 11.482 § 11.491 [Amended] ■ § 11.435 word ‘‘provide’’; and remove the text ‘‘fax,’’. ■ ■ ■ ■ § 11.433 [Amended] 18735 Sfmt 4702 § 11.542 [Amended] 76. Amend § 11.542 as follows: ■ a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ wherever it appears, and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ‘‘presentation of’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘providing’’. ■ § 11.544 [Amended] 77. Amend § 11.544 as follows: ■ a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ wherever it appears, and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ‘‘presentation of the’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘providing’’. ■ E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18736 § 11.603 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules [Amended] 78. Amend § 11.603 by removing the words ‘‘license must present’’ and adding, in their place, the text ‘‘an MMC must provide evidence of’’. ■ § 11.604 79. Amend § 11.604 by removing the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. 80. Amend § 11.701(d) by removing the words ‘‘A license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘An’’. [Amended] 81. Amend § 11.703(d) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 11.705 [Amended] 82. Amend § 11.705(c) by removing the words ‘‘license or’’ wherever they appear. ■ § 11.707 [Amended] 83. Amend § 11.707(b) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. [Amended] 84. Amend § 11.713 by removing the words ‘‘license or’’ wherever they appear. ■ § 11.805 [Amended] 85. Amend § 11.805 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ‘‘present’’, and add, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the word ‘‘is’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘are’’. § 12.401 [Amended] 93. Amend § 12.401 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the text ‘‘or merchant mariner document (MMD)’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’. ■ ■ [Amended] 94. Amend § 12.405 as follows: a. In paragraph (a): i. Remove the words ‘‘he or she’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘they’’; and ■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘his or her’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the words ‘‘him or her’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘them’’. ■ ■ ■ [Amended] 95. Amend § 12.407 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b)(3): ■ i. Remove the words ‘‘he or she’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘they’’; and ■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘his or her’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’. ■ ■ [Amended] 86. Amend § 11.807(d) by removing the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provides’’. ■ § 12.409 [Amended] 88. Amend § 11.903(c)(1) by removing the words ‘‘a license’’ and adding, in their place, the words ‘‘an endorsement’’. 96. Amend § 12.409 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b)(3): ■ i. Remove the words ‘‘he or she’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘they’’; and ■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘his or her’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’. § 11.920 § 12.501 § 11.821 [Amended] 87. Amend § 11.821(a)(2) by removing the word ‘‘Present’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’. ■ § 11.903 [Amended] ■ ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 [Amended] 92. Amend § 12.201(a)(2) by removing the words ‘‘his or her’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’. § 12.407 ■ ■ § 11.807 § 12.201 § 12.405 ■ § 11.713 [Amended] 91. Amend § 12.103(a) by removing the period after the text ‘‘2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE’’. ■ [Amended] ■ § 11.703 § 12.103 ■ [Amended] ■ § 11.701 Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110, 7301, 7302, 7503, 7505, 7701, and 70105; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. [Amended] 89. In the heading ‘‘Table 2 to § 11.920’’, remove the word ‘‘Licenses’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Endorsements’’. ■ PART 12—REQUIREMENTS FOR RATING ENDORSEMENTS 90. The authority citation for part 12 is revised to read as follows: ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 ■ ■ [Amended] 97. Amend § 12.501 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the words ‘‘he or she is’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘they are’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’. ■ ■ § 12.505 ■ [Amended] 98. Amend § 12.505(a) as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 a. Remove the words ‘‘he or she’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘they’’; and ■ b. Remove the words ‘‘his or her’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’. ■ § 12.625 [Amended] 99. Amend § 12.625(a)(1) by removing the word ‘‘Present’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’. ■ § 12.627 [Amended] 100. Amend § 12.627(a)(1) by removing the word ‘‘Present’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’. ■ § 12.707 [Amended] 101. Amend § 12.707 by removing the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. ■ § 12.709 [Amended] 102. Amend § 12.709(a) by removing the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. ■ § 12.711 [Amended] 103. Amend § 12.711(a) as follows: a. Remove the word ‘‘presents’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘provides’’; and ■ b. Remove the words ‘‘he or she is’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘they are’’. ■ ■ § 12.809 [Amended] 104. Amend § 12.809 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the words ‘‘he or she is’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘they are’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the word ‘‘present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. ■ ■ § 12.811 [Amended] 105. Amend § 12.811 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(5)(iii), remove the words ‘‘he or she has’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘they have’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (e), remove the words ‘‘his or her’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’. ■ ■ PART 13—CERTIFICATION OF TANKERMEN 106. The authority citation for part 13 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3703, 7317, 8105, 8703, 9102; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 107. In part 13, revise the following references wherever they appear: ■ a. ‘‘his or her’’ to read ‘‘their’’; and ■ b. ‘‘he or she’’ to read ‘‘they’’. ■ § 13.103 [Amended] 108. Amend § 13.103(a) by removing the period after the text ‘‘2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE’’. ■ E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules § 13.107 [Amended] § 13.111 [Amended] 110. Amend § 13.111 as follows: a. In paragraph (d)(3), remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (d)(4): ■ i. Remove the words ‘‘Present evidence in the form of a letter’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘Provide evidence in a method prescribed by the Coast Guard’’; and ■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘on company letterhead’’. ■ ■ § 13.119 [Amended] 111. In § 13.119, remove the words ‘‘merchant mariner’s document or’’. ■ § 13.120 [Amended] 112. Amend § 13.120 by removing the word ‘‘present’’ wherever it appears and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. ■ § 13.127 [Amended] 113. Amend § 13.127(a)(4) and (5) by removing the word ‘‘is’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘are’’. ■ § 13.201 [Amended] 114. Amend § 13.201 as follows: a. In paragraph (c) introductory text, remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; ■ b. In paragraph (c)(3): ■ i. Remove the word ‘‘has’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘have’’; ■ ii. Remove the text ‘‘license,’’; and ■ iii. Remove the comma after the words ‘‘tankerman endorsement’’. ■ ■ § 13.203 [Amended] 115. Amend § 13.203 by removing the word ‘‘present’’ wherever it appears, and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. ■ 116. Revise and republish § 13.205 to read as follows: ■ ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 13.205 Proof of service for tankermanPIC endorsement. Provide evidence in a method prescribed by the Coast Guard of proof of service from the owner, operator, or master of the vessel on which the applicant obtained the service. The evidence must contain the information described in § 13.127(a). § 13.301 ■ [Amended] 117. Amend § 13.301 as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 a. In paragraph (c), remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (c)(3): ■ i. Remove the word ‘‘has’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘have’’; and ■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘license, tankerman endorsement,’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘tankerman endorsement’’. ■ 109. Amend § 13.107 as follows: a. Remove the word ‘‘holds’’ wherever it appears, and add, in its place, the word ‘‘hold’’; ■ b. In paragraph (a), remove the words ‘‘engineer license or engineer’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘engineer officer’’; and ■ c. In paragraph (d), remove the words ‘‘licensed or’’. ■ ■ Jkt 262001 § 13.303 18737 i. Remove the word ‘‘has’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘have’’; and ■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘license, tankerman endorsement,’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘tankerman endorsement’’. ■ § 13.503 [Amended] 123. Amend § 13.503(a) by removing the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. ■ [Amended] 118. Amend § 13.303(a) by removing the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. ■ 119. Revise and republish § 13.305 to read as follows: § 13.505 § 13.305 Proof of service for tankermanPIC (barge). (a) Provide evidence in a method prescribed by the Coast Guard of proof of service from the owner, operator, master, or chief engineer of a tankship or self-propelled tank vessel. The evidence must specify— * * * * * ■ Provide evidence in a method prescribed by the Coast Guard of proof of service from the owner or operator of a terminal; the owner or operator of a tank barge; the owner, operator, or master of a tank vessel; or the employer of shore-based tankermen. The evidence must contain the information required by § 13.127(a), excluding paragraph (a)(4)(vii). § 13.401 [Amended] 120. Amend § 13.401 as follows: a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ wherever it appears, and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (d): ■ i. Remove the word ‘‘has’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘have’’; ■ ii. Remove the word ‘‘license,’’; and ■ iii. Remove the comma after the words ‘‘tankerman endorsement’’. ■ ■ § 13.405 [Amended] 121. Amend § 13.405 by: a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; ■ b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, removing the word ‘‘has’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘have’’; and ■ c. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the words ‘‘him or her’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘them’’. The revision reads as follows: ■ ■ § 13.405 Proof of service for tankermanassistant endorsement. (a) Evidence in a method prescribed by the Coast Guard from the owner, operator, or master of a tankship or selfpropelled tank vessel. The evidence must specify— * * * * * § 13.501 [Amended] 122. Amend § 13.501 as follows: a. In paragraph (c) introductory text, remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (c)(3): ■ ■ PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 [Amended] 124. Revise § 13.505(a) introductory text to read as follows: ■ § 13.505 Proof of service for tankermanengineer endorsement. PART 14—SHIPMENT AND DISCHARGE OF MERCHANT MARINERS 126. The authority citation for part 14 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 103 and 104; 46 U.S.C. 70105. 127. In part 14, revise all references to ‘‘his or her’’ to read ‘‘their’’. ■ § 14.103 [Amended] 127. In § 14.103(c), remove the text ‘‘https://www.uscg.mil/nmc’’ and add, in its place, the text ‘‘https:// www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_ center/’’. ■ 128. Revise and republish § 14.205 to read as follows: ■ § 14.205 Production of credentials by merchant mariner signing shipping articles. On engagement for a voyage upon which shipping articles are required, each merchant mariner must provide to the master or individual in charge of the vessel a merchant mariner credential with endorsements required by law for the service the mariner would perform. § 14.207 [Amended] 129. In § 14.207(a)(1), remove the text ‘‘license, MMD or’’. ■ 130. Revise § 14.307 to read as follows: ■ § 14.307 Entries on certificate of discharge. (a) Each master or individual in charge of a vessel must, for each merchant mariner being discharged from the vessel, prepare a certificate of discharge in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Coast E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18738 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules Guard. The prescribed format may include the current form CG–718A or other means provided by the Coast Guard. If not using the Coast Guard prescribed format, the mariner must be provided with all the same information included on the certificate of discharge. (b) Each mariner being discharged must validate the information on the certificate of discharge by signing it. (c) When the mariner leaves the vessel, the master or individual in charge must give the certificate of discharge to the mariner. § 14.403 [Amended] 131. Amend § 14.403(a)(2) by removing the word ‘‘presented’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provided’’. ■ 132. Amend § 14.405 by: ■ a. In paragraph (c), before the words ‘‘will forward the request’’, adding the text ‘‘OCMI’’; and ■ b. Revising paragraph (d). The revision reads as follows: ■ § 14.405 Procedures. * * * * * (d) If operating conditions change, the owner, charterer, managing operator, master, or individual in charge of the vessel must so advise the Coast Guard OCMI in whose zone the vessel is located. The Coast Guard OCMI will forward pertinent information on how the conditions have changed, along with his or her recommendation, to the Commandant, who will determine whether any exemption should remain granted. § 14.407 [Amended] 133. In § 14.407(a), remove the words ‘‘to the address provided’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘in a manner specified’’. ■ PART 15—MANNING REQUIREMENTS 134. The authority citation for part 15 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 3306, 3703, 8101, 8102, 8103, 8104, 8105, 8301, 8304, 8502, 8503, 8701, 8702, 8901, 8902, 8903, 8904, 8905(b), 8906 and 9102; sec. 617, Pub. L. 111–281, 124 Stat. 2905; and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 135. In part 15, revise the following references wherever they appear: ■ a. ‘‘his or her’’ to read ‘‘their’’; ■ b. ‘‘he or she’’ to read ‘‘they’’; and ■ c. ‘‘him or her’’ to read ‘‘them’’. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 ■ § 15.103 a. In paragraph (b), remove the words ‘‘licenses and’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (h), remove the words ‘‘license or’’. 138. Amend § 15.403 by removing the text ‘‘or MMD’’ wherever it appears. a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear, and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; ■ b. In paragraph (a), remove the words ‘‘license as or a’’; and ■ c. In paragraph (b), remove the word ‘‘is’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘are’’. § 15.404 § 15.810 ■ § 15.403 § 15.410 Credentialed individuals for assistance towing vessels. Every assistance towing vessel must be under the direction and control of an individual holding an MMC authorizing him or her to engage in assistance towing under the provisions of § 11.482 of this subchapter. § 15.515 § 15.520 § 15.605 § 15.610 Jkt 262001 [Amended] 145. Amend § 15.701(b) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ [Amended] 146. In § 15.730(d), remove the word ‘‘presented’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘provided’’. § 15.805 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 [Amended] 144. Amend § 15.610(b) as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ b. Before the text ‘‘MMC for towing vessels’’, remove the words ‘‘license or’’. ■ ■ § 15.105 VerDate Sep<11>2014 [Amended] 143. Amend § 15.605 by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 15.730 [Amended] [Amended] 142. Amend § 15.520 as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear, and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; ■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ‘‘A license or’’ wherever it appears, and add, in their place, the word ‘‘An’’; ■ c. In paragraph (d), remove the text ‘‘a license as master endorsed as OIM, or’’; ■ d. In paragraph (e), remove the text ‘‘a license as master endorsed as OIM or’’; and ■ e. In paragraph (g), remove the words ‘‘license, or an’’. ■ ■ § 15.701 [Amended] 137. Amend § 15.105 as follows: [Amended] 141. In § 15.515(c), remove the words ‘‘license or’’. ■ ■ ■ [Amended] 139. Amend § 15.404 by removing the text ‘‘or MMD’’ wherever it appears. [Amended] ■ 140. Revise and republish § 15.410 by to read as follows: ■ 136. Amend § 15.103(a) by removing the period after the text ‘‘2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE’’. ■ [Amended] ■ ■ [Amended] 147. Amend § 15.805 as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 ■ [Amended] 148. Amend § 15.810 as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; ■ b. In paragraphs (c) and (d)(2), remove the words ‘‘license or’’; ■ c. In paragraph (d)(2)(ii), remove the words ‘‘A license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘An’’; ■ d. In paragraph (e), remove the word ‘‘determines’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘determine’’; and ■ e. In paragraph (g), remove the word ‘‘is’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘are’’. ■ 149. Amend § 15.812 as follows: ■ a. Revise paragraphs (b) and (c), table 1 to § 15.812(e)(1), and table 1 to § 15.812(e)(2); ■ b. In paragraph (f), remove the words ‘‘valid license or’’ wherever they appear and add, in their place, the word ‘‘or’’; and ■ c. In paragraph (f)(1)(i), remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. The revisions read as follows: ■ ■ § 15.812 Pilots * * * * * (b) The following individuals may serve as a pilot on a vessel subject to paragraph (a) of this section, when underway on the navigable waters of the United States that are designated areas: (1) An individual holding a valid MMC officer endorsement as first-class pilot, operating within the restrictions of their credential, may serve as pilot on any vessel to which this section applies. (2) An individual holding a valid MMC officer endorsement as master or mate, employed aboard a vessel within the restrictions of their credential, may serve as pilot on a vessel of not more than 1,600 GRT propelled by machinery, described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) of this section, provided they— (i) Are at least 21 years old; (ii) Are able to show current knowledge of the waters to be navigated, as required in § 11.713 of this subchapter; and (iii) Provide evidence of completing a minimum of four roundtrips over the route to be traversed while in the wheelhouse as watchstander or observer. At least one of the roundtrips E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules must be made during the hours of darkness if the route is to be traversed during darkness. (3) An individual holding a valid MMC officer endorsement as master, mate, or operator employed aboard a vessel within the restrictions of their credential, may serve as pilot on a tank barge or tank barges totaling not more than 10,000 GRT/GT, described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) of this section, provided they— (i) Are at least 21 years old; (ii) Are able to show current knowledge of the waters to be navigated, as required in § 11.713 of this subchapter; (iii) Have a current physical examination in accordance with the provisions of § 11.709 of this subchapter; (iv) Have at least 6 months of service in the deck department on towing vessels engaged in towing operations; and (v) Provide evidence of completing a minimum of 12 roundtrips over the route to be traversed, as an observer or under instruction in the wheelhouse. At least three of the roundtrips must be made during the hours of darkness if the route is to be traversed during darkness. (c) An individual holding a valid MMC officer endorsement as master, mate, or operator, employed aboard a 18739 vessel within the restrictions of their credential, may serve as a pilot for a vessel subject to paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, when underway on the navigable waters of the United States that are not designated areas of pilotage waters, provided they— (1) Are at least 21 years old; (2) Are able to show current knowledge of the waters to be navigated, as required in § 11.713 of this subchapter; and (3) Have a current physical examination in accordance with the provisions of § 11.709 of this subchapter. * * * * * TABLE 1 TO § 15.812(e)(1)—QUICK REFERENCE TABLE FOR FEDERAL PILOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S.-INSPECTED, SELF-PROPELLED VESSELS, NOT SAILING ON REGISTER Designated areas of pilotage waters (routes for which First-Class Pilot’s MMC officer endorsements are issued) Inspected self-propelled vessels greater than 1,600 GRT, authorized by their COI to proceed beyond the Boundary Line, or operating on the Great Lakes. Inspected self-propelled vessels not more than 1,600 GRT, authorized by their COI to proceed beyond the Boundary Line, or operating on the Great Lakes. Inspected self-propelled vessels greater than 1,600 GRT, not authorized by their COI to proceed beyond the Boundary Line (inland route vessels); other than vessels operating on the Great Lakes. Inspected self-propelled vessels not more than 1,600 GRT, not authorized by their COI to proceed beyond the Boundary Line (inland route vessels); other than vessels operating on the Great Lakes. First-Class Pilot ................................................ First-Class Pilot, or Master or Mate may serve as pilot if they—. 1. Are at least 21 years old; ............................ 2. Maintains current knowledge of the waters to be navigated; and 1 3. Have four roundtrips over the route.2 First-Class Pilot ................................................ No pilotage requirement ................................... Non-designated areas of pilotage waters (between the 3-mile line and the start of traditional pilotage routes) Master or Mate may serve as pilot if they— 1. Are at least 21 years old; 2. Have an annual physical exam; and 3. Maintain current knowledge of the waters to be navigated.1 Master or Mate may serve as pilot if they— 1. Are at least 21 years old; and 2. Maintain current knowledge of the waters to be navigated.1 Master or Mate may serve as pilot if they— 1. Are at least 21 years old; 2. Have an annual physical exam; and 3. Maintain current knowledge of the waters to be navigated.1 No pilotage requirement. 1 One 2 If * roundtrip within the past 60 months. the route is to be traversed during darkness, one of the four roundtrips must be made during darkness. * * * * ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 2 TO § 15.812(e)(2)—QUICK REFERENCE TABLE FOR FEDERAL PILOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S.-INSPECTED TANK BARGES, NOT SAILING ON REGISTER Tank Barges greater than 10,000 GRT/GT, authorized by their COI to proceed beyond the Boundary Line, or operating on the Great Lakes. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 Designated areas of pilotage waters (routes for which First-Class Pilot’s MMC officer endorsements are issued) Non-designated areas of pilotage waters (between the 3-mile line and the start of traditional pilotage routes) First-Class Pilot ................................................ Master, Mate, or Master, Mate (Pilot) of towing vessels may serve as pilot if they: 1. Are at least 21 years old; 2. Have an annual physical exam; 2 3. Maintain current knowledge of the waters to be navigated; 1 and 4. Have at least 6 months’ service in the deck department on towing vessels engaged in towing operations. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 18740 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO § 15.812(e)(2)—QUICK REFERENCE TABLE FOR FEDERAL PILOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S.-INSPECTED TANK BARGES, NOT SAILING ON REGISTER—Continued Designated areas of pilotage waters (routes for which First-Class Pilot’s MMC officer endorsements are issued) Tank Barges 10,000 GRT/GT or less, authorized by their COI to proceed beyond the Boundary Line, or operating on the Great Lakes. Tank Barges authorized by their COI for inland routes only (lakes, bays, and sounds/rivers); other than vessels operating on the Great Lakes. First-Class Pilot, or Master, Mate, or Master, Mate (Pilot) of towing vessels may serve as pilot if they: 1. Are at least 21 years old; 2. Have an annual physical exam; 2 3. Maintain current knowledge of the waters to be navigated; 1 4. Have at least 6 months’ service in the deck department on towing vessels engaged in towing operations; and 5. Have 12 roundtrips over the route.3 No pilotage requirement ................................... Non-designated areas of pilotage waters (between the 3-mile line and the start of traditional pilotage routes) No pilotage requirement. 1 One roundtrip within the past 60 months. physical exam does not apply to an individual who will serve as a pilot of a tank barge of less than 1,600 GRT. 3 If the route is to be traversed during darkness, three of the 12 roundtrips must be made during darkness. 2 Annual * * § 15.815 * * § 15.905 * [Amended] 150. Amend § 15.815(c) by removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ § 15.818 [Amended] 151. Amend § 15.818 by removing the words ‘‘is competent’’ and adding, in their place, the words ‘‘are competent’’. ■ § 15.820 [Amended] 152. Amend § 15.820 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the words ‘‘or license’’; ■ b. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the words ‘‘a license or’’; ■ c. In paragraph (b), remove the word ‘‘is’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘are’’; and ■ d. In paragraph (c), remove the words ‘‘license or’’. ■ ■ § 15.825 [Amended] 153. Amend § 15.825 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the words ‘‘license or’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the word ‘‘is’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘are’’. ■ ■ § 15.860 [Amended] ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 15.901 [Amended] 155. Amend § 15.901 as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘individual’s license or’’ wherever they appear and add, in their place, the word ‘‘individual’s’’; and ■ b. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. ■ ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 § 15.915 Jkt 262001 [Amended] 157. Amend § 15.915 as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘licenses and’’ wherever they appear; and ■ b. Remove the words ‘‘license or’’ wherever they appear. ■ ■ § 15.1001 [Amended] 158. In § 15.1001, remove the words ‘‘or license with’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘with an’’. ■ § 15.1103 [Amended] 159. Amend § 15.1103 as follows: a. In paragraph (f), remove the text ‘‘a license, MMD, or’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (g), remove the words ‘‘is competent’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘are competent’’. ■ ■ § 15.1105 154. Amend § 15.860 by removing the text ‘‘MMDs or’’ wherever it appears. ■ [Amended] 156. Amend § 15.905 as follows: a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they appear and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and ■ b. Remove the words ‘‘individual’s license or’’ wherever they appear, and add, in their place, the word ‘‘individual’s’’. ■ ■ [Amended] 160. Amend § 15.1105 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), remove the word ‘‘Knows’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘Know’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ‘‘is familiar’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘are familiar’’. ■ ■ PART 16—CHEMICAL TESTING 161. The authority citation for part 16 is revised to read as follows: ■ PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 7101, 7301, and 7701; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 162. Amend § 16.105 by revising the definition of ‘‘Credential’’ to read as follows: ■ § 16.105 part. Definitions of terms used in this * * * * * Credential is the same as defined in 46 CFR 10.107. * * * * * § 16.201 [Amended] 163. Amend § 16.201 by removing the words ‘‘his or her’’ wherever they appear, and adding, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’. ■ § 16.210 [Amended] 164. Amend § 16.210(b) by removing the word ‘‘he or she has’’ and adding, in their place, the words ‘‘they have’’. ■ 165. Amend § 16.220 by: ■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the text ‘‘a license, COR, MMD, or’’ and adding, in its place, the word ‘‘an’’; ■ b. In paragraph (a)(3) removing the text ‘‘a license or COR’’ and adding, in its place, the text ‘‘an MMC’’; ■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(5); and ■ d. In paragraph (c), removing the words ‘‘he or she provides satisfactory evidence that he or she has’’ and adding, in their place, the words ‘‘they provide satisfactory evidence that they have’’. The revision reads follows: ■ § 16.220 Periodic testing requirements. (a) * * * (5) A reissuance of a credential with a new expiration date. Results of the test E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules must be provided to the Coast Guard in a manner prescribed by the Coast Guard. The test results must be completed and dated not more than 185 days before submission of the application. * * * * * § 16.230 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 ■ § 16.500 [Amended] 18:18 Mar 13, 2024 Dated: February 26, 2024. W.R. Arguin, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy. [FR Doc. 2024–04351 Filed 3–13–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P [Amended] 167. Amend § 16.500 by removing the period after the text ‘‘2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE’’. ■ 166. Amend § 16.230 as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 a. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the word ‘‘license’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘credential’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ‘‘his or her’’ and add, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’. ■ Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 18741 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 51 (Thursday, March 14, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18706-18741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04351]



[[Page 18705]]

Vol. 89

Thursday,

No. 51

March 14, 2024

Part II





 Department of Homeland Security





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





Coast Guard





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





46 CFR Parts 1, 10, 11, et al.





Mariner Credentialing Program Transformation; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 18706]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0834]
RIN 1625-AC86


Mariner Credentialing Program Transformation

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard's Mariner Credentialing Program issues 
merchant mariner credentials and medical certificates, approves 
training courses and programs, and approves other qualifications such 
as a Qualified Assessor and a Designated Examiner. Under this 
rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to allow for the electronic 
submission of information required for credentialing to allow for the 
future implementation of a new information technology system to support 
the mariner credentialing process. The Coast Guard also proposes to 
require the electronic payment of mandatory fees for merchant mariner 
credentials through Pay.Gov, to remove the requirement for prospective 
mariners to take an oath before an authorized official, and to change 
the requirements for the Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariners. 
Finally, the Coast Guard proposes technical amendments to update 
addresses and websites, to remove antiquated terminology, and to amend 
language to use gender-neutral terms.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before May 13, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0834 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further 
instructions on submitting comments.
    Collection of information. Submit comments on the collection of 
information discussed in section VI.D of this preamble both to the 
Coast Guard's online docket and to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) using their website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 
Comments sent to OIRA on the collection of information must reach OMB 
on or before the comment due date listed on their website.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document 
call or email Mr. Charles J. Bright, CG-MMC-1, Coast Guard; telephone 
202-372-1046, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to 
effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material 
received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the 
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the 
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of 
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for 
each suggestion or recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through 
the Federal Decision-Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. To do so, go 
to www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0834 in the search box and click 
``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, 
and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit 
your material by using www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for 
alternate instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this 
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as 
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & 
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will 
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following 
instructions on the www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web 
page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments 
that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post 
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we 
post to www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you 
have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in 
response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records 
notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Public meeting. We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we 
will consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a 
meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register 
notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.

II. Abbreviations

ACH Automated Clearing House
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CBO Congressional Budget Office
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG-MMC Coast Guard Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing
CG-719B Application for Merchant Mariner Credential
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EFT Electronic Funds Transfer
Form CG-718A Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner
FR Federal Register
FRED Federal Reserve Economic Data
GS General Schedule
GSA General Services Administration
ICR Information Collection Request
IT Information Technology
MCP Mariner Credentialing Program
MMC Merchant Mariner Credential
MMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMC National Maritime Center
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPM Office of Personnel Management
RA Regulatory analysis
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
REC Regional Exam Center
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard

III. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis of this proposed rule is title 46 of the United 
States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 7101(b) and 7301(b), which authorize the 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish the 
experience and professional qualifications required for the issuance of 
merchant mariner licenses and documents. The DHS Secretary has 
delegated the rulemaking

[[Page 18707]]

authority under 46 U.S.C. 7101 and 7301 to the Coast Guard through DHS 
Delegation No. 00170.1(II)(92)(e) and (f), Revision No. 01.3. 
Additionally, 14 U.S.C. 102(3) grants the Coast Guard broad authority 
to issue and enforce regulations for the promotion of safety of life 
and property on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States, which includes establishing the experience and professional 
qualifications required for the issuance of credentials.
    The purpose of this proposed rule is to revise title 46 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR), subchapter A, part 1, and subchapter B, 
parts 10-16, to allow for the electronic submission of information to 
the Coast Guard for the issuance of a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) 
and the supporting administrative processes, including requiring the 
payment of mandatory fees through the federal government-recognized 
system, Pay.gov. The Coast Guard also proposes removing the requirement 
for prospective mariners to take an oath before an authorized official 
and changing requirements for the completion and issue of a Certificate 
of Discharge to Merchant Mariner (Form CG-718A). In addition, the Coast 
Guard proposes technical amendments, such as updating addresses and 
websites, removing antiquated terminology, and adopting gender-
inclusive language by replacing gender-specific terms.

IV. Background

    The Coast Guard's Mariner Credentialing Program (MCP) issues MMCs 
and Medical Certificates to applicants who have met the regulatory 
criteria established in 46 CFR subchapter B. This includes the 
evaluation of individual qualifications and medical fitness, 
administering examinations and issuing the MMC. In addition, the MCP 
also conducts supporting processes, such as approving mariner training 
courses and programs; approving course instructors; conducting course 
oversight and auditing; and approving Qualified Assessors (QA) and 
Designated Examiners (DE).\1\ The National Maritime Center (NMC) and 
its field units, called Regional Exam Centers (REC) and Monitoring 
Units (MU), conduct these MCP processes, which have traditionally 
relied on handwritten applications, mailed correspondence, and 
recordkeeping in paper-based files. It was not until the early 1990s 
that the Coast Guard implemented its Merchant Mariner Licensing and 
Documentation (MMLD) database to partially automate the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Qualified Assessor and Designated Examiner are as defined in 
46 CFR 10.107 and 10.405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MMLD is a database used by the NMC to issue MMCs, medical 
certificates and manage mariner information. MMLD is internal to the 
Coast Guard and does not allow for direct interaction with maritime 
stakeholders. Even with the addition of MMLD, all aspects of the MCP 
rely heavily on the paper-based submittal of information. This includes 
the submission of handwritten, paper forms, such as Form CG-719B, 
Application for Merchant Mariner Credential, CG-719K, Application for 
Medical Certificate, and supporting documentation, as well as 
conducting paper-based examinations that are mailed to mariners, or 
administered in person, by the Coast Guard. In recent years, the Coast 
Guard has accepted Adobe Acrobat versions of the paper applications and 
information through emails to improve customer service and efficiency 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this still requires the transfer 
of the mariner's information from emailed documentation by manual entry 
of all information into the MMLD database for reviewing and processing. 
This process is time-consuming, inefficient, and does not provide 
effective customer service. These inefficiencies also make the Coast 
Guard susceptible to fraudulent activities related to accepting 
documents that cannot be validated and may contain falsified 
information or incorrect data. For example, if a mariner submits a 
training course completion or sea service document, it is difficult to 
validate this information against the course provider completed course 
information submitted to the Coast Guard or vessel information such as 
propulsion type or registered tonnage.
    The Coast Guard is working to replace MMLD with a more 
technologically advanced, secure, agile, and user-friendly system that 
would reduce risk and improve customer service to mariners and the 
maritime industry. The anticipated replacement system will be web-
based, allowing for direct virtual interaction between the Coast Guard 
and maritime industry stakeholders. Currently over 50 percent of MMC 
applications submitted are incomplete, resulting in delays to request 
and receive the missing information. The replacement system would aim 
to eliminate these delays and would allow for more efficient 
processing, tracking, and feedback on the status of the credential or 
medical certificate. In addition, system users would be able to 
electronically provide required information directly to the Coast Guard 
for review or approval. These users would include maritime training 
providers, maritime employers, and other entities submitting required 
information on behalf of the mariner, such as course completion data, 
documentation of sea service, or assessments of competency. This would 
increase the ability to validate and protect information and reduce the 
likelihood of fraud from the falsification of such mariner records. As 
the primary source of consolidated data on merchant mariners and their 
qualifications, this would also support national defense requirements 
by allowing for accurate data analysis of merchant mariners needed to 
support contingency operations.
    The future MCP system would enable the electronic submission of 
information for the processing of credentials and other qualifications 
and approvals, as well as reconciling the collection of mandatory fees 
through Pay.gov. Allowing for the electronic submission of certain data 
and requiring electronic payments requires a regulatory update to 46 
CFR part 1 of subchapter A and parts 10-16 of subchapter B. While the 
development and testing of the new system will take time, these 
regulatory changes are required to set the conditions for the 
implementation of the new system's capabilities.
    Mariners must pay mandatory fees for the Coast Guard evaluation of 
an MMC application, administration of an examination, and issuance of 
an MMC. The Coast Guard is not proposing to change the amount of any of 
the mandatory fees. Regulations establish the amount and method for the 
payment of fees; specifically, 46 CFR 10.219(d)(3) allows for payments 
by cash, check, money order, or credit card. Accepting cash, checks, 
and money orders as payments is costly and inefficient, often creating 
issues with fee reconciliation for mariners. Cash must be converted to 
a money order, checks and money orders must be deposited via standard 
mail to the Federal Lockbox, and all deposits must be reconciled. The 
Coast Guard currently does not have an efficient way to track mandatory 
fees, particularly cash and money orders, in MMLD or the Coast Guard 
financial management system. This has led to overpayments and 
underpayments of mandatory fees, delays in processing refunds, and 
delays in issuing mariner credentials when proper fees have not been 
received. There are also no automated mechanisms to identify the need 
for a refund. Instead, a refund usually occurs only after it is 
requested by the individual receiving services. These inefficiencies 
typically delay refunds to individuals.

[[Page 18708]]

    Requiring electronic payment via Pay.gov would allow for more 
efficient processing of mandatory fees, including easier 
reconciliation, refunds, and protection of financial information, and 
would eliminate the burden of Coast Guard personnel handling non-
electronic forms of payment. From 2015 to 2019, most payments of 
mandatory fees affected by this proposal were made electronically 
through Pay.gov.\2\ Cash payments were not accepted during the COVID-19 
pandemic. Only a few cash payments have been received since 2019 and 
this trend is anticipated to continue.\3\ Credit or debit card (or a 
purchased credit card) and check payments, via bank automated clearing 
house (ACH) payments, would still be accepted as a means of payment 
through Pay.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Approximately 80 percent of payments received from 2015-2019 
were through Pay.gov. This increased to over 90 percent during the 
years from 2020-2022.
    \3\ The number of cash payments recorded by the Coast Guard: CY 
2020--31, CY2021--2, and CY2022--19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, this proposal would align Coast Guard regulations with 
U.S. Treasury regulations on the management of federal agency receipts, 
disbursements, and the operation of cash management. Specifically, 31 
CFR part 206 prescribes regulations for promoting efficient, effective 
cash management through improved billing, collection, deposit, and 
payment of funds. These objectives seek to improve funds' availability 
and the efficiency and effectiveness with which funds are transferred. 
Specifically, 31 CFR 206.4 establishes that all funds are to be 
collected and disbursed by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) when cost-
effective, practicable, and consistent with current statutory 
authority. In addition, 31 CFR 206.4(b)(1) specifies that EFT will be 
adopted as the presumed collection method when fees and fines are 
recurring or of large dollar amounts.
    The Coast Guard also proposes to remove the requirement for 
original applicants to take an oath before an authorized official and 
to change the requirements for the completion and submission of Form 
CG-718A. Taking the oath before an authorized official is duplicative 
because the oath is part of Form CG-719B that the original applicant 
must attest to when they provide their signature. Requiring an oath 
before an authorized official or notary, places an undue burden on the 
original applicant who may need to pay for notary services. The 
signature and attestation on Form CG-719B legally binds the original 
applicant to that oath without the additional requirements and 
potential cost.
    Form CG-718A, Certificates of Discharge, and associated processes 
are used to document a mariner's time on a vessel including the 
capacity the mariner sailed (3rd Mate, 2nd Engineer, etc.), date 
joining the vessel, and date leaving the vessel among other 
information. By reviewing and attesting to the information on Form CG-
718A, the vessel master and mariner agree to its correctness. This 
information can be used to verify the mariner's time for salary, sea 
service, and for other purposes. Form CG-718A process is clarified to 
ensure proper information is obtained and provided to the mariner and 
the Coast Guard by the vessel master and shipping company. This updates 
the process from paper and carbon copy forms, allowing for updated 
methods, such as electronic forms, electronic signatures, and improved 
recordkeeping, in the modern-day maritime industry. The information 
required for Form CG-718A would remain the same, but the method of 
obtaining, processing, and retaining the Form would allow for 
electronic processing by the owner, operator, Master, or Chief Engineer 
of the vessel.
    Finally, the Coast Guard proposes technical amendments, such as 
updating addresses and websites, removing antiquated terminology, and 
adopting gender-inclusive language by replacing gender specific terms. 
This would align with other sections of Coast Guard regulations, where 
outdated terminology has been removed or updated when provided the 
opportunity to do so through rulemaking. It would also provide a 
clearer understanding of Coast Guard and governmental requirements.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This rule proposes to allow for the electronic submission of MMC 
applications and supporting documents to the Coast Guard, and to 
require electronic payment of mandatory fees through Pay.gov. This rule 
also proposes to remove the requirement for original MMC applicants to 
take an oath before an authorized official or notary because the Coast 
Guard has determined it is a redundant part of the original MMC 
application process. This rule further proposes to amend the process 
for issuing certificates of discharge for mariners after completing a 
voyage to clarify the procedures and allow for electronic processing 
and recordkeeping. Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to make non-
substantive changes to antiquated terminology and out-of-date website 
and address information to clarify existing regulatory text in the 
affected subparts of the CFR.
    To prepare for the future acquisition of an information technology 
(IT) system to replace the antiquated and inefficient MMLD system used 
by the MCP, this rule proposes to amend 46 CFR subchapter A, part 1, 
and subchapter B, parts 10-16, to allow for electronic submission of 
information, in a manner specified by the Coast Guard, to obtain MMCs, 
medical certificates, and the approval of mariner training courses and 
programs, Qualified Assessors, and Designated Examiners. Providing for 
the electronic submission of required information would streamline the 
credentialing process and would prepare for the fully electronic IT 
system that will be used by the MCP and industry.
    This proposed rule requires electronic payment of mandatory fees 
through Pay.gov. Manual processing of the remaining cash, checks, 
credit cards, or money orders that are still allowed requires 
significant work hours by NMC and REC personnel, is difficult to 
validate and protect using the current system, and does not meet the 
requirements of the U.S. Treasury. Currently, applicants can make 
payments in person at an REC using cash, check, credit card, or money 
order. With this proposed rule, the Coast Guard would no longer 
directly accept payments made using these methods at RECs. Applicants 
who wish to continue to use cash or money orders could obtain a prepaid 
credit card to pay fees using Pay.gov. Applicants who wish to pay via 
personal check can make an ACH payment through Pay.gov. As noted in IV. 
Background, the Coast Guard anticipates the use of cash or money orders 
to continue to decrease, based upon previous payment statistics. This 
also reflects the overall public trend in the United States to make 
payments using a credit card, debit card, or check. The 2019 Federal 
Reserve Payments Study and subsequent updates indicate a continued 
trend to using cards and ACH with the growth rate of core noncash 
payments being 6.7 percent per year from 2015 to 2018, higher than the 
growth rate of 5.1 percent per year from 2012 to 2015.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 2019 Federal Reserve Payments Study, p14, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/2019-payments-study-20191219.pdf.

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

[[Page 18709]]

Credit and debit card usage numbers declined with the onset of the 
COVID-19 pandemic, mostly from the lack of in-person transactions, but 
general growth continued, including the percentage of ACH payments.\5\ 
Electronic payment would reduce the burden on Coast Guard personnel who 
process non-electronic payments (cash, check, money orders) and improve 
customer service to mariners by allowing for better reconciliation and 
more efficient processing of payments and refunds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Developments in Noncash Payments for 2019 and 2020: Findings 
from the Federal Reserve Payments Study, p7, https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/developments-in-noncash-payments-for-2019-and-2020-20211222.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule also proposes changes to 46 CFR 14.307 regarding entries 
on certificates of discharge for mariners after completing a voyage to 
clarify the procedures and allow for electronic processing and 
recordkeeping. The process would be clarified by requiring that each 
master or person in charge must, for each individual mariner being 
discharged from the vessel, prepare a Form CG-718A in accordance with 
the procedures prescribed by the Coast Guard. The prescribed format may 
include the current CG-718A or other means provided by the Coast Guard, 
which would allow for electronic processing if available in a new MCP 
system. If a Master or persons in charge of a vessel do not use a Coast 
Guard-prescribed format, the mariner must be provided with all the same 
information included on Form CG-718A. This ensures the vessel Master or 
operating companies provide the required information to the mariner but 
allows for them to use vessel or company specific means, such as a 
payroll system incorporated in their vessel administrative systems. 
Following each voyage, every mariner being discharged must validate the 
information on Form CG-718A by signing it. The proposed change from 
signing in ``permanent ink'' to ``by signing'' allows for more modern 
methods such as electronic signature or document verification. Finally, 
when the mariner departs the vessel, the Master or individual in charge 
must give Form CG-718A to the mariner, which could be provided 
electronically with the proposed changes. The proposed changes to Form 
CG-718A's process creates a more modern and electronic means of 
processing the document. Under this proposed rule, there would be no 
change to the certificate of discharge transmission process under 46 
CFR 14.311.
    In addition, this proposed rule would remove the requirement to 
take an oath before an authorized official while certifying an 
Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (Form CG-719B). By signing 
the form, an individual attests that they do ``solemnly swear or 
affirm'' to abide by the requirements of the oath. This legally binds a 
mariner, so no additional requirement before an authorized official is 
necessary. The Coast Guard also anticipates that the future MCP system 
will allow for electronic signatures and additional verification of 
identity, negating the need for the requirement to take an oath before 
an authorized official.
    Finally, the Coast Guard proposes technical amendments to 46 CFR 
parts 1 and 10 through 16 as part of this rulemaking. These amendments 
would account for updates to websites and addresses, remove antiquated 
language (such as ``licenses'' and ``Merchant Mariner Document (MMD),'' 
as those credentials are no longer issued by the Coast Guard), and make 
non-substantive changes to ensure gender-neutrality throughout.

VI. Regulatory Analysis

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses 
based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended 
by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. 
Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. A regulatory analysis (RA) 
follows.
    For this regulatory analysis, the term ``applicants'' refers to all 
individuals who pay mandatory fees associated with an MMC application. 
The proposed changes and estimated cost savings for Sec.  10.219(d) 
would affect these applicants. The phrase ``original applicants'' 
refers to individuals who are applying for their first MMC and 
therefore are currently required to take an oath before an authorized 
official. The number of original applicants is a subset of all 
applicants because they must also pay fees. The proposed changes and 
cost savings to Sec.  10.225(c) would affect only original applicants.
    In this rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to update 46 CFR 
subchapter A, part 1, and subchapter B, parts 10 through 16. The 
proposed rule would:
     Require electronic payment of merchant mariner 
credentialing fees in Sec.  10.219(d); \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The proposed rule affects all applicants who apply for MMCs. 
Mandatory fees include evaluation, examination, and issuance fees. 
The Coast Guard data does not differentiate between these fees in 
the data it collects; the data the Coast Guard collected for this 
analysis are for any fees where applicants may pay for any or all of 
them at one time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Remove the requirement for an oath to be administered by 
an official who serves as a notary public (or an authorized official 
who can administer an oath) on Form CG-719B in Sec.  10.225(c);
     Allow for the electronic submission of certain documents 
in Sec. Sec.  1.03-15(h)(2)(i) for appeals involving course approvals 
and merchant mariner personnel issues and 10.219(i) for requests 
involving no-fee MMCs;
     Consolidate, condense, and clarify regulatory text for the 
processing of Form CG-718A in Sec. Sec.  14.307(a), (b), and (c) when a 
mariner completes a voyage; and
     Make non-substantive, editorial changes to current 
regulatory text, such as pronoun changes, address changes, the removal 
of certain terms, and other minor grammatical changes.
    Table 1 presents a summary of the impacts of the proposed rule.

[[Page 18710]]



                 Table 1--Summary of Impacts of the NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                             Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability--46 CFR subchapter A,      --Requires applicants for an
 part 1, and subchapter B, parts 10-16.   MMC to pay evaluation,
                                          examination, and issuance fees
                                          electronically through
                                          Pay.gov; \7\
                                         --Removes requirement for
                                          original applicants to take an
                                          oath before an authorized
                                          official;
                                         --Provides the option of
                                          electronic submission of
                                          additional documents to
                                          support MMC applications and
                                          Coast Guard approvals; and
                                         --Makes editorial changes that
                                          clarify, remove, condense, and
                                          add non-substantive regulatory
                                          text.
Affected Population....................  --Applicants for MMCs; and
                                         --Approximately 36,838
                                          applicants,\8\ annually.
Total Cost Savings of Proposed Rule (7-  Assumption 1 (Cost Savings to
 percent discount rate-all estimates in   applicants of MMCs):
 table, $2021).                           Approximately $2.6 million
                                          over 10-year period of
                                          analysis. Annualized,
                                          approximately $364,945.
                                         Assumption 2 (Cost Savings to
                                          applicants of MMCs):
                                          Approximately $3.0 million
                                          over 10-year period of
                                          analysis. Annualized,
                                          approximately $433,379.
                                         Federal Government Cost
                                          Savings: Approximately
                                          $215,655 over 10-year period
                                          of analysis. Annualized,
                                          approximately $30,704.
                                         Total Cost Savings of Proposed
                                          Rule:
                                         Assumption 1: Approximately
                                          $2.8 million over 10-year
                                          period of analysis.
                                          Annualized, approximately
                                          $395,650.
                                         Assumption 2: Approximately
                                          $3.3 million over 10-year
                                          period of analysis.
                                          Annualized, approximately
                                          $464,084.
Unquantifiable Costs...................  --There are no regulatory
                                          provisions of the proposed
                                          rule that would impose net
                                          costs on individuals,
                                          companies, or the maritime
                                          industry.
                                         --The proposed rule would
                                          remove non-electronic and in-
                                          person payments options for
                                          applicants.
                                         --This proposed rule would
                                          remove requirements in Sec.
                                          10.219(d) and Sec.
                                          10.225(c), which would produce
                                          net cost savings to
                                          applicants.
Unquantifiable Cost Savings............  --Provides cost savings from
                                          the option of electronic
                                          submission of certain
                                          documents in parts 1.03-
                                          15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i).
Unquantifiable Benefits................  --Provides flexibility with
                                          option of electronic
                                          submission of certain
                                          documents;
                                         --Clarifies submission of Form
                                          CG-718A in part 14.307; allows
                                          for additional signature
                                          methods and retention
                                          procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost savings estimates in each assumption include estimates for
  Sec.   10.219(d).

    We discuss the economic impact of these items individually in the 
cost savings section of this RA. We request public comment on the 
numerical estimates and assumptions in the RA for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Readers can access the National Maritime Center's (NMC) 
website and Pay.gov to obtain information about the payment of fees 
at www.dco.uscg.mil/nmc/fees/. The Coast Guard accessed this web 
page in the summer of 2022.
    \8\ For this regulatory analysis, the term ``applicants'' refers 
to all individual applicants who pay mandatory fees. The proposed 
changes and estimated cost savings for Sec.  10.219(d) would affect 
these applicants. The phrase ``original applicants'' refers to 
individuals who apply for their first MMC and therefore are required 
by existing regulation to take an oath before an authorized 
official. The proposed changes and cost savings to Sec.  10.225(c) 
would affect only original applicants. We also assume the affected 
population of applicants has bank accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule would generate cost savings to applicants, 
including original applicants, for two proposed changes in 46 CFR 
10.219(d) and 10.225(c), and for the Federal Government in Sec.  
10.219(d).
    For part 10.219(d), each applicant would save about $13.53 for a 
credit card payment and about $11.82 for a cash payment with this 
proposed rule.
    For part 10.225(c), under Assumption 1, for all applicants, an 
individual applicant would save about $14.95; and under Assumption 2, 
for half of the applicants (6,976), each applicant who goes to a bank 
branch would save about $14.95; for the other half (6,976) of the 
applicants who go to a notary service, half of whom pay by credit card 
(3,488) and half of whom pay by cash (3,488); each applicant who pays 
by credit card would save about $25.37, and by cash, about $24.15.
    First, the proposed changes in Sec.  10.219(d) would require an 
applicant for an MMC to pay the required evaluation, examination, and 
issuance mandatory fees by electronic means through Pay.gov. Currently, 
an applicant can make a payment in person at an REC using cash, check, 
credit card or money order. With this proposed rule, the Coast Guard 
would no longer directly accept payments made using these methods; as a 
result, this proposed rule would remove the payment options made with 
cash, check (in person), credit card (in person), and money order, and 
payments made by standard mail. The cost savings that we estimate for 
Sec.  10.219(d) are for applicants who would no longer expend the time 
to visit an REC to pay the fees by cash, check, credit card, and for 
payments made by check through standard mail. For the purpose of this 
analysis, we analyzed payments made by cash and credit card because 
they represented the majority of payments made in person at RECs. We 
also analyzed check and money order payments made by applicants outside 
of RECs. In addition to cash and credit card payments, applicants can 
also make payments by check and money order in person at an REC. 
However, the Coast Guard does not collect data to show where applicants 
made these payments. For this analysis and based on Coast Guard 
information from RECs, where most applicants pay by cash or credit 
card, we then assumed applicants made check and money order payments by 
standard mail outside of an REC.
    The changes we propose to Sec.  10.219(d) would also generate cost 
savings for the Federal Government for Coast Guard employees who would 
no

[[Page 18711]]

longer expend the time to process in-person payment transactions at 
RECs.
    The cost savings associated with Sec.  10.225(c) would be from the 
removal of the requirement to have an oath administered by a person 
legally qualified to administer an oath, or a notary public, near an 
original applicant's place of residence (in the town or city where an 
original applicant resides) before an original applicant receives an 
MMC.\9\ The Coast Guard does not estimate the Federal Government would 
realize any cost savings associated with this proposed change. The 
remaining changes of the proposed rule would not generate any costs or 
cost savings to the maritime industry, individuals, or the Federal 
Government. Lastly, this proposed rule would not alter any current OMB-
approved Coast Guard information collection request (ICR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A notary public is an individual who has met the 
requirements to provide notary public services to the general public 
in order to verify a person's identity. Currently, in the case of 
Form CG-719B, when an original applicant applies for an MMC either 
at an REC or near an original applicant's place of residence (either 
at a bank or bank branch or where there is a notary service in the 
U.S.), the original applicant must sign the form in the presence of 
a notary public. The notary public must also sign the form; this 
process serves as the oath for the original applicant in accordance 
with the information contained in Form CG-719B. Readers can access 
www.nationalnotary.org to obtain more information about notary 
services in the U.S. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the 
summer of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  10.219(d)
    We estimate the total discounted cost savings for the proposed 
change to Sec.  10.219(d) for applicants who pay mandatory fees at RECs 
(typically by cash or credit card) and for applicants who pay by check 
and money order outside of an REC through standard mail would be 
approximately $1.0 million, rounded, over a 10-year period of analysis, 
using a 7-percent discount rate. The cost savings are associated with 
the time (transaction time) applicants would save from making in-person 
payments to using Pay.gov. We estimate the annualized cost savings for 
applicants who pay in-person at RECs and by cash would be approximately 
$3,439 rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the 
annualized cost savings for applicants who pay in-person at RECs by 
credit card would be approximately $134,735, rounded, using a 7-percent 
discount rate. We estimate the annualized cost savings for applicants 
who pay by check and money order through standard mail would be 
approximately $6,951 rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. Finally, 
we estimate the total annualized cost savings of part 10.219(d) to 
applicants who pay in-person at RECs and by check and money order to be 
approximately $145,125 ($3,439 + $134,735 + $6,951), rounded.
    We estimate the discounted cost savings to the Coast Guard for the 
proposed change to Sec.  10.219(d) would be approximately $215,655 over 
a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. In 
addition, we estimate the annualized cost savings to the Coast Guard 
for this regulatory provision would be approximately $30,704, rounded, 
using a 7-percent discount rate.
Sec.  10.225(c)
    In this regulatory analysis, we make two assumptions associated 
with the proposed removal of the requirement to take an oath before an 
authorized official in Sec.  10.225(c). These assumptions apply to 
applicants who pay the mandatory fees and take an oath at a location 
other than an REC or at their place of residence (for the purpose of 
this regulatory analysis, we refer to individuals who are affected by 
the proposed changes to Sec.  10.225(c) only as ``original 
applicants''). These two assumptions are necessary, because the Coast 
Guard does not have data on whether original applicants obtain an oath 
through a notary public service at a bank near their place of 
residence, which is (Assumption 1), where an individual can obtain an 
oath for an original application along with a notary public signature, 
which we assume to be free of charge; or elsewhere, other than a bank, 
which is (Assumption 2), where there is a cost for the notary public 
service.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Coast Guard collects information on the number of 
payment transactions for original applications and for other 
payments of MMC fees. For the purpose of this analysis, we assumed 
each payment transaction represents one individual or mariner. There 
may be more than one payment transaction for an application, but for 
tractability of this analysis, we assumed a one-to-one ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, if the reader accepts Assumption 1 to be representative 
of the current actions by applicants, then the cost savings the Coast 
Guard estimates for this assumption would be the cost savings of the 
proposed rule, in addition to the cost savings from the proposed change 
to Sec.  10.219(d). If the reader accepts Assumption 2 to be 
representative of the current actions by applicants, then the cost 
savings the Coast Guard estimates for this assumption would be the cost 
savings of the proposed rule, in addition to the cost savings from the 
proposed change to Sec.  10.219(d).
    Other assumptions may be made about the locations or establishments 
where original applicants obtained an oath through a notary public 
service, such as through legal services, at a title application 
company, or other such local business services, but we believe these 
assumptions capture the actions that applicants take when they apply 
for MMCs. The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on these 
two assumptions, and whether a third assumption should be considered 
along with or instead of these two assumptions. Lastly, for the purpose 
of this analysis, the Coast Guard assumes applicants have bank 
accounts. We request comments from the public on the validity of this 
assumption.
    Assumption 1 for Sec.  10.225(c): Our first assumption is that 
original applicants, who are affected by this part of the proposed 
rule, can obtain an oath through a notary public service at a or bank 
branch (which we assume to be free of charge) near where they 
reside.\11\ Under this assumption, we estimate this proposed rule would 
save original applicants (an estimated 13,951 annually, rounded) a 
discounted amount of approximately $1.5 million over a 10-year period 
of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. The cost savings include 
the cost of the travel time for an applicant who would have traveled to 
obtain a notary public, the mileage cost, and the time an applicant 
would have waited at a bank to obtain a notary public. We estimate the 
annualized cost savings for original applicants would be approximately 
$219,820, using a 7-percent discount rate. These figures do not include 
the cost savings for the proposed change to Sec.  10.219(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Coast Guard acknowledges that some banks or bank 
branches may not provide a notary public service free of charge; 
however, we assumed applicants with a bank account at a given bank 
do not incur a cost for a notary public service if they are a member 
of that bank. Readers can access these websites for more information 
on notary public services at banks: https://www.bankofamerica.com/signature-services/notary/, and https://www.citizensbank.com/learning/notary-public-services.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assumption 2 for Sec.  10.225(c): Our second assumption is that 
half of the original applicants can obtain an oath through a notary 
public service at a bank or bank branch near where they reside, which 
we assume to be free of charge. The other half of original applicants 
(an estimated 6,976 annually, rounded) can obtain this service at a 
state office, an establishment that provides notary public services, or 
a similar entity which charges for notary public service. Assumption 2 
considers the cost savings associated with the

[[Page 18712]]

proposed removal of the oath and the notary public service for the 
affected population of all original applicants, or 13,951. Under this 
assumption, we assumed half of the applicants would obtain a notary 
public at a bank, where it is free of charge, and half at an 
establishment other than a bank, where there would be a cost for a 
notary public. The cost savings for half of the original applicants who 
obtain a notary public at a bank would be from the time it would take 
to travel to a bank, the mileage cost, and the time to wait at a bank 
for a notary public. The cost savings for the other half of original 
applicants who obtain a notary elsewhere would be the same as 
applicants that go to a bank with the addition of the cost savings from 
not having to pay for a notary public.
    With this assumption, the Coast Guard estimates the proposed rule 
would save original applicants a discounted amount of approximately 
$2.0 million over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent 
discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings 
for original applicants would be approximately $288,255, using a 7-
percent discount rate. These figures do not include the cost savings 
for the proposed change to Sec.  10.219(d).
    For each assumption, the Coast Guard adds the same cost savings 
estimate for original applicants who would be required to pay the fees 
electronically under the proposed changes to Sec.  10.219(d), or 
$145,125 annualized, rounded. Specifically, for Assumption 1, the Coast 
Guard estimates the total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule 
to applicants would be approximately $2.6 million over a 10-year period 
of analysis, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates 
the total annualized cost savings of the proposed rule under this 
assumption would be approximately $364,945.
    For Assumption 2, the Coast Guard estimates the total discounted 
cost savings of the proposed rule to applicants would be approximately 
$3.0 million over a 10-year period of analysis, using a 7-percent 
discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the total annualized cost 
savings of the proposed rule under this assumption would be 
approximately $433,379.
    In addition, the Coast Guard expects this proposed rule to generate 
benefits in the form of cost savings to MMC applicants. These benefits 
would include:
     A simplified payment transaction through electronic means 
(Pay.gov), saving applicants time and money; and
     Reduced time burden for original applicants who would no 
longer need to obtain an oath before an authorized official, which 
saves time and money.
    This proposed rule would also generate unquantifiable benefits, 
which would include:
     Flexibility for applicants by providing the option to 
electronically submit documents including the no-fee determination of 
eligibility request and the certificate of discharge; unquantifiable 
cost savings for applicants who would choose the option to 
electronically submit certain documents;
     Removal, addition, and clarification of regulatory text 
for Form CG-718A and other non-substantive regulatory text changes.
    Table 2 presents a summary of the estimated impacts of the proposed 
rule.

               Table 2--Summary of Impacts of the NPRM by Affected CFR Part, Subpart, and Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Description of proposed                            Estimated cost or cost
      46 CFR section(s) affected             rule change            Economic impact              savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1--Organization, General Course   Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 and Methods Governing Marine Safety    substantive regulatory
 Functions, Subpart 1.01--              text changes, which
 Organization and General Flow of       includes updated
 Functions: 1.01-15(e).                 website for merchant
                                        mariner credentialing.
Subpart 1.03--Rights of Appeal: 1.03-  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact.     None.
 15(h)(2)(i).                           substantive regulatory   Manner of submission
                                        text changes. Adds       would include option
                                        option of electronic     of electronic
                                        submission for appeals   submission of appeals.
                                        for course approvals.    Unquantifiable benefit
                                                                 of option for
                                                                 electronic submission
                                                                 of appeal, current
                                                                 paper-based appeal
                                                                 process would still be
                                                                 accepted.
Part 10--Merchant Mariner Credential,  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact.     None.
 Subpart A--General: 10.107.            substantive regulatory   Clarifies the
                                        text changes.            definition of
                                                                 ``regional examination
                                                                 center or REC''; adds
                                                                 definitions for
                                                                 ``written,''
                                                                 ``writing,'' and ``in
                                                                 writing.''.
Subpart B--General Requirements for    Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 All Merchant Mariner Credentials:      substantive regulatory
 10.203(b); 10.203(c); 10.205(g);       text changes.
 10.209(a); 10.209(d).
10.209(d)(1); 10.209((d)(2);           Editorial: removes       No estimated cost        None.
 10.209(d)(3).                          regulatory text for      impact for removal of
                                        applicant to retain      photocopy of
                                        photocopy of             credential and
                                        credential and           submission of certain
                                        submission of certain    documents because
                                        documents in paragraph   requirement is still
                                        (d)(2). Other non-       retained in Sec.  Sec.
                                        substantive regulatory     10.227 and 10.231.
                                        text changes in
                                        paragraphs (d)(1) and
                                        (d)(3).
10.209(i)............................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
10.211(f), (i), (j), (k), and (l)....  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
10.213(f)............................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.

[[Page 18713]]

 
10.219(d)............................  Condenses paragraphs     Cost savings in time     Estimated annualized
                                        (d)(1) through (5)       saved for payment        cost savings of
                                        into one paragraph;      transaction for          approximately $145,125
                                        requires payments to     applicants who chose     to applicants; 10-year
                                        be made electronically.  to pay in person at an   discounted cost
                                                                 REC and would now be     savings of
                                                                 required to submit       approximately $1.0
                                                                 payment                  million at 7-percent
                                                                 electronically. Cost     discount rate. Federal
                                                                 savings from mail-in     Government annualized
                                                                 checks. This would       cost savings of
                                                                 remove the in-person     approximately $30,704;
                                                                 option for applicants    10-year discounted
                                                                 who chose to pay in      cost savings of
                                                                 person at an REC.        approximately $215,655
                                                                                          at 7-percent discount
                                                                                          rate.
10.219(i)(1).........................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact;     Unquantifiable cost
                                        substantive regulatory   manner of submission     savings.
                                        text changes. Adds       would include option
                                        option of electronic     for electronic
                                        submission of request    submission.
                                        for determination of a   Unquantifiable benefit
                                        request for a fee        of option for
                                        waiver.                  electronic submission
                                                                 of request for
                                                                 determination of
                                                                 eligibility, current
                                                                 paper-based request
                                                                 would still be
                                                                 accepted.
10.223(c)(iv)(5).....................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
10.225(c) [Please note, the cost       Removes the requirement  Cost savings for         Assumption 1: Estimated
 savings estimates the Coast Guard      for an oath to be        original applicants      annualized cost
 presents for each assumption in this   administered by any      who obtain an oath       savings is
 subpart do not include the estimates   Coast Guard designated   other than through a     approximately
 in Sec.   10.219(d)].                  individual or any        designated Coast Guard   $219,820; 10-year
                                        person legally           individual because it    discounted cost
                                        permitted to             is free of charge at     savings approximately
                                        administer oath in       an REC. Cost savings     $1.5 million at 7-
                                        jurisdiction of          is from original         percent discount rate.
                                        individual's place of    applicants who do not    Assumption 2:
                                        residence. Other minor   need notary public       Estimated annualized
                                        non-substantive          signature on Form CG-    cost savings is
                                        regulatory text          719B.                    between $288,255; 10-
                                        changes.                                          year discounted cost
                                                                                          savings approximately
                                                                                          $2.0 million at 7-
                                                                                          percent discount rate.
10.227(d)(4); 10.227(e)(1)(i);         Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 10.227(e)(1)(iv); 10.227(e)(4) and     substantive regulatory
 (5); 10.227(e)(6)(ii);                 text changes.
 10.227(g)(2)(ii); 10.227(h) and (i).
10.231(c)(5); 10.231(d)(2)...........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
10.232(a); 10.232(a)(4); 10.223(d);    Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 10.223(d)(3); 10.223(d)(6).            substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
10.233(a), (b), and (c)..............  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
10.235(c), (d), (h), and (i).........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
10.239, table 1......................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Subpart C--Medical Certification:      Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 10.302(a).                             substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
10.305(c), (d), and (e); 10.306(e)...  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Subpart D--Training Courses and        Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Programs: 10.404(b)(1)(iv), (v), and   substantive regulatory
 (vii); (c)(1) and (c)(6).              text changes.
10.405(a)(3); (b)(3) and (d);          Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 10.409(e).                             substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Part 11--Requirements for Officer      Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Endorsements, Subpart A--General:      substantive regulatory
 11.101(b); 11.102(a).                  text changes.
Subpart B--General Requirements for    Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Officer Endorsements: 11.201(a),       substantive regulatory
 (c)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (h), (i) and   text changes.
 (k); 11.211(c); 11.217(a).
Subpart C--STCW Officer Endorsements:  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 11.301(g); 11.337(a).                  substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Subpart D--Professional Requirements   Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 for National Deck Officer              substantive regulatory
 Endorsements: 11.401(a), (b), and      text changes.
 (d).
11.402(c)(2) and (3), and (d)........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.404(a)(2) and (b); 11.405(a);       Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 11.406(a)(1) and (2), and (c);         substantive regulatory
 11.407(c) and (d).                     text changes.
11.412(a)(1) and (2), and (b)........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.414(a)(1)(iii)....................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.418(a)(1) and (2), and (b)........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.420(a)............................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.422(b)(4) and (c); 11.424(a)(1)     Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 and (b).                               substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.425(a)(2), (b), and (d)...........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.

[[Page 18714]]

 
11.426(a)(1).........................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.427(a)(2), (b), and (d)...........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.428(b); 11.429(c).................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.433(a)(1) and (3); 11.435(a)(1)     Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 and (2); 11.437(a)(3).                 substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.442(a)(1) and (2); 11.444(a)(2);    Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 11.446(a)(1) and (b).                  substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.450(c) and (d); 11.452(a) and (b);  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 11.454(c) and (d); 11.457(a) and (b).  substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.462(c) and (c)(4)(v) and (vi), and  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 (d)(4)(iv), (v), and (vi).             substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.464(d), (g), and (h)..............  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.465(a), (d), and (e); 11.466(b)...  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.470(b)(1) and (2), (c), (d)(1) and  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 (d)(2), and (d)(2)(i), (e), (f)(2),    substantive regulatory
 (g), (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(2)(i), (i),   text changes.
 (j)(2), and (j)(2)(i), and (k).
11.472(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.474(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii),   Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 (a)(2), and (b).                       substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.480(b), (d), (f), and (h).........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.482(b), (c), and (d)..............  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.491(a)............................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Subpart E--Professional Requirements   Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 for National Engineer Officer          substantive regulatory
 Endorsements: 11.501(c), (d), and      text changes.
 (e).
11.502(b)............................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.503(a), (c)(2), (3), and (4), and   Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 (d).                                   substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.510(a)(2); 11.512(a)(1)...........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.514(a)(1) and (2).................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.542(a)(1) and (2), and (b)........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.544(a)(1) and (2), and (b)........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Subpart F--Credentialing of Radio      Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Officers: 11.603; 11.604.              substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Subpart G--Professional Requirements   Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 for Pilots: 11.701(d); 11.703(d);      substantive regulatory
 11.705(c); 11.707(b); 11.709(b);       text changes.
 11.713(a) and (b).
Subpart H--Registration of Staff       Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Officers and Miscellaneous             substantive regulatory
 Endorsements: 11.805(a) and (b);       text changes.
 11.807(d); 11.821(b)(2).
Subpart I--Subjects of Examinations:   Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 11.903(c)(1).                          substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
11.920 table 2 title.................  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Part 12--Requirements for Rating       Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Endorsements--Subpart A--General:      substantive regulatory
 12.103(a).                             text changes.
Subpart B--General Requirements for    Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Rating Endorsements: 12.201(a)(2).     substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Subpart C--Requirements for National   Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Deck Rating Endorsements: 12.401(a)    substantive regulatory
 and (c)(3); 12.405(a) and (b)(2);      text changes.
 12.407(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(3);
 12.409(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(3).
Subpart E--General Requirements for a  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Qualified Member of the Engine         substantive regulatory
 Department (QMED): 12.501(b)(2) and    text changes.
 (c)(3); 12.505(a); 12.625(a)(1);
 12.627(a)(1).
Subpart G--Entry-Level National        Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Ratings and Miscellaneous Ratings:     substantive regulatory
 12.707; 12.709(a); 12.711(a).          text changes.

[[Page 18715]]

 
Subpart H--Non-Resident Alien Members  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 of the Steward's Department on U.S.    substantive regulatory
 Flag Large Passenger Vessels:          text changes.
 12.809(a) and (b); 12.811(b)(5)(iii)
 and (e).
Part 13--Certification of Tankerman,   Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Subpart A--General: 13.103(a) and      substantive regulatory
 13.107(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and     text changes.
 (f).
13.111(d)(3) and (4); 13.119;          Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 13.120(a), (b), (c), and (d);          substantive regulatory
 13.127(a)(4) and (5).                  text changes.
Subpart B--Requirements for Tankerman- Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 PIC Endorsement: 13.201(c) and         substantive regulatory
 (c)(3).                                text changes.
13.203(a), (b), and (c)(2); 13.205...  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Subpart C--Requirements for Tankerman- Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 PIC (Barge) Endorsement: 13.301(c)     substantive regulatory
 and (c)(3); 13.303(a) and (c)(2);      text changes.
 13.305.
Subpart D--Requirements for Tankerman- Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Assistant Endorsement: 13.401(c),      substantive regulatory
 (d), and (e).                          text changes.
13.405(a), (b), and (b)(2)...........  Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
                                        substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Subpart E--Requirements for Tankerman- Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Engineer Endorsement: 13.501(c) and    substantive regulatory
 (c)(3); 13.503(a); 13.505(a).          text changes.
Part 14--Shipment and Discharge of     Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Merchant Mariners, Subpart A--         substantive regulatory
 General: 14.205; 14.207(a).            text changes.
Subpart C--Discharge of Merchant       Removes regulatory text  No estimated impact.     None.
 Mariners: 14.307(a), (b), and (c).     in paragraph (a),        Removal and
                                        which includes the       consolidation of
                                        number of copies of      information in current
                                        Form CG-718A and other   paragraphs (a), (d),
                                        mariner information.     and (e) into proposed
                                        Removes paragraphs (d)   paragraphs (a), (b),
                                        and (e) and              and (c) is currently
                                        consolidates             required on Form CG-
                                        regulatory text          718A.
                                        changes into
                                        paragraphs (b) and (c).
Subpart D--Oceanographic Research      Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 Vessels: 14.403(a)(1) and (2);         substantive regulatory
 14.405(c) and (d).                     text changes.
Part 16--Chemical Testing, Subpart B-- Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 General: 16.201(c) and (f).            substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
16.210(b); 16.220(a)(1), (3), and      Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 (5), and (c); 16.230(b)(1) and (c).    substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
Subpart E--Management Information      Editorial; non-          No estimated impact....  None.
 System: 16.500(b).                     substantive regulatory
                                        text changes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Population
    The affected population of this proposed rule are applicants for an 
MMC (includes original applications) who pay MMC fees in person at an 
REC or outside of an REC through standard mail. Based on historical 
data from the NMC, the Coast Guard analyzed information on applicants 
who paid mandatory fees electronically through Pay.gov over a 7-year 
period from 2015 to 2021. Based on payment data from the NMC, one 
payment transaction represents one applicant for all transactions. The 
Coast Guard did not include 2022 in the dataset because at the time of 
the writing of this analysis it was not a complete data year. Under 
this assumption, we assumed an applicant makes one trip to an REC and 
pays for all transactions at that time instead of taking time to make 
multiple trips and paying separately for transactions. For applicants 
who paid fees in person at RECs, the Coast Guard used a 5-year data 
period from 2015-2019 because after 2019, in-person transactions became 
very sporadic at RECs due to COVID-19 pandemic protocols and the data 
are not representative of the transactions over this period of time. 
The Coast Guard then established two population groups. For Sec.  
10.225(c) of this proposed rule, the Coast Guard defined the population 
as original applicants who paid mandatory fees by money order, check, 
and through Pay.gov, which gave us the number of applicants who took 
the oath outside of an REC and obtained a notary public service near 
where they reside. This is for individuals who applied for an original 
MMC only. As an annual average, the NMC recorded approximately 13,951 
payment transactions for original applications between 2015 and 2021.
    For Sec.  10.219(d) of this proposed rule, the Coast Guard defined 
part of the population as applicants who paid the fees by cash or 
credit card in person at RECs for original applications, which gave us 
an estimated the number of individuals who likely took the oath at 
RECs, where it is free of charge.\12\ As an annual average, the NMC 
recorded approximately 1,206 in-person payment transactions for 
original applications between 2015 and 2019. For all other fees paid by 
applicants other than original applicants, the NMC recorded an annual 
average of 9,043 in-person payment transactions between 2015 and 2019. 
The Coast Guard estimates the total average annual population of 
applicants, who paid fees in person at

[[Page 18716]]

an REC during this period, to be approximately 10,249 applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Based on NMC data, most applicants paid fees by cash or 
check at RECs; however, a small, unknown number of applicants paid 
by check or money order. The Coast Guard does not maintain data on 
applicants who paid by check or money order at RECs, which may 
result in an underestimation of applicants who paid fees in person 
by these two methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2015 and 2021, the Coast Guard also recorded an annual 
average of approximately 12,638 payments made by applicants who paid by 
check or money order outside of an REC through standard mail. 
Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the total average annual 
population affected by this proposed rule would be approximately 36,838 
(13,951 + 10,249 + 12,638) applicants (see table 3).

            Table 3--Affected Population of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Affected CFR
          Affected group                section          Population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original applicants who paid fees        10.225(c)  13,951.
 electronically and took oath
 outside of an REC for original
 applications (relatively near
 place of residence).
All applicants including a subset        10.219(d)  10,249 (9,958 by
 of original applicants who paid                     credit card and 291
 fees in person at RECs.                             by cash; 1,206 from
                                                     original applicants
                                                     and 9,043 from
                                                     other applicants).
All applicants who paid by check         10.219(d)  12,638.
 or money order through standard
 mail.
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ..............  36,838.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The populations that the Coast Guard presents in this table are
  annual averages.

Cost Savings Analysis
    Two proposed changes in this rule (in 46 CFR 10.219(d) and 
10.225(c)) would result in quantifiable cost savings for MMC 
applicants. The other proposed changes would have no quantifiable 
economic impact on individuals, companies, or businesses, and would not 
result in costs or cost savings to them.
    The proposed option in 46 CFR 1.03-15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i)(1) for 
electronic submission of certain documents that currently must be 
submitted by paper copy (see table 2) would likely have cost savings 
associated with it, but we are not able to quantify these savings in 
this analysis because the Coast Guard does not have data to show how 
many electronic submissions we would receive in the future. 
Additionally, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Coast Guard is not 
able to accurately determine a future trend of the number of documents 
that applicants would choose to submit to the Coast Guard 
electronically.
    In table 2, we presented a summary of the estimated impacts of the 
proposed rule and provided a description of the change for each 
affected CFR section. Where the description reads ``Editorial; non-
substantive regulatory text changes,'' we propose to make changes that 
include the addition, deletion, consolidation, and clarification of 
regulatory text and would not have cost or cost savings associated with 
them. These proposed changes include minor grammatical revisions, such 
as changes to punctuation and pronoun changes; the clarification of 
regulatory text by removal, deletion, or consolidation of terms; 
definitional changes; and changes that update Coast Guard website 
addresses. This includes changes in Sec.  10.209(d)(2), ``General 
Application Procedures,'' where the Coast Guard proposes to remove the 
regulatory text governing the submission of certain documents by 
applicants. There would be no costs or cost savings to individuals that 
would be associated with this proposed change because the Coast Guard 
would still retain this requirement in Sec. Sec.  10.227 and 10.231.
    For Sec.  1.03-15(h)(2)(i), ``General,'' the Coast Guard proposes 
to add the option of electronic submission of an appeal for course 
approvals and merchant mariner personnel to the Coast Guard. There are 
no quantifiable cost or cost savings associated with this proposed 
change because the Coast Guard does not have data on the future use of 
electronic submission for appeals. The Coast Guard would still accept 
the current paper-copy submission method for appeals.
    For Sec.  10.219(i)(1), ``Determination of Eligibility,'' the Coast 
Guard proposes to add the option of electronic submission of an 
eligibility request to the Coast Guard for the items listed in 
10.219(h). There are no quantifiable cost or cost savings associated 
with this proposed change because the Coast Guard does not have data on 
the future use of electronic submission with this item. The Coast Guard 
would still accept the current paper-copy submission method for these 
requests.
    For Sec.  14.307, ``Entries on certificate of discharge,'' the 
information the Coast Guard proposes to remove in current paragraphs 
(d) and (e) is currently contained in form CG-718A, ``Certificate of 
Discharge to Merchant Mariner;'' therefore, there is no cost or cost 
savings associated with this proposed change.\13\ The Coast Guard 
proposes to remove, consolidate, and condense the existing regulatory 
text into paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section. The proposed 
changes to this section do not change the current OMB-approved ICR or 
alter its burden estimates because the Coast Guard is not making any 
changes to the reporting requirements in form CG-718A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This form is part of a currently OMB-approved Coast Guard 
ICR with a control number of 1625-0012. Readers can access NMC's 
website at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/ to 
view this form and obtain information about the application process. 
The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost Savings Analysis for Proposed Changes to Sec.  10.219(d)/
Electronic Payment of Fees
    The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec.  10.219(d) to remove the 
option for applicants to pay merchant mariner credentialing fees in 
person at an REC by cash or credit card (applicants who pay in person 
may also pay by check or money order; because the Coast Guard does not 
collect data on where these payments were made and based on payment 
data from the NMC and subject matter experts who work at the NMC, most 
applicants pay by cash or with a credit card in person) since credit 
card transactions are processed by individual RECs and cash payments 
are not accepted through standard mail. The Coast Guard would instead 
require all payments to be made electronically through the Government's 
payment system at Pay.gov.\14\ For payments made

[[Page 18717]]

by check outside of an REC, applicants mailed the checks to the Coast 
Guard by standard mail. With the proposed rule, the Coast Guard would 
still accept payment by check, but applicants would be required to use 
a bank ACH payment through Pay.gov. Applicants who mailed checks to the 
Coast Guard would save the postage cost with this proposed rule. The 
Coast Guard expects that applicants have access to the requisite 
technology to pay credentialing fees through Pay.gov. According to the 
U.S. Census Bureau's 2021 American Community Survey, approximately 95 
percent of American households have one or more electronic devices such 
as a desktop or laptop computer, a smartphone, or tablet.\15\ This 
included over 90 percent of households that have an internet 
subscription that would facilitate access to Pay.gov.\16\ Even if an 
applicant or household does not have access to a computer at home or 
the internet individually, in this case, the Coast Guard assumes for 
the purpose of this analysis, that an applicant may access a 
smartphone, cellphone, or computer to submit an application to the 
Coast Guard without incurring a cost.\17\ The Coast Guard requests 
comments from the public on the requirement for applicants to pay MMC 
fees solely using Pay.gov, to register with Pay.gov, and their ability 
to access the internet for this purpose. Additionally, with this 
proposed rule, we assume that a small population of applicants affected 
by part 10.219(d) of this proposed rule, who submit applications at 
RECs currently, would choose to continue to visit RECs and would 
continue to print receipts as proof of payment. However, the Coast 
Guard is not able to determine the number of applicants who would 
continue to visit RECs for this purpose. Therefore, there is an 
unquantifiable cost of printing the receipts for a small number of 
applicants who visit RECs to submit their applications. This would 
result in a small, unknown reduction in the total estimated cost 
savings of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard requests comments from 
the public on the number of applicants who choose to visit RECs with 
this proposed rule and their ability to print receipts at home when 
they make fee payments using Pay.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Pay.gov accepts three payment types: credit card, prepaid 
card, and ACH payments. The Coast Guard does not collect data on the 
usage of prepaid cards for applicants who use Pay.gov. The Coast 
Guard also did not estimate a cost (and subsequent cost savings) to 
obtain these cards in this analysis because applicants can obtain 
these cards when they are at grocery stores or other locations 
without making a separate trip to specifically obtain the cards. In 
this analysis, we assume for the unknown number of applicants who 
choose to use a prepaid card to pay fees, already possess the card. 
We request comments from the public on the use of prepaid cards with 
Pay.gov.
    \15\ U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2021, S2801 
Types of Computers and internet Subscriptions: ACS 1-year Estimates 
Subject Tables, Types of Computers, https://data.census.gov/table?q=Computer+and+internet+Use&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S2801.
    \16\ U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2021, S2801 
Types of Computers and internet Subscriptions: ACS 1-year Estimates 
Subject Tables, Types of internet Subscriptions, https://data.census.gov/table?q=Computer+and+internet+Use&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S2801.
    \17\ The Coast Guard acknowledges that there may be a small 
portion of applicants in the affected population who may not own a 
computer or have access to the internet to submit a MMC payment. 
Readers can access these websites for further information on access 
to the internet and the ownership of mobile phones in the United 
States: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ and https://wwww.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants may visit an REC for many reasons; for example, to take 
an examination, to ask questions about the application process, submit 
an application, pay the mandatory fees, obtain an oath from an 
authorized individual, or for other reasons. This is notable in the 
following cost savings analysis, because the Coast Guard does not 
include travel cost savings estimates for the affected applicants in 
our analysis of the impact of the proposed change to Sec.  10.219(d). 
The Coast Guard reasons that, although it is possible for applicants to 
visit RECs exclusively to pay MMC fees, the Coast Guard does not retain 
data on the number of applicants who do so. In practice, the Coast 
Guard assumes applicants do not visit an REC to solely pay the fees. 
Therefore, the Coast Guard cannot attribute travel costs to applicants 
who pay the mandatory fees in person at an REC. For example, applicants 
may visit RECs to ask questions about the application process and may 
decide to pay the fees during the same visit. Or applicants may visit 
RECs to obtain an oath, not realizing that RECs accept in-person 
payment, and may decide to pay the fees during this visit. The Coast 
Guard also assumes that applicants pay the mandatory fees at one time.
    The proposed requirement for applicants to pay MMC fees 
electronically through Pay.gov would eliminate the flexibility to pay 
these fees by cash, and money order, by standard mail, and directly at 
an REC (see footnote number 13). However, with Pay.gov, the Coast Guard 
believes applicants would find this payment method to be more 
convenient and secure because applicants would be able to pay MMCs fees 
from their home instead of traveling to an REC and expending the time 
and money by making a payment in person, as we discuss later in this 
analysis. The Coast Guard acknowledges that there may be a small subset 
of the applicant population that would still prefer to pay MMC fees in 
person instead of through Pay.gov after an effective final rule. The 
Coast Guard requests comments from the public on how the proposed 
removal of the payment options (cash and money orders) and in-person 
payments at RECs affects applicants who currently use these payment 
methods to pay MMC fees.
    The Coast Guard collects data for all payment transactions 
including transactions for original MMC applications. Between 2015 and 
2019, the Coast Guard recorded an annual average of 1,167 credit card 
transactions for original applications made in person by applicants at 
an REC. It also recorded an average annual of 8,791 credit card 
transactions for other fees for a total average annual of 9,958 credit 
card transactions over these 5 years. During the same period, the Coast 
Guard recorded an average annual of 39 cash payment transactions for 
original applications made in person by applicants at an REC. It also 
recorded an average annual of 252 cash transactions for other fees for 
a total average annual of 291 cash transactions for these 5 years. 
Therefore, the total average annual number of transactions made in 
person was approximately 10,249 over the 5-year time period.
    The NMC estimates it takes applicants approximately 5 minutes, or 
0.083 hours (rounded), to complete a payment through Pay.gov. The NMC 
estimates it takes a certain amount of time for applicants to make in-
person application payments at an REC. For applicants who pay by credit 
card, the NMC estimates it takes approximately:
     8 minutes, or approximately 0.13 hours (rounded), to enter 
RECs due to security checks;
     3.5 minutes, or approximately 0.06 hours (rounded) to wait 
in line for a clerk; and
     7.5 minutes, or approximately 0.13 hours (rounded) to make 
the payment and complete the transaction, for a total of approximately 
0.32 hours.
    Therefore, the net amount of time (time difference) applicants 
would save by making payments electronically rather than by credit card 
in person is approximately 0.237 hours (0.32 - 0.083 hours).
    For applicants who pay by cash, the NMC estimates it takes 
approximately:
     8 minutes, or approximately 0.13 hours (rounded) to enter 
RECs due to security checks;
     3.5 minutes, or approximately 0.06 hours (rounded) to wait 
in line for a clerk; and
     6.0 minutes, or approximately 0.10 hours to make the 
payment and complete the transaction, for a total of approximately 0.29 
hours.
    Therefore, the net amount of time applicants would save from making 
payments electronically rather than making cash payments in person is 
approximately 0.207 hours (0.29 - 0.083 hours).

[[Page 18718]]

    The payment time for Pay.gov does not account for the time to 
create a personal account on Pay.gov. Individual payments may be made 
without creating an account. Pay.gov provides the same capabilities to 
pay credentialing and other fees and obtain a receipt without creating 
an account. For this analysis, the Coast Guard assumes individuals will 
not create an account since credentialing fees are typically only paid 
once every five years aligning with the validity of a mariner 
credential. Using Pay.gov infrequently does not necessitate the need to 
create an account. The Coast Guard requests comment on this assumption 
and whether Pay.gov users would create an account to pay credentialing 
fees.
    Anyone meeting the citizenship requirement under 46 CFR 10.221 and 
of an eligible age can apply for an MMC, regardless of their current 
employment status. For this regulatory analysis, the Coast Guard 
assumed applicants for an original MMC are currently employed (this 
would be for original applications where an oath is currently 
required); this allows the Coast Guard to construct a cost savings 
analysis, because we can then obtain applicants' wage rates, the labor 
time, and the cost savings associated with the removal of the in-person 
payment option.
    Additionally, because the Coast Guard does not know the current 
occupations of individuals who apply for an original MMC and pay fees 
in person at an REC, the Coast Guard used the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' (BLS) ``Occupational and Employment Statistics'' database 
and May 2021 wage estimates to obtain the general occupational code 
(BLS code 00-0000) for all civilian workers in the U.S., which is the 
largest occupational category of workers the Coast Guard found at BLS' 
website.\18\ The unloaded mean hourly wage rate for this labor category 
is $28.01. The Coast Guard does not collect employment data on 
applicants; nevertheless, the Coast Guard acknowledges that the 
assumption of employment may lead to an overestimation of cost savings 
for the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The BLS defines civilian workers to be ``private industry 
workers and State and local government workers.'' This includes 
individuals in the private nonfarm economy excluding households and 
the public sector excluding the Federal Government. Readers can view 
BLS' glossary of terms at https://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm. 
Readers can access BLS' website at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes_nat.htm#00-0000 to obtain information about the wages used in 
this analysis. The Coast Guard accessed BLS' web page in the summer 
of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because fees are also paid in person at an REC mostly by applicants 
other than original applicants, the Coast Guard used the BLS 
occupational category, Water Transportation Workers (BLS code 53-5000) 
to obtain the unloaded mean hourly wage rate for all applicants who pay 
fees in person at RECs. The unloaded mean hourly wage rate in 2021 for 
this occupational category is $38.84.
    Because the Coast Guard used different occupational categories, 
this required us to use two load factors to obtain an average load 
factor.
    To obtain a loaded mean hourly wage rate for civilian workers, the 
Coast Guard used BLS' ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation'' 
database to calculate the load factor for this group of workers in the 
U.S. The Coast Guard used the same database to obtain a load factor for 
the occupational category of Water Transportation Workers. The Coast 
Guard then used the average load factor for these two groups of workers 
in the U.S. The Coast Guard applied the load factor to the average 
unloaded mean hourly wage rate using fourth quarter data from 2021 for 
all applicants. The Coast Guard determined the average load factor for 
the two occupational categories to be about 1.47, rounded.\19\ The 
Coast Guard then multiplied this average load factor by the unloaded 
mean hourly wage rate for applicants, who pay fees in person at RECs, 
and obtained a loaded mean hourly wage rate of approximately $57.09, 
rounded ($38.84 x 1.47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A loaded mean hourly wage rate is what a company pays per 
hour to employ a person, not the hourly wage an employee receives. 
The loaded mean hourly wage rate includes the cost of non-wage 
benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). The Coast Guard 
calculated the load factor by accessing BLS' website at https://www.bls.gov/ and selecting the topic ``Subjects'' from the menu on 
this web page. From the categories listed on this page, under the 
category titled ``Data Tools,'' the Coast Guard selected the 
category ``Top Picks, One Screen, Multi-Screen, and Maps.'' On the 
next page titled, ``Databases, Tables, and Calculators by Subject,'' 
the Coast Guard selected used the category ``Pay and Benefits''. 
Under the category, ''Employer Costs for Employee Compensation'', we 
selected the ''Multi-Screen'' feature. This took us to https://www.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cm. At this page, titled, ``Create 
Customized Tables'', or screen 1, the Coast Guard then selected the 
category of ``Civilian Workers''. At screen 2, the Coast Guard first 
selected the category ``Total Compensation,'' then we continued to 
select ``All Workers'' at screens 3, 4, and 5. At screen 6, for 
``Area'' the Coast Guard selected ``United States.'' At screen 7, 
the Coast Guard selected the category ``Cost of Compensation.'' At 
screen 8, the Coast Guard selected the category ``not seasonally 
adjusted.'' At screen 9, the Coast Guard selected the series ID, 
CMU1010000000000D. The Coast Guard used the ``Cost of Compensation'' 
for quarter 4 of 2021, or $40.35. The Coast Guard performed this 
process again to obtain the value for ``Wages and Salaries,'' which 
we selected on screen 2. On screen 9, the Coast Guard selected the 
series ID CMU1020000000000D and obtained a value of $27.83. The 
Coast Guard divided $40.35 by $27.83 and obtained a load factor of 
1.45, rounded. The Coast Guard used the same methodology to obtain 
the load factor for the 5 occupational categories for applicants 
other than original applicants. However, instead of using the 
category of ``Civilian Workers'', the Coast Guard selected ``Private 
Industry Workers'' at screen 1, ``Transportation and Material Moving 
Occupations'' at screen 3, ``All Workers'' at screens 4 and 5, 
``United States'' at screen 6, ``Cost of Compensation'' at screen 7, 
``not seasonally adjusted'' at screen 8, and the series ID at screen 
9, CMU 2010000520000D. The Coast Guard again used the ``Cost of 
Compensation'' for quarter 4 of 2021, or $33.57. The Coast Guard 
then selected ``Wages and Salaries,'' at screen 2. On screen 9, the 
Coast Guard selected the series ID CMU2020000520000D and obtained a 
value of $22.75. The Coast Guard divided $33.57 by $22.75 and 
obtained a load factor of 1.48, rounded. The Coast Guard then used 
the average of these two load factors, which is 1.47, rounded. The 
Coast Guard accessed this BLS' website in June 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants (including original applicants) who currently pay the 
fees by credit card at an REC would be required to pay them 
electronically using Pay.gov under this proposed rule. This would 
affect approximately 9,958 applicants annually. The Coast Guard 
estimates the undiscounted cost for these applicants to be 
approximately $47,186 annually (9,958 x $57.09 x 0.083 hours). The 
Coast Guard estimates the undiscounted baseline cost for applicants who 
currently pay the fees by credit card in person at an REC to be 
approximately $181,921 annually (9,958 x $57.09 x 0.32 hours), rounded. 
Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the undiscounted net cost savings 
to applicants who currently pay the fees in-person by credit card and 
would be required to pay them electronically through Pay.gov to be 
approximately $134,735 annually ($181,921 - $47,186), rounded.
    Similarly, applicants (including original applicants) who currently 
pay the mandatory fees by cash at an REC would be required to pay them 
electronically using Pay.gov under this proposed rule. This would 
affect approximately 291 applicants annually. The Coast Guard estimates 
the undiscounted cost for these applicants to be approximately $1,379 
annually (291 x $57.09 x 0.083 hours). The Coast Guard estimates the 
undiscounted baseline cost for applicants who currently pay the fees by 
cash in person at an REC to be approximately $4,818 annually (291 x 
$57.09 x 0.29 hours), rounded. Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the 
undiscounted net cost savings to applicants who currently pay the fees 
by cash and would need to pay them electronically through Pay.gov to be 
approximately $3,439 annually ($4,818 - $1,379), rounded. The Coast 
Guard estimates the total undiscounted net cost savings to 10,249 
(9,958 by credit card + 291 by cash) applicants who currently pay the 
mandatory fees in-person by credit card and cash and

[[Page 18719]]

would need to pay them electronically through Pay.gov to be 
approximately $138,174 annually ($134,735 by credit card + $3,439 by 
cash), rounded. See table 4.

    Table 4--Summary of Undiscounted Cost Savings for Applicants Who
  Currently Pay in Person at an REC and Would Use Pay.gov With Proposed
                                  Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Credit card
                  Item                         users        Cash users
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Current In-Person Transactions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loaded Wage Rate........................          $57.09          $57.09
Population..............................           9,958             291
Time Estimate...........................            0.32            0.29
Cost Estimate...........................         181,921           4,818
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             If In-Person Transactions Made Through Pay.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage Rate...............................           57.09           57.09
Population..............................           9,958             291
Time Estimate...........................           0.083           0.083
Cost Estimate...........................          43,805           1,280
                                         -------------------------------
    Net Cost Savings....................         134,735           3,438
                                         -------------------------------
        Total Cost Annual Savings.......             $138,174
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    Lastly, the proposed rule would create cost savings for applicants, 
other than original applicants, who paid mandatory fees by check or 
money order in the past and mailed the payment to the Coast Guard 
through standard mail, or USPS. Over the 7-year period from 2015 to 
2021, the Coast Guard recorded an annual average of 12,638 payments 
(10,146 by check and 2,492 by money order) where an applicant used a 
check or money order. Because this regulatory analysis is in 2021 
dollars, the cost of a forever stamp from the USPS in 2021 was 
$0.55.\20\ With this proposed rule, applicants would still be able to 
use a check or money order to make mandatory fee payments with Pay.gov; 
however, payments made by check must be made with an ACH payment and 
for money orders, a prepaid card (see footnote number 15). The Coast 
Guard did not estimate cost savings for applicants who currently mail 
checks or money orders to the Coast Guard and would be required to use 
Pay.gov because we do not estimate that there would be a time 
difference between these two payment methods and Pay.gov. The total 
undiscounted cost for these payment types is approximately $6,951 
annually, rounded. The proposed rule would create cost savings in the 
same amount annually. The Coast Guard estimates the total 10-year 
discounted cost savings for applicants who would no longer be able to 
mail a check or money order (cost savings would be from the cost of a 
forever stamp) to pay for mandatory fees would be approximately 
$48,820, rounded, using a 7 percent discount rate. The Coast Guard 
estimates the annualized cost savings would be approximately $6,951, 
rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Readers can access USPS' website at https://www.usps.com to 
find past postal rates or search online for USPS' ``Postal News''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In table 5, the Coast Guard presents the 10-year discounted cost 
savings to applicants who currently paid the fees in person and would 
be required to pay them electronically under this proposed rule and 
applicants who paid the fees by check or money order and sent their 
payments by standard mail to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard estimates 
the total undiscounted cost savings for the electronic payment of fees 
by applicants would be approximately $145,125 annually, rounded 
($138,174 from in-person payments + $6,951 from mailed checks and money 
orders). The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted 10-year cost 
savings for these applicants would be approximately $1.0 million, 
rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the 
annualized cost savings would be approximately $145,125, rounded, using 
a 7-percent discount rate.

   Table 5--Estimated Cost Savings of Proposed Rule to Applicants Who Would Use Pay.gov (2021 Dollars, 10-Year
                              Period of Analysis, 7- and 3-Percent Discount Rates)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Net cost
                                   savings from    Cost savings     Total cost
              Year                   cash and     from check and  savings to use     7 Percent       3 Percent
                                    credit card     money order       Pay.gov
                                     payments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................        $138,174          $6,951        $145,125        $135,631        $140,898
2...............................         138,174           6,951         145,125         126,758         136,794
3...............................         138,174           6,951         145,125         118,465         132,810
4...............................         138,174           6,951         145,125         110,715         128,942
5...............................         138,174           6,951         145,125         103,472         125,186

[[Page 18720]]

 
6...............................         138,174           6,951         145,125          96,703         121,540
7...............................         138,174           6,951         145,125          90,376         118,000
8...............................         138,174           6,951         145,125          84,464         114,563
9...............................         138,174           6,951         145,125          78,938         111,226
10..............................         138,174           6,951         145,125          73,774         107,987
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,019,296       1,237,944
    Annualized..................  ..............  ..............  ..............         145,125         145,125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Federal Government Cost Savings for Proposed Change to Sec.  10.219(d)
    This proposed rule would create cost savings for the Coast Guard in 
the amount of time that would be saved by REC personnel who would no 
longer process in-person payment transactions. The NMC estimates it 
takes fee clerks at an REC approximately 5 minutes, or 0.083 hours 
(rounded), to process credit card payments. Similarly, the NMC 
estimates it takes mandatory fee clerks approximately 25 minutes, or 
0.42 hours (rounded), to process cash payments. This includes the 
processing time the fee clerk takes to go to a bank and obtain a money 
order in order to complete the payment transaction. There is no 
difference in the time it takes for a fee clerk at an REC to process a 
check mailed to the Coast Guard and the time it would take with this 
proposed rule to process an ACH payment. There is also no difference in 
the time it takes for a fee clerk to process a money mailed to the 
Coast Guard and the time it would take with this proposed rule to 
process a prepaid card used from a money order. Therefore, the Coast 
Guard does not estimate cost savings for the Federal Government from 
not processing checks and money orders mailed to the Coast Guard by 
applicants.
    A fee clerk at an REC has a Federal Government General Schedule 
(GS) grade level of GS-5. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 
lists the hourly pay for Federal Government employees who work in the 
United States.\21\ Because RECs are geographically dispersed across the 
U.S., the Coast Guard used the hourly wage rate for the category ``Rest 
of the United States'' from OPM's pay tables. OPM reports the hourly 
pay for a person with the grade level of a GS-5, step 5 (the midpoint 
of the pay grade) as $19.15 in 2021. The Coast Guard calculated the 
share of total compensation of Federal Government employees to account 
for the non-wage benefits to determine the load factor that the Coast 
Guard applied to the hourly wage rate of employees. In a Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO) report titled ``Comparing the Compensation of 
Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015,'' the CBO reports 
total compensation of Federal Government employees to be approximately 
$64.80, and wages and salaries to be approximately $38.30.\22\ From 
these values, the Coast Guard determined the load factor to be about 
1.69, rounded ($64.80 / $38.30). The Coast Guard then multiplied this 
value by the hourly wage rate of $19.15 to obtain a loaded hourly wage 
rate of $32.36, rounded, for a GS-5, step 5 fee clerk at an REC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Readers can view the General Schedule of salaries for 
Federal Government employees at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/21Tables/html/RUS_h.aspx. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the fall of 
2022.
    \22\ Readers can view the report at, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf. 
The Coast Guard accessed this report in the fall of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard estimates the baseline undiscounted cost for REC 
fee clerks to process credit card transactions to be approximately 
$26,749 annually, rounded ($32.36 x 9,958 credit card transactions 
annually x 0.083 hours). The Coast Guard estimates the baseline 
undiscounted cost for REC payment clerks to process cash transactions 
to be approximately $3,955 annually, rounded ($32.36 x 291 cash 
transactions annually x 0.42 hours). RECs would no longer accept in-
person payments with this proposed rule, these costs combined would 
become cost savings to the Coast Guard of approximately $30,704 
annually, rounded ($26,749 + $3,955). See table 6.

 Table 6--Summary of Estimated Annual Undiscounted Cost Savings to the Coast Guard From Proposed Change to Sec.
                                                    10.219(d)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Estimate of
                    Applicants' payment type                        time saved       Wage rate     Cost savings
                                                                      (hours)                        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Card Payment.............................................           0.083          $32.36         $26,749
Cash Payment....................................................            0.42           32.36           3,955
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Cost Savings...................................  ..............  ..............          30,704
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In table 7, the Coast Guard estimates the total discounted 10-year 
cost savings of this proposed rule to the Coast Guard to be 
approximately $215,655, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The 
Coast Guard estimates the annualized

[[Page 18721]]

cost savings to be approximately $30,704, rounded, using a 7-percent 
discount rate.

 Table 7--Estimated Cost Savings to the Coast Guard From Proposed Change to Sec.   10.219(d) (2021 Dollars, 10-
                            Year Period of Analysis, 7- and 3-Percent Discount Rates)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                 Cost savings      7 Percent       3 Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $30,704         $28,696         $29,810
2...............................................................          30,704          26,818          28,942
3...............................................................          30,704          25,064          28,099
4...............................................................          30,704          23,424          27,280
5...............................................................          30,704          21,892          26,486
6...............................................................          30,704          20,460          25,714
7...............................................................          30,704          19,121          24,965
8...............................................................          30,704          17,870          24,238
9...............................................................          30,704          16,701          23,532
10..............................................................          30,704          15,609          22,847
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................  ..............         215,655         261,914
    Annualized..................................................  ..............          30,704          30,704
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Cost Savings Analysis for Proposed Change to Sec.  10.225(c), Removal 
of the Oath Requirement
    The Coast Guard proposes to remove the current requirement in Sec.  
10.225(c) for applicants for an original MMC to take an oath 
administered by any Coast Guard-designated individual or any person 
legally permitted to administer oaths in the jurisdiction where the 
person taking the oath resides. Typically, if an oath is not 
administered by a designated Coast Guard official, it is administered 
by a notary public.\23\ When an individual applies for an MMC, the 
individual must complete Form CG-719B. They must either submit this 
form by email, in person, or send it by standard mail to an REC.\24\ 
Currently, if applicants use a notary public to administer their oath, 
the notary must sign the form along with the applicant. The signature 
of the applicant is a testament to the validity and accuracy of the 
information the individual is providing to the Coast Guard and is an 
attestation to the statements in Section 4, ``Mariner's Consent/
Certification,'' of the form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ An oath an original applicant must take is a pronouncement 
that an original applicant will abide by the rules and regulations 
aboard a vessel, faithfully execute his or her duties, and obey the 
superior officers of the vessel.
    \24\ This form is part of a currently-approved OMB ICR with a 
control number 1625-0040 and a title of ``Applications for Merchant 
Mariners Credentials and Medical Certificates.'' Readers can access 
NMC's website at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/ 
to view this form and obtain information about the application 
process. The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this proposed rule, original applicants would no longer need 
the signature of the notary public on Form CG-719B. This would not 
change the current OMB-approved ICR (OMB control number 1625-0040) or 
alter its burden estimates, because the signature of the notary public 
on the form is a burden that amounts to a few seconds of time. With the 
proposed rule, an applicant's signature alone would be sufficient for 
Form CG-719B.
    Currently, applicants for an original MMC who submit their 
application in person at an REC can also take the oath there. There is 
no cost to original applicants who take the oath before a designated 
official at an REC and therefore, no cost savings. However, original 
applicants, who do not visit an REC to submit their application, would 
need to seek the service of a notary public elsewhere.
    Original applicants can obtain notary public service at a bank or 
another location where there are notary public services. The Coast 
Guard assumes there is no cost for a notary public service at a bank if 
an individual has a bank account there. Other establishments that 
provide legal services may also provide notary public services, in 
addition to State and local Government offices, including shipping 
companies.\25\ However, these offices and establishments usually charge 
for the public notary service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Coast Guard acknowledges that Credit Unions, similar to 
banks in the U.S., may also offer notary public services, free of 
charge, for its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, as mentioned previously in this RA, the Coast Guard 
presents two assumptions that will each generate different cost savings 
estimates for the proposed change to Sec.  10.225(c). With each 
assumption, the Coast Guard assumes all applicants who apply for an 
original MMC are currently employed:
     Assumption 1--Approximately 13,951 individuals who applied 
for an original MMC and took an oath before a designated official who 
administers the oath, or a notary public at a bank where they have an 
account free of charge. Assumption 2--Half the individuals, or 
approximately 6,976, who applied for an original MMC took an oath along 
with a notary public service at a bank, and half obtained an oath 
elsewhere (perhaps at a state office or an establishment that provides 
legal services including notary public services), where a cost would be 
associated with the notary public service.
    Earlier in this analysis, the Coast Guard established that one 
payment transaction represents one original application with one oath. 
Presumably, original applicants seek a notary public service at a bank, 
where it is free of charge; this is our basis for Assumption 1. 
However, because the Coast Guard does not have data on where original 
applicants obtained an oath along with a notary public service, it is 
possible that a certain number of original applicants obtained an oath 
along with a notary public service outside of a bank; this is our basis 
for Assumption 2. As such, the Coast Guard divided the population 
evenly in Assumption 2.
    With the Coast Guard's assumption that original applicants who 
apply for MMCs are employed, this allows us to estimate the cost 
savings associated with the proposed change to Sec.  10.225(c) as we 
did for the proposed change to Sec.  10.219(d). Because original 
applicants who apply for MMCs are members of the general public and not 
yet mariners, the Coast Guard does not collect data on where these 
original applicants reside. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not

[[Page 18722]]

know where original applicants reside relative to the location of banks 
or bank branches, or other establishments that offer notary public 
services. This required the Coast Guard to estimate the approximate 
distance original applicants would need to travel to get to a bank for 
Assumption 1, so the Coast Guard then would be able to estimate the 
cost savings for them, because they no longer would need to travel to a 
bank to obtain a notary public service. To perform this analysis, the 
Coast Guard required several pieces of information to determine the 
distance original applicants must travel to a bank or bank branch (and 
a notary public service in Assumption 2):
    1. The number of bank branches in the United States;
    2. The total U.S. population and the U.S. adult population; and
    3. The number of square miles of the United States.
    The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank compiles and reports U.S. 
economic data (Federal Reserve Economic Data, or ``FRED''). One of the 
data items it reports is the number of bank branches in the United 
States. FRED shows that there are 30.46 bank branches per 100,000 
adults in the United States.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Readers can access the St. Louis Federal Reserve's ``FRED'' 
website at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/#. At this page, readers 
should use the search feature and type the words ``bank branches'' 
in the search field. The resulting web page will show a graph of the 
data and the value that the Coast Guard used for this analysis. The 
Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer of 2022. With the 
acknowledgement that Credit Unions also offer notary public services 
(see footnote number 15), the Coast Guard did not include them in 
this analysis because the National Credit Union Administration 
(NCUA) reports the total number of Federally-insured Credit Unions 
in its ``Quarterly Credit Union Data Summary 2002 Q2'' in the United 
States (4,853 as of June 30, 2022) and not per a certain population 
or certain group of individuals as FRED reports it. Therefore, the 
Coast Guard cannot simply add the NCUA's number to FRED's number 
because we would be combining incongruent data. Readers can view 
this report at https://www.ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/quarterly-data-summary-2022-Q2.pdf. The Coast Guard accessed this 
website in the summer of 2022. Readers should also note that the 
number of bank branches has been in decline since 2000. See the 
first link to the report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland in 
footnote number 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Census Bureau in the U.S. Department of Commerce reports 
population data for the United States. As of July 1, 2021, the U.S. 
Census Bureau reports the U.S. population to be 331,893,745.\27\ The 
U.S. Census Bureau reports the number of individuals below the age of 
18 to be 22.2 percent of the total U.S. population.\28\ Therefore, the 
number of adults in the United States (individuals who are 18 years of 
age or older) is approximately 258,213,334, rounded ((1-0.222) x 
331,893,745). The Coast Guard divided this population by 100,000 to 
normalize the value to 100,000 (so it can be scaled to and combined 
with FRED's data) and obtained the value of approximately 2,582 
(rounded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For more information U.S. census statistics, readers can 
access the U.S. Census Bureau's website at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221. The Coast Guard accessed this 
web page in the summer of 2022.
    \28\ ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the number of bank branches for every adult in the 
U.S., the Coast Guard multiplied 30.46 (number of bank branches) by 
2,582 to obtain approximately 78,648 (rounded) bank branches.
    Finally, as of 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau's Quick Facts shows the 
number of square miles in the United States to be 3,533,038, 
rounded.\29\ The Coast Guard then divided this value by 78,648 bank 
branches to obtain the number of bank branches per square mile in the 
United States, or approximately one bank branch for every 45 square 
miles, or an area of 6.7 by 6.7 miles. This is equivalent to 
approximately one bank branch every 6.7 miles.\30\ The Coast Guard 
acknowledges that this methodology may not be completely representative 
of the geographic distribution of bank branches in the United States 
(the distribution of bank branches may change in the future considering 
the steady decline in its numbers, particularly since 2010); the 
distance we estimated is an approximation based on the known statistics 
we present in this analysis from different sources. The Coast Guard 
requests comments from the public on this methodology. Table 8 outlines 
the inputs used in these calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ ibid.
    \30\ The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland reports the average 
distance to a bank branch in urban and rural areas of the United 
States to be about 1.5 miles and 4.3 miles, respectively, in 2020 
(an average of about 2.9 miles combined), which is significantly 
less than the distance we calculated in this analysis. Readers can 
view the Cleveland Federal Reserve's report at this link, ``Has Bank 
Consolidation Changed People's Access to a Full-Service Bank 
Branch?'' (clevelandfed.org). In a working paper by the Federal 
Reserve Bank of Chicago, it reports the median distance traveled to 
a bank branch to be 5 miles on page 16 of the paper. Readers can 
view this paper at https://www.chicagofed.org/-/media/publications/working-papers/2023/wp2023-15.pdf?sc_lang=en. The Coast Guard 
accessed these links in July 2023.

 Table 8--Summary of Inputs for the Proposed Change to Sec.   10.225(c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Inputs                               Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of bank branches in the United       30.46 (per 100,000 adults).
 States.
U.S. population...........................  331,893,745.
U.S. adult population (18 or older).......  258,213,334.
Number of square miles in the United        3,533,038.
 States (land area).
Number of bank branches in the United       78,648.
 States.
Number of square miles per bank branch      45.
 (and notary public service).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this analysis, the Coast Guard assumed that 13,951 original 
applicants would travel the same distance of 6.7 miles to obtain a 
notary public service at a bank or bank branch. Using these data and 
assumptions, it is possible to construct a cost savings analysis based 
on the original applicants' travel time to a bank branch to obtain the 
service of a notary public.
    The population of original applicants applying for an MMC who seek 
notary public services outside of an REC is approximately 13,951 
annually (see Table 3). The Coast Guard does not collect data on how 
original applicants travel to a bank or a notary public service and 
acknowledges that original applicants can choose among different modes 
of transportation, including walking or taking public transportation, 
to do so. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the Coast Guard 
assumed original applicants use their personal vehicles to accomplish 
this task, which allows the Coast Guard to estimate the travel cost for 
original applicants.
    To construct this analysis for Assumptions 1 and 2, the Coast Guard 
assumed that 13,951 original applicants would travel approximately 6.7 
miles one way or about 13.4 miles round-trip to an establishment that 
has a notary public service. See table 9.

 Table 9--Summary of Travel Distance for Original Applicants Who Obtain
 the Service of a Notary Public at a Location Other Than an REC (e.g., a
                                  Bank)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Distance         Distance
    Number of original  applicants       traveled  one   traveled  round
                                          way (miles)      trip (miles)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13,951................................             6.7             13.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard shows the cost-saving elements for Assumption 1 and 
2 in table 10. The Coast Guard estimated

[[Page 18723]]

that the 13,951 original applicants affected by the proposed change to 
Sec.  10.225(c) would save the travel time or labor cost for travel 
(the value of travel time savings or VTTS), the mileage cost, and the 
cost of time waiting at a bank or a notary public service.\31\ The 
Coast Guard included these cost savings in both Assumption 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Department of Transportation (DOT) has guidance on VTTS 
for individuals who use different modes of travel in the United 
States. The VTTS is divided into two categories, local and intercity 
travel. See table 1 on page 13 of the memorandum. Within these two 
categories, there are two subcategories, personal and business 
travel, in the first column of the table. Based on SME input from 
the NMC, applicants would most likely obtain an oath on their 
personal time. Therefore, we used the category, local personal 
travel. In the second column of the table, the Coast Guard used the 
category ``surface modes (except high-speed rail)''. Therefore, we 
used the value of 50 percent of the mean hourly wage rate for the 
VTTS. Readers can access DOT's memorandum at https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-valuation-travel-time-economic. At this link, 
to access the memorandum, readers should select the pdf document 
titled, ``2016 Revised Value of Travel Time Guidance.pdf''. The 
Coast Guard accessed this link in July 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Assumption 2, half of these original applicants, or about 
6,976, would also save the cost of the time it takes to complete a 
payment transaction, either by credit card or by cash, at a notary 
public service. The Coast Guard assumed half of these original 
applicants currently pay by credit card and half by cash, for about 
3,488 original applicants choosing each payment method.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges that there is a greater concentration 
of banks and establishments with notary public services in urban and 
metropolitan areas of the United States. Additionally, considering that 
the population density of urban areas is greater than in rural areas, 
it is likely that the population of original applicants is higher in 
urban areas than in rural areas of the United States. Therefore, it is 
likely that a greater proportion of original applicants who apply for 
MMCs reside in urban and metropolitan areas and may travel shorter 
distances to reach these places, which would result in lower cost 
savings than the Coast Guard estimated in this analysis. Nevertheless, 
this analysis represents an analysis of averages because the Coast 
Guard does not know where original applicants who apply for MMCs 
reside. The Coast Guard acknowledges that bank branches (and notary 
public services) are not equally distributed in the United States; the 
travel distance of 6.7 miles we estimated in this analysis is an 
approximate distance to a bank branch or notary public service; the 
travel distance may vary for some applicants who reside in suburban and 
rural areas of the United States.

  Table 10--Applicable Cost-Saving Elements for Assumptions 1 and 2 for
                 the Proposed Change to Sec.   10.225(c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Sec.   10.225(c)    Sec.   10.225(c)
      Cost savings element           Assumption 1        Assumption 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel time.....................  Yes...............  Yes.
Mileage cost savings............  Yes...............  Yes.
Waiting time at bank branch.....  Yes...............  Yes.
Waiting time at notary public     No................  Yes.
 service.
Time for payment transaction at   No................  Yes.
 notary public service.
Cost of notary public service...  No................  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the two main assumptions for the proposed change to 
Sec.  10.225(c) that the Coast Guard presented earlier, we present a 
summary of the other assumptions (some of which we may have presented 
earlier in the analysis), that we included in the analysis for 
Assumptions 1 and 2:
    1. Original applicants for an MMC are currently employed in another 
occupation;
    2. Affected original applicants live approximately 6.7 miles from a 
bank branch or notary public;
    3. Affected original applicants travel an equal distance of 6.7 
miles to a bank branch or a notary public service;
    4. The wait times and payment transaction times at bank branches 
and notary public are the same as wait times at an REC; and
    5. Original applicants use their privately-owned vehicle to travel 
to a bank branch or a notary public service.
Cost Savings Analysis for Assumption 1 for the Proposed Change to Sec.  
10.225(c)
    With Assumption 1, the Coast Guard assumed 13,951 original 
applicants currently obtain a notary public service for the purpose of 
the oath at a bank, where there is no charge for the service if 
original applicants have an account at the bank. Because the Coast 
Guard does not know where original applicants live in proximity to the 
location of bank branches, the Coast Guard assumed all 13,951 original 
applicants travel about 6.7 miles one-way or about 13.4 miles round-
trip to a bank branch. Under this assumption, 13,951 original 
applicants would save the labor travel time or VTTS, the mileage cost, 
and the time waiting at a bank branch to obtain a notary public 
signature on Form CG-719B under this proposed rule.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ For this analysis, the Coast Guard did not account for the 
time it would take an applicant to park at a bank branch or notary 
public service. The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on 
whether we should account for this time in the regulatory analysis, 
in addition to the travel time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To obtain the time it takes to travel this distance, the Coast 
Guard first accessed the Department of Transportation's (DOT) website 
to access the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) 
web page to obtain the mean road speeds on all roads.\33\ The 2015 
report shows the free-flow speed estimates (mph) for three road 
classes: limited access, major arterial, and minor arterial roads/
collector roads. The Coast Guard used the mean speed for the minor 
arterial/collector road class, which may be more representative of 
roads used by applicants. NHTSA estimates the mean speed for minor 
arterial/collector roads to be about 49.73 miles per hour (mph).\34\ 
The Coast Guard then divided the distance of about 6.7 miles (one way) 
by 49.73 mph to obtain the time it takes to travel this distance, or 
approximately 0.13 hours, rounded. The Coast Guard then divided the 
round-trip distance of about 13.4 miles by 49.73 mph to obtain the time 
it takes to travel this distance, or approximately 0.27 hours, rounded. 
The Coast Guard recognizes that an unknown portion of applicants, who 
live in urban areas, may travel at lower speeds than applicants in 
suburban and rural areas of the United States to get to a bank branch 
or notary public service. As a result, travel speeds may be lower than 
the 49.73 mph speed we estimated in this regulatory analysis. The Coast 
Guard requests comments

[[Page 18724]]

from the public on the travel speed, the roads, and travel distance we 
used in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ At DOT's homepage, under the heading ``Explore DOT,'' the 
Coast Guard selected the topic ``Roadways and Bridges.'' At this 
page, under the heading ``Other Associated Agencies,'' the Coast 
Guard selected the NHTSA link. There is no direct link, so in the 
search feature, the Coast Guard typed the words ``traffic survey.'' 
The Coast Guard then selected the link titled ``National Traffic 
Speeds Survey III: 2015 Traffic Tech.'' One result will appear, or a 
pdf version of the report that the Coast Guard used in this 
analysis. Readers can access the report at, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/traffic_tech/812489_tt-national-traffic-speeds-survey-iii-2015.pdf. The Coast Guard accessed this web page 
in the summer of 2022.
    \34\ Readers should view the classification of roadways by DOT's 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to understand the types of 
roadways used in DOT's survey found in footnote number 34. The 2013 
document describes the classification of roadways by the FHWA and is 
titled, ``Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and 
Procedures'', which readers can find at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications/fcauab.pdf. The Coast Guard 
accessed this link in July 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this information, the Coast Guard then calculated the labor 
cost for all original applicants who currently expend the time to 
travel this distance to obtain a notary public service. Earlier, the 
Coast Guard established the loaded mean hourly wage rate for original 
applicants who apply for an MMCs to be approximately $40.61 (recall 
that this labor rate is for original applicants who need to take an 
oath; it is different than the labor rate for the mandatory fee portion 
of this analysis). Using the value of 50 percent for the VTTS for 
personal time (see footnote number 32), the Coast Guard calculated the 
labor cost for the time to travel the 13.4-mile round-trip distance for 
one original applicant to be approximately $5.48 ($40.61 x 0.50 x 0.27 
hours). Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted 
labor travel time cost or VTTS, for 13,951 original applicants would be 
approximately $76,452 annually, rounded (13,951 original applicants x 
$5.48). Next, the Coast Guard calculated the mileage cost for these 
original applicants to travel the round-trip distance. The Coast Guard 
used the General Services Administration's (GSA) reimbursement rates 
for original applicants who use their privately-owned vehicles.\35\ The 
GSA reports the rate per mile to be $0.585. Using the round-trip 
distance of 13.4 miles, the Coast Guard estimates the cost for one 
individual to make this trip to be approximately $7.84, rounded (13.4 
miles x $0.585). The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted 
travel or mileage cost for 13,951 original applicants would be 
approximately $109,376 annually, rounded (13,951 original applicants x 
$7.84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ At GSA's home web page, the Coast Guard used the menu 
feature and selected the category titled, ``Travel.'' At this page, 
the Coast Guard selected the topic titled ``POV Mileage.'' The next 
page shows the results for ``Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) Mileage 
Reimbursement Rates.'' The Coast Guard used the category ``If use of 
privately owned automobile is authorized or no Government-furnished 
automobile is available.'' Readers can access this information at 
https://www.gsa.gov/travel-resources. The Coast Guard accessed this 
web page in the summer of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Coast Guard calculated the waiting time at a bank 
branch for 13,951 original applicants to obtain a notary public 
signature on Form CG-719B. Because the Coast Guard assumed that waiting 
times at RECs would be similar to waiting times at bank branches, we 
used the same waiting time that we used for original applicants who 
wait to pay the fees at an REC, or approximately 3.5 minutes (readers 
should refer to the earlier discussion of this estimate), or 0.06 
hours, rounded. The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost 
for 13,951 original applicants who currently wait at bank branches for 
a notary public service to be approximately $33,993 annually, rounded 
(13,951 x $40.61 x 0.06 hours).
    The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost for 13,951 
original applicants affected by the proposed changes to Sec.  10.225(c) 
and who currently travel to bank branches to obtain a free notary 
public service to be approximately $219,820 annually, rounded ($76,452 
+ $109,376 + $33,993). This estimate is for Assumption 1 of the 
analysis. Therefore, in this proposed rule, the Coast Guard estimates 
the total undiscounted cost savings to these original applicants, who 
would no longer need to obtain notary public service at bank branches, 
would be approximately $219,820 annually, rounded. See table 11.

 Table 11--Summary of Undiscounted Cost-Saving Elements for Assumption 1
        for the Proposed Change to Sec.   10.225(c), 2021 Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Cost savings     Population
          Cost savings element               estimate        affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor Travel Time Cost Savings (VTTS)...         $76,452          13,951
Mileage.................................         109,376          13,951
Waiting Time at Bank Branch.............          33,993          13,951
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Annual Cost Savings...........         219,820  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Readers should not add together the populations in the third
  column. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted cost savings, under 
Assumption 1, over a 10-year period of analysis would be approximately 
$1.5 million, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard 
estimates the annualized cost savings would be approximately $219,820, 
rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. See table 12.

                     Table 12--Summary of Discounted Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule Under Assumption 1 for Sec.   10.225(c) Only
                                       [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Waiting time     Total cost
                          Year                                 VTTS           Mileage     at bank branch      savings        7 Percent       3 Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................         $76,452        $109,376         $33,993        $219,820        $205,440        $213,418
2.......................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993         219,820         192,000         207,202
3.......................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993         219,820         179,439         201,167
4.......................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993         219,820         167,700         195,308
5.......................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993         219,820         156,729         189,619
6.......................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993         219,820         146,476         184,097
7.......................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993         219,820         136,893         178,734
8.......................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993         219,820         127,937         173,528
9.......................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993         219,820         119,568         168,474
10......................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993         219,820         111,746         163,567
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 18725]]

 
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,543,926       1,875,112
    Annualized..........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         219,820         219,820
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Cost Savings Analysis for Assumption 2 for the Proposed Change to Sec.  
10.225(c)
    Because the Coast Guard does not collect data on where original 
applicants obtain a notary public service, with Assumption 2, the Coast 
Guard assumed half of the original applicants who currently apply for 
an MMC obtain a notary public service at a bank branch free of charge 
and half at a notary public, where there is a fee for the service. The 
half of the affected population who currently obtain a notary public 
service at a location other than a bank branch under this assumption 
consists of approximately 6,976 original applicants. As in Assumption 
1, 13,951 original applicants travel the same distance of about 6.7 
miles one-way or about 13.4 miles round-trip to a bank branch or a 
notary public service. For the time and the associated labor cost, it 
does not make a difference if these original applicants travel to a 
notary public service rather than a bank branch; they still incur the 
same labor cost for the travel time as in Assumption 1. The Coast Guard 
estimated earlier this total undiscounted labor cost, or labor travel 
time cost (VTTS), for 13,951 original applicants to be approximately 
$65,151 annually, rounded.
    Similarly, these original applicants incur a mileage cost. As in 
Assumption 1, it does not make a difference if they travel to a notary 
public service rather than a bank branch; they still incur a mileage 
cost. The Coast Guard estimated earlier the total undiscounted travel 
or mileage cost, for 13,951 original applicants, to be approximately 
$109,376 annually, rounded.
    Again, as in Assumption 1, 13,951 original applicants incur the 
cost to wait at a bank branch or a notary public service. The Coast 
Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost for 13,951 original 
applicants who currently wait at bank branches or at a notary public 
service to be approximately $33,993 annually, rounded.
    With Assumption 2, the Coast Guard added the cost for half of the 
original applicants, or about 6,976, who pay for the notary public 
service outside of a bank branch. Similar to the payment of mandatory 
fees presented earlier, the Coast Guard assumed original applicants pay 
for a notary public with either a credit card or cash. For this 
analysis, the Coast Guard assumed half of the original applicants who 
currently pay for a notary public pay by credit card and half by cash. 
For the approximately 3,488 original applicants who currently pay by 
credit card, the Coast Guard used the same time estimate for this 
method of payment as we did for the payment of fees earlier, or 
approximately 0.13 hours (7.5 minutes each). The Coast Guard estimated 
the total undiscounted cost for these original applicants who currently 
pay by credit card would be approximately $18,414 annually, rounded 
(3,488 x $40.61 x 0.13).
    The Coast Guard estimated the time for original applicants who 
currently pay by cash to be approximately 0.10 hours (6.0 minutes 
each). For the approximately 3,488 original applicants who currently 
pay by cash, the Coast Guard estimated the total undiscounted cost 
would be approximately $14,165 annually, rounded (3,488 x $40.61 x 
0.10).
    The last of the five cost elements for Assumption 2 (which would 
become cost-saving elements with this proposed rule) is the cost for 
the notary public service itself. The Coast Guard obtained the cost for 
notary public services in the U.S. from the organization National 
Notary (NationalNotary.org). Readers should refer to footnote 11 for 
more information. This organization provides cost data for 2022 for 
notary public services throughout the United States, including 
Washington, DC and U.S. territories.
    The Coast Guard included fees from all 50 states and Washington, DC 
in this analysis.\36\ Because the organization provides a fee schedule 
for verbal oaths, the Coast Guard used these fees as a proxy for the 
signature of the notary public on Form CG-719B. The fee varies from 
state to state with the lowest amount being $1 and the highest $15. Ten 
states do not have a fee schedule or do not charge a fee altogether; 
nevertheless, the Coast Guard took the statistical average of the fees 
for all 50 states and Washington, DC, for an amount of approximately 
$5.14, rounded. The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost 
for original applicants in this assumption who pay for a notary public 
service to be approximately $35,855 annually, rounded (6,976 x $5.14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ National Notary also includes fees for U.S. territories, 
with the highest amount being $20. The Coast Guard did not include 
the fees for U.S. territories in this analysis, because we have 
sufficient national data for this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost for original 
applicants in Assumption 2 for the proposed changes to Sec.  10.225(c) 
in this proposed rule to be approximately $288,255 annually, rounded 
($76,452 + $109,376 + $33,993 + $18,414 + $14,165 + $35,855). 
Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the total undiscounted cost 
savings to original applicants who would no longer need to obtain a 
notary public service at bank branches or notary public services to be 
approximately $288,255 annually, rounded. See table 13.

     Table 13--Summary of Undiscounted Cost-Saving Elements for Assumption 2 for the Proposed Change to Sec.
                                             10.225(c), 2021 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Cost-savings
          Cost-savings element                    Unit inputs             Population affected        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor Rate of Applicants................  $40.61....................  13,951....................  ..............

[[Page 18726]]

 
Labor Travel Time (VTTS)................  0.27 hours................  13,951....................         $76,452
Mileage Rate............................  $0.58 per mile............  13,951....................         109,376
Waiting Time at Bank Branch and Notary    0.06 hours................  13,951....................          33,993
 Service.
Payment by Credit Card..................  0.13 hours................  3,488 of 6,976............          18,414
Payment by Cash.........................  0.10 hours................  3,488 of 6,976............          14,165
Avg. Notary Fee.........................  $5.14.....................  6,976 of 13,951...........          35,855
                                                                                                 ---------------
    Total Annual Cost Savings...........  ..........................  ..........................         288,255
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Readers should not add together the populations in the third column of the table. The individual
  population for each item less than 13,951 is a subset of the total affected population of 13,951. Readers
  should use the estimated loaded labor rate of $40.61 to obtain the cost savings estimate in the last column of
  the table, except for the notary fee. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted cost savings under 
Assumption 2 over a 10-year period of analysis to be approximately 
$2.02 million, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast 
Guard estimated the annualized cost savings to be approximately 
$288,255, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. See table 14.

                                         Table 14--Summary of Discounted Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule Under Assumption 2 for Sec.   10.225(c) Only
                                                           [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Waiting time
                                                                                                  at bank branch    Time to pay
                              Year                                     VTTS           Mileage        or notary    notary by cash    Notary cost    Cost savings      7 Percent       3 Percent
                                                                                                      service     or credit card
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $76,452        $109,376         $33,993         $32,579         $35,855        $288,255        $269,397        $279,859
2...............................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993          32,579          35,855         288,255         251,773         271,707
3...............................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993          32,579          35,855         288,255         235,302         263,794
4...............................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993          32,579          35,855         288,255         219,908         256,110
5...............................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993          32,579          35,855         288,255         205,521         248,651
6...............................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993          32,579          35,855         288,255         192,076         241,409
7...............................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993          32,579          35,855         288,255         179,510         234,377
8...............................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993          32,579          35,855         288,255         167,767         227,551
9...............................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993          32,579          35,855         288,255         156,791         220,923
10..............................................................          76,452         109,376          33,993          32,579          35,855         288,255         146,534         214,488
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,024,579       2,458,869
    Annualized..................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         288,255         288,255
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    As noted earlier, the cost savings that the Coast Guard estimated 
for Assumptions 1 and 2 for the proposed change to Sec.  10.225(c) do 
not include the cost savings from the proposed change to Sec.  
10.219(d). However, in table 1 of this RA, where we present the total 
cost savings estimates of the proposed rule, the Coast Guard included 
the cost savings estimates for the proposed change to Sec.  10.219(d), 
because the Coast Guard must add the cost savings from Sec.  10.225(c) 
to the cost savings estimate for Sec.  10.219(d). Also recall that only 
one of the two main assumptions of this analysis would hold. The Coast 
Guard presented two different scenarios, because we do not know where 
affected original applicants currently obtain a notary public service.
    For Assumption 1 and including the cost savings estimates from the 
proposed change to Sec.  10.219(d), the Coast Guard estimates the total 
undiscounted cost savings of the proposed rule to be approximately 
$364,945 annually, rounded ($219,820 from Assumption 1 and Sec.  
10.225(c) + $145,125 from Sec.  10.219(d)). The Coast Guard estimated 
the 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule to be 
approximately $2.6 million, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. 
The Coast Guard estimated the annualized cost savings to be 
approximately $364,945, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. See 
table 15.

    Table 15--Summary of Total Discounted Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule Under Assumption 1 (Includes Cost
                                Savings From Sec.  Sec.   10.225(c) and 10.219(d)
                   [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Sec.            Sec.         Total cost
              Year                10.225(c) Cost  10.219(d) Cost     savings--       7 Percent       3 Percent
                                      savings         savings      Assumption 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................        $219,820        $145,125        $364,945        $341,070        $354,316
2...............................         219,820         145,125         364,945         318,757         343,996
3...............................         219,820         145,125         364,945         297,904         333,977

[[Page 18727]]

 
4...............................         219,820         145,125         364,945         278,415         324,249
5...............................         219,820         145,125         364,945         260,201         314,805
6...............................         219,820         145,125         364,945         243,178         305,636
7...............................         219,820         145,125         364,945         227,270         296,734
8...............................         219,820         145,125         364,945         212,401         288,091
9...............................         219,820         145,125         364,945         198,506         279,700
10..............................         219,820         145,125         364,945         185,520         271,553
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,563,222       3,113,056
    Annualized..................  ..............  ..............  ..............         364,945         364,945
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    Readers should compare the total cost savings estimate and 
annualized cost savings estimate for the proposed rule in table 15 with 
the total cost savings estimate of the proposed rule for Assumption 1 
in table 1.
    For Assumption 2 and including the cost savings estimates from the 
proposed change to Sec.  10.219(d), the Coast Guard estimates the total 
undiscounted cost savings of the proposed rule to be approximately 
$433,379 annually, rounded ($288,255 from Assumption 2 and Sec.  
10.225(c) + $145,125 from Sec.  10.219(d)). The Coast Guard estimates 
the 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed rule for 
Assumption 2 to be approximately $3.0 million, rounded, using a 7-
percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost 
savings to be approximately $433,379, rounded, using a 7-percent 
discount rate. See table 16.

    Table 16--Summary of Total Discounted Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule Under Assumption 2 (Includes Cost
                                Savings From Sec.  Sec.   10.225(c) and 10.219(d)
                   [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Sec.            Sec.         Total cost
              Year                10.225(c) Cost  10.219(d) Cost     savings--       7 Percent       3 Percent
                                      savings         savings      Assumption 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................        $288,255        $145,125        $433,379        $405,027        $420,757
2...............................         288,255         145,125         433,379         378,530         408,502
3...............................         288,255         145,125         433,379         353,767         396,603
4...............................         288,255         145,125         433,379         330,623         385,052
5...............................         288,255         145,125         433,379         308,993         373,837
6...............................         288,255         145,125         433,379         288,779         362,948
7...............................         288,255         145,125         433,379         269,887         352,377
8...............................         288,255         145,125         433,379         252,231         342,114
9...............................         288,255         145,125         433,379         235,730         332,149
10..............................         288,255         145,125         433,379         220,308         322,475
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,043,875       3,696,814
    Annualized..................  ..............  ..............  ..............         433,379         433,379
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    Readers should compare the total cost savings estimate and 
annualized cost savings estimate for the proposed rule in table 16 with 
the total cost savings estimate of the proposed rule for Assumption 2 
in table 1.
    Including Federal Government cost savings, the Coast Guard 
estimates the 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed 
rule under Assumption 1 to be about $2.8 million ($2,563,222 from table 
15 and $215,564 from table 7), rounded, using a 7-percent discount 
rate. We estimate the annualized cost savings to be approximately 
$395,650, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate ($364,945 from table 
15 + $30,704 from table 7). See table 17.
    Including Federal Government cost savings, the Coast Guard 
estimates the 10-year total discounted cost savings of the proposed 
rule under Assumption 2 to be about $3.3 million ($3,043,875 from table 
16 and $215,564 from table 7), rounded, using a 7-percent discount 
rate. We estimate the annualized cost savings to be approximately 
$464,084, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate ($433,379 from table 
16 + $30,704 from table 7). See table 17.

[[Page 18728]]



 Table 17--Total Discounted Annualized Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule
   [2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7-percent discount rate]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Sec.   10.225(c) Cost Savings
                                         -------------------------------
                                           Assumption 1    Assumption 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   10.219(d) Cost Savings...........        $219,820        $288,255
Sec.   10.219(d)--Applicants............         145,125         145,125
Sec.   10.219(d)--Federal Government....          30,704          30,704
                                         -------------------------------
    Total cost savings under each                395,650         464,084
     Assumption (annualized)............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Readers should add together the cost savings in each of the two
  columns separately under the individual Assumptions to obtain the
  total cost savings. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Unquantifiable Benefits of the Proposed Rule
    This proposed rule would create unquantifiable benefits for MMC 
applicants. This includes the flexibility to submit documents 
electronically contained in the proposed changes to Sec. Sec.  1.03-
15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i)(1). Because this would be an option in the 
future, the Coast Guard does not have data at this point to estimate 
the cost savings that would be associated with the electronic 
submission of documents, if applicants were to choose this option.
    The use of Pay.gov would provide a benefit to applicants because it 
is a free and secure service that allows applicants to make payments to 
most Federal Government agencies. Pay.gov uses the latest industry-
standard payment methods and encryption technology to safely collect, 
store, transmit, and protect applicants' personal information 
throughout the payment process. Applicants can access and make payments 
through Pay.gov 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and every day of the 
year, including holidays.
    In table 2 the Coast Guard lists the unquantifiable benefit where 
the proposed regulatory text changes would be more than minor 
grammatical changes.
Analysis of Alternatives
    (1). Industry would continue to meet the current requirements in 
subchapter A, part 1 and subchapter B, parts 10-16 of title 46 of the 
CFR (current baseline without regulatory action).
    This alternative represents the current state of the MCP with no 
updates to 46 CFR subchapter A, part 1 and subchapter B, parts 10-16. 
The Coast Guard rejected this alternative, because it would not require 
that applicants pay mandatory fees electronically through Pay.gov. This 
alternative would maintain all the current, estimated, undiscounted 
costs between $219,820 and $288,255 annually, rounded (see the 
estimated costs under Assumptions 1 and 2, respectively, in the 
preferred alternative). The Coast Guard would also continue to request 
applicants provide receipt of payment when using Pay.gov (e.g., attach 
receipt to applications and provide receipt for MCP services) although 
this is not required. Applicants would still have the option of paying 
mandatory fees in person at an REC through cash, check, credit card and 
money order. Although in-person payments would remain an option, these 
applicants would not realize potential cost savings by using Pay.gov. 
In-person and standard mail payments made by applicants maintains the 
options that currently exist, which some applicants may find more 
convenient (for in-person payments, perhaps as a customer service 
benefit) over payments by electronic means. We request comments from 
the public on the benefit of the Coast Guard maintaining these payment 
options for applicants. This alternative would also not result in time 
and cost savings to original applicants, who would still be required to 
take an oath before an authorized individual. Additionally, this 
alternative would not clarify existing regulatory text.
    (2) The Coast Guard would update regulatory requirements to align 
with a new MCP IT system and update mandatory fees with an incentive 
for electronic payment.
    With this alternative, the Coast Guard would replace the current 
MMLD database and would propose changes to 46 CFR parts 10 through 14 
and 16 to increase electronic submission of documents to support the 
credentialing process. With this alternative, the Coast Guard would 
provide an incentive to applicants to electronically pay mandatory fees 
through Pay.gov. It would be beneficial to applicants, who would save 
time and money; however, the Coast Guard is unable to estimate a cost 
savings for this item under this alternative, because it would require 
a lengthy analysis of the Coast Guard's mandatory fee program.
    The Coast Guard rejected this alternative, because the update would 
require additional regulatory action to allow for future changes in the 
system, and any changes to mandatory fees would require further study 
and analysis by the Coast Guard and would require the use of limited 
additional time and resources.
    (3) The Coast Guard would update regulatory requirements to align 
with a new MCP IT system and require electronic payment, but would not 
address mandatory fees.
    With this alternative, the Coast Guard would not propose to update 
the mandatory fees together with the requirement for the electronic 
payment of fees by individuals through a new MCP IT system. However, 
the Coast Guard kept the proposed requirement under the preferred 
alternative (proposed rule) for the electronic payment of fees by 
applicants saving them approximately $145,125 annually, rounded (see 
the analysis for the preferred alternative for the derivation of this 
estimate), because it would not be connected to a new MCP IT system.
    The Coast Guard rejected this alternative, because the new system 
is at the beginning stages of development, and, as a result, the Coast 
Guard is unable to estimate the economic impact of this new system on 
applicants and companies. Therefore, the Coast Guard cannot accurately 
determine any adjustments to mandatory fees based on the new system 
capabilities, potential costs to support the system, or cost savings 
generated from the system.
    (4) Preferred Alternative--Update 46 CFR subchapter A, part 1 and 
subchapter B, parts 10-16 to update regulatory requirements to align 
with a new MCP IT system, require the electronic payment of fees and 
the option of electronic submission of supporting documents for an MMC 
application, remove the requirement for an oath to be administered by 
an authorized individual, and make

[[Page 18729]]

editorial and non-substantive changes that clarify existing regulatory 
text.
    This is the preferred alternative because applicants would be 
required to pay mandatory fees electronically using Pay.gov, and the 
Coast Guard would create an option for electronic submission of 
documents to the Coast Guard. This would save MMC applicants time and 
money because they would no longer be paying these mandatory fees in 
person at an REC. However, this preferred option would remove the 
flexibility for applicants who wish to continue to pay the mandatory 
fees in person. We analyzed the time and cost difference between the 
different payment methods and the proposed requirement to use Pay.gov 
previously in this regulatory analysis.
    This alternative also aligns with Department of the Treasury 
regulations for promoting efficient, effective cash management through 
improved billing, collection, deposit, and payment of funds. The Coast 
Guard also proposes to remove the requirement for an oath to be taken 
by original applicants when they submit their MMC application. This 
would also save time and money for original applicants who would no 
longer need to travel to a bank or a bank branch or a notary public 
service to have the oath administered. Lastly, the Coast Guard proposes 
to make numerous editorial changes to the affected CFR subchapters that 
would clarify existing regulatory text. The Coast Guard analyzed and 
presented the cost savings and other unquantifiable benefits associated 
with this alternative earlier in this RA.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we 
have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term 
``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit 
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not 
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations of less than 50,000.
    Based on the analysis in section A, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
we found this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most 
provisions of this proposed rule would affect individuals who apply for 
an MMC and would not directly regulate small entities. These include 
provisions that would require electronic payment of merchant mariner 
credentialing fees in Sec.  10.219(d), remove the requirement for an 
oath to be administered by an authorized official on Form CG-719B in 
Sec.  10.225(c), and allow for the electronic submission of certain 
documents in Sec.  1.03-15(h)(2)(i) for appeals involving course 
approvals and merchant mariner personnel issues and in Sec.  10.219(i) 
for requests involving no-fee MMCs. Since individual members of the 
public that are applying for MMCs are not considered to be small 
entities under the RFA, we have found that no small entities are 
impacted by these provisions of the proposed rule.
    One substantive change of this proposed rule would allow for 
electronic signature on Form CG-718A in Sec. Sec.  14.307(a), (b), and 
(c) when a mariner completes a voyage. However, the Coast Guard is not 
changing the previously accepted method of a standard signature by pen 
and ink. Therefore, the owner or operator of a vessel and mariner may 
continue to choose this signature method, but a part of the population 
may also choose the option of an electronic signature. The Coast Guard 
estimates that these two methods take nearly the same amount of time 
and would not result in measurable cost savings either to the owner or 
operator of a vessel, who may be a small entity, or to the mariner if 
they choose the electronic signature method. The Coast Guard requests 
comments from the public on this assumption and if there is a time 
difference between a standard signature and an electronic signature.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that 
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because based on our analysis, 
most of provisions of the proposed rule would affect applicants and not 
directly regulate or affect small entities. We determined that the time 
difference between the standard signature method and the option of the 
electronic signature method in Sec. Sec.  14.307(a), (b), and (c), for 
those who choose this method, to be nearly the same and would not 
result in any measurable cost savings to vessel owners or operators, 
who may be small entities, and mariners.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

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

D. Collection of Information

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
the U.S. Coast Guard to consider the impact of paperwork and other 
information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 
1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not 
collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an 
information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid 
OMB control number.
    The Coast Guard has determined that the proposed rule would not 
result in a new collection nor modify an existing collection of 
information. Thus, this proposed rule would not change the burden in 
the collections currently approved by OMB under OMB Control Numbers 
1625-0012 with a title of ``Certificate of Discharge to Merchant 
Mariners'' and 1625-0040 with a title of ``Applications for Merchant 
Mariners Credentials and Medical Certificates.''

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental 
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in 
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled 
that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 
8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, 
equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as 
the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress

[[Page 18730]]

intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's 
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the 
States. See the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Locke and 
Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). Because this 
proposed rule involves the credentialing of merchant marine officers 
under 46 U.S.C. 7101, it relates to personnel qualifications for 
vessels subject to a pervasive scheme of federal regulation, and is 
therefore foreclosed from regulation by the States. Therefore, because 
the States may not regulate within these categories, this rule is 
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption 
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a 
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that 
State and local governments may have in making regulatory 
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications 
and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs 
agencies to consult with State and local governments during the 
rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule would have 
implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or 
email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 
of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would 
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 
(Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights).

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 
(Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a 
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, and is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a 
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides 
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards 
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test 
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) 
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
    If you are aware of voluntary consensus standards that might apply, 
please identify them by sending a comment to the docket using one of 
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your 
comment, please explain why you think the standards might apply.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing 
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made 
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of 
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental 
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. 
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of 
this preamble. This proposed rule would be categorically excluded under 
paragraphs L54 and L56 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations that are 
editorial or procedural. Paragraph L56 pertains to regulations 
concerning the training, qualifying, licensing, and disciplining of 
maritime personnel.
    This proposed rule involves regulatory changes that are needed for 
implementation of a new information technology system that would 
replace the current MMLD database used by the Coast Guard to process 
mariner credentials. This new system features an electronic platform 
for activities such as mariners providing documents for applying for or 
maintaining mariner credentials, or submitting associated fees. In 
addition, the rule includes technical amendments, such as updates, to 
addresses and websites necessary for accessing or using MMLD. We seek 
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a 
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions 
(Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 10

    Penalties, Personally identifiable information, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

[[Page 18731]]

46 CFR Part 11

    Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, 
Seamen.

46 CFR Part 12

    Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 13

    Cargo vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 14

    Oceanographic research vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 15

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 16

    Drug testing, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Safety, Transportation.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is 
proposing to amend 46 CFR parts 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 as 
follows:

Title 46--Shipping

PART 1--ORGANIZATION, GENERAL COURSE AND METHODS GOVERNING MARINE 
SAFETY FUNCTION

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

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 14 U.S.C. 503; 46 U.S.C. 7701; 46 
U.S.C. Chapter 93; Secs. 101, 888, and 1512, Pub. L. 107-296, 116 
Stat. 2135; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3; Sec.  
1.01-35 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507; and Sec.  
1.03-55 also issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306(j).

0
2. Amend Sec.  1.01-15 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.01-15  Organization; Districts; National Maritime Center.

* * * * *
    (e) Applicants for merchant mariner credentials may apply to the 
Coast Guard National Maritime Center or any of the NMC detachments. 
Applicants may contact the National Maritime Center at 100 Forbes 
Drive, Martinsburg, West Virginia 25404, by telephone at 1-888-I-ASK-
NMC (1-888-427-5662), by email at [email protected], or online chat at 
website https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/. A list of 
NMC detachment locations is available through the website.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  1.03-15 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(i); and
0
b. In paragraph (h)(2)(ii), removing the period after the words ``2703 
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  1.03-15  General.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Appeals involving course approvals and merchant mariner 
personnel issues must be in writing and mailed or electronically 
submitted to the Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC), 
U.S. Coast Guard, Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20593-7509, by email to [email protected], or as 
prescribed by the Coast Guard.
* * * * *

PART 10--MERCHANT MARINER CREDENTIAL

0
4. The authority citation for part 10 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 503; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 
2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. chapter 73; 46 U.S.C. chapter 
75; 46 U.S.C. 2104; 46 U.S.C. 7701, 8903, 8904, and 70105; Executive 
Order 10173; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
5. In part 10, revise the following references wherever they appear:
0
a. ``his or her'' to read ``their''; and
0
b. ``he or she'' to read ``they''.
0
6. Amend Sec.  10.107 by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Regional examination center or REC''; 
and
0
b. Adding a definition of ``Written, writing, or in writing''.
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  10.107  Definitions in subchapter B.

* * * * *
    Regional examination center or REC means a field office of the 
National Maritime Center that performs activities as required by this 
subchapter on behalf of the National Maritime Center.
* * * * *
    Written, writing, or in writing means handwritten in ink, 
mechanically or electronically printed, or any form of expression that 
can be read, reproduced, or later communicated including electronically 
submitted and stored information.
* * * * *


Sec.  10.203  [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  10.203 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b), remove the text, ``, license, MMD, COR, or STCW 
endorsement''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c), remove the text, ``an MMD and an MMC serve'' and 
replace it with the text, ``an MMC serves''.
0
8. Amend Sec.  10.209 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``satisfies'' and adding, in its 
place, the word ``satisfy'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1) through (d)(3); 
and
0
c. In paragraph (e)(3), removing the words ``the applicant's 
fingerprints,''.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  10.209  General application procedures.

* * * * *
    (d) The application may be submitted in a manner prescribed by the 
Coast Guard that may include in person, by mail, or other electronic 
means. A complete MMC application, which is described in Sec. Sec.  
10.223, 10.225, 10.227, 10.229, and 10.231 may include--
    (1) The application, consent for National Driver Register (NDR) 
check, and oath, and the evaluation fee required by Sec.  10.219 of 
this part;
    (2) The applicant's continuous discharge book, certificate of 
identification, and MMC if expired;
    (3) Proof, in a manner prescribed by the Coast Guard, which may 
include forms or other means, that the applicant passed the applicable 
vision, hearing, medical, or physical exam as required by subpart C of 
this part, or an unexpired medical certificate issued by the Coast 
Guard;
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  10.211 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c);
0
b. In paragraph (f), removing the word ``furnish'' and adding, in its 
place, the word ``furnishes''; and
0
c. In paragraph (i), removing the words ``has applied'' and adding, in 
their place, the words ``have applied''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  10.211  Criminal record review.

* * * * *
    (c) Criminal Convictions. The Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) will provide to the Coast Guard the applicant's 
FBI number and criminal record generated in the TWIC review process. 
This information will be used by the Coast Guard to determine whether 
the applicant has a record of any criminal convictions.
* * * * *


Sec.  10.217  [Amended]

0
10. In Sec.  10.217(a), remove the text ``https://www.uscg.mil/nmc'', 
and add, in its place, the text ``https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/''.
0
11. Amend Sec.  10.219 by revising paragraphs (d) and (i)(1) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 18732]]

Sec.  10.219  Fees.

* * * * *
    (d) Unless the Coast Guard provides additional payment options, fee 
payment must be for the exact amount and must be made by electronic 
payment in a manner specified by the Coast Guard. For information 
regarding current forms of electronic payment, go to the National 
Maritime Center's (NMC) website, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) An organization may submit a written request in a manner 
prescribed by the Coast Guard that may include mail, email, or 
electronic means to U.S. Coast Guard National Maritime Center, 100 
Forbes Drive, Martinsburg, WV 25404, at email [email protected], in 
order to be considered an eligible organization under the criteria set 
forth in paragraph (h) of this section. With the written request, the 
organization must provide evidence of its status as a youth-oriented, 
not-for-profit, charitable organization.
* * * * *
0
12. Revise Sec.  10.223(c)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.223  Modification or removal of limitations or scope.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Any expired MMC held by the applicant. If still valid at the 
time of application, the applicant must surrender the old, original 
credential to the Coast Guard within 30 days of issuance of the new 
credential. If requested at the time of submission, the old MMC may be 
returned to the applicant after cancellation.
* * * * *
0
13. Revise Sec.  10.225(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.225  Requirements for original merchant mariner credentials.

* * * * *
    (c) Oath. Every person who receives an original MMC must first 
solemnly swear or affirm, that they will faithfully and honestly, 
according to their best skill and judgment, without concealment or 
reservation, perform all the duties required by law and obey all lawful 
orders of superior officers. This affirmation remains binding for any 
subsequently issued MMC and endorsements added to the MMC, unless 
specifically renounced in writing.


Sec.  10.227  [Amended]

0
14. Amend Sec.  10.227 as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``present'' and add, in its place, the word 
``provide'' wherever it appears;
0
b. Remove the word ``Present'' and add, in its place, the word 
``Provide'' wherever it appears;
0
c. In paragraph (d)(4):
0
i. Remove the word ``uncanceled'' and add, in its place, the words 
``expired or uncanceled''; and
0
ii. Remove the word ``photocopy'' and add, in its place, the word 
``copy'';
0
d. In paragraph (e)(1)(iv), remove the words ``license or'';
0
e. In paragraph (e)(5), remove the words ``holds a currently valid'' 
and add, in their place, the words ``hold a currently valid'';
0
f. In paragraph (e)(6)(ii), remove the words ``license or'';
0
g. In paragraph (h), remove the words ``A license, MMD, COR, STCW 
endorsement, MMC, and any endorsements thereon, are'' and add, in their 
place, the words ``An MMC, and any endorsements thereon, is''; and
0
h. In paragraph (i)(1), remove the words ``presentation of'' and add, 
in their place, the words ``providing evidence of''.


Sec.  10.231  [Amended]

0
15. Amend Sec.  10.231 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c)(5):
0
i. Remove the word ``uncanceled'' and add, in its place, the words 
``expired or uncanceled''; and
0
ii. Remove the word ``photocopy'' and add, in its place, the word 
``copy''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the word ``was'', and add, in its place, 
the word ``were''.


Sec.  10.232  [Amended]

0
16. Amend Sec.  10.232 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the word ``presented'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``provided'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(4), remove the word ``licensed'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``credentialed''; and
0
c. In paragraph (d)(6), remove the word ``license'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``credential''.


Sec.  10.233  [Amended]

0
17. Amend Sec.  10.233 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the text ``license, MMD, COR, or'';
0
b. In paragraph (b), after the words ``made in writing'' add the words 
``and provided in a manner specified by the Coast Guard''; and
0
c. In paragraph (c), after the word ``Invalid'', add the words ``or 
expired''.


Sec.  10.235  [Amended]

0
18. Amend Sec.  10.235 by removing the text ``, license, MMD, and COR'' 
wherever it appears.
0
19. Amend Table 1 to Sec.  10.239 by revising the row ``MODU licenses'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  10.239  Quick reference table for MMC requirements.

* * * * *
    Table 1 to Sec.  10.239: Quick Reference Table for MMC Requirements
* * * * *

[[Page 18733]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       Recommendations                                            Demonstration
      Endorsement category            Minimum age          Citizenship          Medical and          Experience         and character       Firefighting      Professional exam  of professional  Recency of Service   First aid and CPR
                                                                               physical exam                                check                                                    ability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
MODU............................  Sec.   11.201(e)     U.S., Sec.           Sec.   10.302(a)...  OIM: Sec.   11.470  N/A: Note           Sec.   11.201(h):   Sec.   11.201(j);              N/A   original Sec.       Sec.   11.201(i).
                                   Note: exceptions.    10.221(a)(1) Sec.                         B.S.: Sec.          exceptions in       note exceptions.    Sec.   11.903;                       11.201 (c)(2)
                                                         11.201(d).                               11.472 BCO: Sec.    Sec.   11.201(g)                        Sec.   11.920.                       renewal Sec.
                                                                                                   11.474 ChEng:      for original                                                                 10.227(e).
                                                                                                  Sec.   11.542       national or STCW
                                                                                                  Asst. Eng: Sec.     endorsements.
                                                                                                  11.544.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 18734]]

Sec.  10.302  [Amended]

0
20. In Sec.  10.302(a), remove the words ``as appropriate'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``or as directed by the Coast Guard''.


Sec.  10.305  [Amended]

0
21. In Sec.  10.305(c), remove the word ``a'' before the words 
``medical certificate''.


Sec.  10.404  [Amended]

0
22. Amend Sec.  10.404 as follows:
0
a. Remove the text ``, license, or document'' wherever it appears; and
0
b. Remove the words ``has witnessed'' wherever they appear and add, in 
their place, the words ``have witnessed''.


Sec.  10.405  [Amended]

0
23. In Sec.  10.405, remove the words ``has attained'' wherever they 
appear and add, in their place, the words ``have attained''.


Sec.  10.407  [Amended]

0
24. In Sec.  10.407(g)(3), remove the text ``paragraph (d)'' and add, 
in its place, the text ``paragraph (e)''.


Sec.  10.409  [Amended]

0
25. In Sec.  10.409(e), remove the word ``present'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``provide''.

PART 11--REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICER ENDORSEMENTS

0
26. The authority citation for part 11 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 503; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 
and 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, 8906, 
and 70105; Executive Order 10173; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, 
Revision No. 01.3. Section 11.107 is also issued under the authority 
of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

0
27. In part 11, revise the following references wherever they appear:
0
a. ``his or her'' to read ``their''; and
0
b. ``he or she'' to read ``they''.


Sec.  11.102  [Amended]

0
28. In Sec.  11.102(a), remove the period after the text ``2703 Martin 
Luther King Jr. Avenue SE''.


Sec.  11.201  [Amended]

0
29. Amend Sec.  11.201 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. Remove the word ``possesses'' and add, in its place, the words 
``possess''; and
0
ii. Remove the words ``him or her'' and add, in their place, the word 
``them'';
0
b. In paragraph (c)(4), remove the word ``has'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``have'';
0
c. In paragraph (g)(1), remove the text ``license, merchant mariner 
document (MMD), or MMC'' and add, in its place, the text ``merchant 
mariner credential (MMC)'';
0
d. In paragraph (g)(2) remove the words ``license, certificate of 
registry,'' wherever it appears, and add, in their place, the text 
``MMC''; and
0
e. In paragraphs (h)(1), (i), and (k) remove the word ``present'' 
wherever it appears and add, in its place, the word ``provide''.


Sec.  11.211  [Amended]

0
30. Amend Sec.  11.211(c)(1) as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``or license'' wherever they appear; and
0
b. Remove the words ``licenses or''.


Sec.  11.217  [Amended]

0
31. Amend Sec.  11.217(a) by removing the word ``presents'' and adding, 
in its place, the word ``provides''.


Sec.  11.301  [Amended]

0
32. Amend Sec.  11.301(g) by removing the words ``of the license''.


Sec.  11.337  [Amended]

0
33. Amend Sec.  11.337(a) by removing the word ``present'' and adding, 
in its place, the word ``provide''.


Sec.  11.401  [Amended]

0
34. Amend Sec.  11.401 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``license or'' wherever they appear; and
0
b. in paragraph (d), remove the word ``present'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``provide''.


Sec.  11.402  [Amended]

0
35. Amend Sec.  11.402 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c)(2), remove the words ``is endorsed'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``are endorsed''; and remove the words ``license 
or''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(3):
0
i. Remove the words ``a license or'' and add, in their place, the text 
``an MMC''; and
0
ii. Remove the words ``mate's license or'' and add, in their place, the 
word ``mate's''.


Sec.  11.404  [Amended]

0
36. Amend Sec.  11.404 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the words ``a license or'' and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, remove the words ``or license''.


Sec.  11.405  [Amended]

0
37. Amend Sec.  11.405(a) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.406  [Amended]

0
37. Amend Sec.  11.406 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``a license or'' wherever they appear and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``or license''.


Sec.  11.407  [Amended]

0
38. Amend Sec.  11.407 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``a license or'' and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d), remove the words ``or license''.


Sec.  11.412  [Amended]

0
39. Amend Sec.  11.412 by removing the words ``a license or'' wherever 
they appear and adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.414  [Amended]

0
40. Amend Sec.  11.414(a)(1)(iii) by removing the words ``a license 
or'' and adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.418  [Amended]

0
41. Amend Sec.  11.418 by removing the words ``a license or'' wherever 
they appear and adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.420  [Amended]

0
42. Amend Sec.  11.420(a) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.422  [Amended]

0
43. Amend Sec.  11.422 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(4), remove the words ``license or''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``or license''.


Sec.  11.424  [Amended]

0
44. Amend Sec.  11.424 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the words ``a license or'' and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``license or''.


Sec.  11.425  [Amended]

0
45. Amend Sec.  11.425 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``a license or'' wherever they appear and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d), remove the word ``presentation'' and add, in its 
place, the words ``providing evidence''.


Sec.  11.426  [Amended]

0
46. Amend Sec.  11.426(a)(1) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.427  [Amended]

0
47. Amend Sec.  11.427 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``a license or'' wherever they appear and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d), remove the word ``presentation'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``providing evidence''.

[[Page 18735]]

Sec.  11.428  [Amended]

0
48. Amend Sec.  11.428(b) by removing the words ``license or''.


Sec.  11.429  [Amended]

0
49. Amend Sec.  11.429(c) by removing the words ``license or''.


Sec.  11.433  [Amended]

0
50. Amend Sec.  11.433(a) by removing the words ``a license or'' 
wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.435  [Amended]

0
51. Amend Sec.  11.435 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the words ``a license or'' and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''; and
0
b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the words ``license or''.


Sec.  11.437  [Amended]

0
52. In Sec.  11.437(a)(3):
0
a. Remove the words ``holding a license or'' and add, in their place, 
the words ``holding an''; and
0
b. Remove the words ``this license'' and add, in their place, the words 
``this MMC endorsement''.


Sec.  11.442  [Amended]

0
53. Amend Sec.  11.442(a) by removing the words ``a license or'' 
wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.444  [Amended]

0
54. Amend Sec.  11.444(a)(2) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.446  [Amended]

0
55. Amend Sec.  11.446 by removing the words ``a license or'' wherever 
they appear and adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.450  [Amended]

0
56. Amend Sec.  11.450 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``licenses or''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d), remove the word ``license'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``endorsement''.


 Sec.  11.452  [Amended]

0
57. Amend Sec.  11.452 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. Remove the words ``license or''; and
0
ii. Remove the words ``a license or'' and add, in their place, the word 
``an''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``license or''.


Sec.  11.454  [Amended]

0
58. Amend Sec.  11.454 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c), remove the word ``presentation'' and add, in its 
place, the words ``providing evidence''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d), remove the words ``a license or'' and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.457  [Amended]

0
59. Amend Sec.  11.457 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ``present'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``provide''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``license or''.


Sec.  11.462  [Amended]

0
60. Amend Sec.  11.462 by removing the words ``a license or'' wherever 
they appear and adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.464  [Amended]

0
61. Amend Sec.  11.464 by removing the words ``a license or'' wherever 
they appear and adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.465  [Amended]

0
62. Amend Sec.  11.465 by removing the words ``a license or'' wherever 
they appear and adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.466  [Amended]

0
63. Amend Sec.  11.466(b) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.470  [Amended]

0
64. Amend Sec.  11.470 as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``Present'' wherever it appears and add, in its 
place, the word ``Provide'';
0
b. In paragraph (d)(2)(i), remove the words ``a license or'' and add, 
in their place, the word ``an'';
0
c. In paragraphs (e), (g), (i), and (k), remove the words ``license 
or''; and
0
d. In paragraph (j)(2)(i), remove the words ``a license or'' and add, 
in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.472  [Amended]

0
65. Amend Sec.  11.472 as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``Present'' wherever it appears and add, in its 
place, the word ``Provide''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``license or''.


Sec.  11.474  [Amended]

0
66. Amend Sec.  11.474 as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``Present'' wherever it appears and add, in its 
place, the word ``Provide'';
0
b. In paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii), remove the words ``a license or'' 
and add, in their place, the word ``an''; and
0
c. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``license or''.


Sec.  11.480  [Amended]

0
67. In Sec.  11.480(d), remove the word ``present'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``provide''; and remove the text ``fax,''.


Sec.  11.482  [Amended]

0
68. Amend Sec.  11.482 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``license or'' wherever they appear; and
0
b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``a license or'' and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.491  [Amended]

0
69. Amend Sec.  11.491(a) by removing the words ``license or''.


Sec.  11.501  [Amended]

0
70. Amend Sec.  11.501 as follows:
0
b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``licenses or''; and
0
a. In paragraphs (d) and (e), remove the words ``license or'' wherever 
they appear.


Sec.  11.502  [Amended]

0
71. Amend Sec.  11.502(b) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.503  [Amended]

0
72. Amend Sec.  11.503 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``a license or'' wherever they appear, and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(2), remove the words ``licensed or''.


Sec.  11.510  [Amended]

0
73. Amend Sec.  11.510(a)(2) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.512  [Amended]

0
74. Amend Sec.  11.512(a)(1) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.514  [Amended]

0
75. Amend Sec.  11.514(a) by removing the words ``a license or'' 
wherever they appear and adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.542  [Amended]

0
76. Amend Sec.  11.542 as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``Present'' wherever it appears, and add, in its 
place, the word ``Provide''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``presentation of'' and add, in 
their place, the word ``providing''.


Sec.  11.544  [Amended]

0
77. Amend Sec.  11.544 as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``Present'' wherever it appears, and add, in its 
place, the word ``Provide''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``presentation of the'' and add, 
in their place, the word ``providing''.

[[Page 18736]]

Sec.  11.603  [Amended]

0
78. Amend Sec.  11.603 by removing the words ``license must present'' 
and adding, in their place, the text ``an MMC must provide evidence 
of''.


Sec.  11.604  [Amended]

0
79. Amend Sec.  11.604 by removing the word ``present'' and adding, in 
its place, the word ``provide''.


Sec.  11.701  [Amended]

0
80. Amend Sec.  11.701(d) by removing the words ``A license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``An''.


Sec.  11.703  [Amended]

0
81. Amend Sec.  11.703(d) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.705  [Amended]

0
82. Amend Sec.  11.705(c) by removing the words ``license or'' wherever 
they appear.


Sec.  11.707  [Amended]

0
83. Amend Sec.  11.707(b) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  11.713  [Amended]

0
84. Amend Sec.  11.713 by removing the words ``license or'' wherever 
they appear.


Sec.  11.805  [Amended]

0
85. Amend Sec.  11.805 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ``present'', and add, in its 
place, the word ``provide''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the word ``is'' and add, in their place, 
the word ``are''.


Sec.  11.807  [Amended]

0
86. Amend Sec.  11.807(d) by removing the word ``present'' and adding, 
in its place, the word ``provides''.


Sec.  11.821  [Amended]

0
87. Amend Sec.  11.821(a)(2) by removing the word ``Present'' and 
adding, in its place, the word ``Provide''.


Sec.  11.903  [Amended]

0
88. Amend Sec.  11.903(c)(1) by removing the words ``a license'' and 
adding, in their place, the words ``an endorsement''.


Sec.  11.920  [Amended]

0
89. In the heading ``Table 2 to Sec.  11.920'', remove the word 
``Licenses'' and add, in its place, the word ``Endorsements''.

PART 12--REQUIREMENTS FOR RATING ENDORSEMENTS

0
90. The authority citation for part 12 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110, 7301, 
7302, 7503, 7505, 7701, and 70105; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, 
Revision No. 01.3.


Sec.  12.103  [Amended]

0
91. Amend Sec.  12.103(a) by removing the period after the text ``2703 
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE''.


Sec.  12.201  [Amended]

0
92. Amend Sec.  12.201(a)(2) by removing the words ``his or her'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``their''.


Sec.  12.401  [Amended]

0
93. Amend Sec.  12.401 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the text ``or merchant mariner document 
(MMD)''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the word ``Present'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``Provide''.


Sec.  12.405  [Amended]

0
94. Amend Sec.  12.405 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. Remove the words ``he or she'' and add, in their place, the word 
``they''; and
0
ii. Remove the words ``his or her'' and add, in their place, the word 
``their''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the words ``him or her'' and add, in 
their place, the word ``them''.


Sec.  12.407  [Amended]

0
95. Amend Sec.  12.407 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), remove the word ``Present'' and add, in 
its place, the word ``Provide''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(3):
0
i. Remove the words ``he or she'' and add, in their place, the word 
``they''; and
0
ii. Remove the words ``his or her'' and add, in their place, the word 
``their''.


Sec.  12.409  [Amended]

0
96. Amend Sec.  12.409 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), remove the word ``Present'' and add, in 
its place, the word ``Provide''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(3):
0
i. Remove the words ``he or she'' and add, in their place, the word 
``they''; and
0
ii. Remove the words ``his or her'' and add, in their place, the word 
``their''.


Sec.  12.501  [Amended]

0
97. Amend Sec.  12.501 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the words ``he or she is'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``they are''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the word ``Present'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``Provide''.


Sec.  12.505  [Amended]

0
98. Amend Sec.  12.505(a) as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``he or she'' and add, in their place, the word 
``they''; and
0
b. Remove the words ``his or her'' and add, in their place, the word 
``their''.


Sec.  12.625  [Amended]

0
99. Amend Sec.  12.625(a)(1) by removing the word ``Present'' and 
adding, in its place, the word ``Provide''.


Sec.  12.627  [Amended]

0
100. Amend Sec.  12.627(a)(1) by removing the word ``Present'' and 
adding, in its place, the word ``Provide''.


Sec.  12.707  [Amended]

0
101. Amend Sec.  12.707 by removing the word ``present'' and adding, in 
its place, the word ``provide''.


Sec.  12.709  [Amended]

0
102. Amend Sec.  12.709(a) by removing the word ``present'' and adding, 
in its place, the word ``provide''.


Sec.  12.711  [Amended]

0
103. Amend Sec.  12.711(a) as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``presents'' and add, in its place, the word 
``provides''; and
0
b. Remove the words ``he or she is'' and add, in their place, the words 
``they are''.


Sec.  12.809  [Amended]

0
104. Amend Sec.  12.809 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``he or she is'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``they are''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the word ``present'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``provide''.


Sec.  12.811  [Amended]

0
105. Amend Sec.  12.811 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(5)(iii), remove the words ``he or she has'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``they have''; and
0
b. In paragraph (e), remove the words ``his or her'' and add, in their 
place, the word ``their''.

PART 13--CERTIFICATION OF TANKERMEN

0
106. The authority citation for part 13 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3703, 7317, 8105, 8703, 9102; DHS 
Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
107. In part 13, revise the following references wherever they appear:
0
a. ``his or her'' to read ``their''; and
0
b. ``he or she'' to read ``they''.


Sec.  13.103  [Amended]

0
108. Amend Sec.  13.103(a) by removing the period after the text ``2703 
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE''.

[[Page 18737]]

Sec.  13.107  [Amended]

0
109. Amend Sec.  13.107 as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``holds'' wherever it appears, and add, in its 
place, the word ``hold'';
0
b. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``engineer license or engineer'' 
and add, in their place, the words ``engineer officer''; and
0
c. In paragraph (d), remove the words ``licensed or''.


Sec.  13.111  [Amended]

0
110. Amend Sec.  13.111 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d)(3), remove the word ``Present'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``Provide''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d)(4):
0
i. Remove the words ``Present evidence in the form of a letter'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``Provide evidence in a method 
prescribed by the Coast Guard''; and
0
ii. Remove the words ``on company letterhead''.


Sec.  13.119  [Amended]

0
111. In Sec.  13.119, remove the words ``merchant mariner's document 
or''.


Sec.  13.120  [Amended]

0
112. Amend Sec.  13.120 by removing the word ``present'' wherever it 
appears and adding, in its place, the word ``provide''.


Sec.  13.127  [Amended]

0
113. Amend Sec.  13.127(a)(4) and (5) by removing the word ``is'' and 
adding, in its place, the word ``are''.


Sec.  13.201  [Amended]

0
114. Amend Sec.  13.201 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c) introductory text, remove the word ``Present'' and 
add, in its place, the word ``Provide'';
0
b. In paragraph (c)(3):
0
i. Remove the word ``has'' and add, in its place, the word ``have'';
0
ii. Remove the text ``license,''; and
0
iii. Remove the comma after the words ``tankerman endorsement''.


Sec.  13.203  [Amended]

0
115. Amend Sec.  13.203 by removing the word ``present'' wherever it 
appears, and adding, in its place, the word ``provide''.
0
116. Revise and republish Sec.  13.205 to read as follows:


Sec.  13.205  Proof of service for tankerman-PIC endorsement.

    Provide evidence in a method prescribed by the Coast Guard of proof 
of service from the owner, operator, or master of the vessel on which 
the applicant obtained the service. The evidence must contain the 
information described in Sec.  13.127(a).


Sec.  13.301  [Amended]

0
117. Amend Sec.  13.301 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c), remove the word ``Present'' and add, in its place, 
the word ``Provide''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(3):
0
i. Remove the word ``has'' and add, in its place, the word ``have''; 
and
0
ii. Remove the words ``license, tankerman endorsement,'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``tankerman endorsement''.


Sec.  13.303  [Amended]

0
118. Amend Sec.  13.303(a) by removing the word ``present'' and adding, 
in its place, the word ``provide''.
0
119. Revise and republish Sec.  13.305 to read as follows:


Sec.  13.305  Proof of service for tankerman-PIC (barge).

    Provide evidence in a method prescribed by the Coast Guard of proof 
of service from the owner or operator of a terminal; the owner or 
operator of a tank barge; the owner, operator, or master of a tank 
vessel; or the employer of shore-based tankermen. The evidence must 
contain the information required by Sec.  13.127(a), excluding 
paragraph (a)(4)(vii).


Sec.  13.401  [Amended]

0
120. Amend Sec.  13.401 as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``Present'' wherever it appears, and add, in its 
place, the word ``Provide''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d):
0
i. Remove the word ``has'' and add, in its place, the word ``have'';
0
ii. Remove the word ``license,''; and
0
iii. Remove the comma after the words ``tankerman endorsement''.


Sec.  13.405  [Amended]

0
121. Amend Sec.  13.405 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, removing the word ``has'' and 
adding, in its place, the word ``have''; and
0
c. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the words ``him or her'' and adding, 
in their place, the word ``them''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  13.405  Proof of service for tankerman-assistant endorsement.

    (a) Evidence in a method prescribed by the Coast Guard from the 
owner, operator, or master of a tankship or self-propelled tank vessel. 
The evidence must specify--
* * * * *


Sec.  13.501  [Amended]

0
122. Amend Sec.  13.501 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c) introductory text, remove the word ``Present'' and 
add, in its place, the word ``Provide''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(3):
0
i. Remove the word ``has'' and add, in its place, the word ``have''; 
and
0
ii. Remove the words ``license, tankerman endorsement,'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``tankerman endorsement''.


Sec.  13.503  [Amended]

0
123. Amend Sec.  13.503(a) by removing the word ``present'' and adding, 
in its place, the word ``provide''.


Sec.  13.505  [Amended]

0
124. Revise Sec.  13.505(a) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  13.505  Proof of service for tankerman-engineer endorsement.

    (a) Provide evidence in a method prescribed by the Coast Guard of 
proof of service from the owner, operator, master, or chief engineer of 
a tankship or self-propelled tank vessel. The evidence must specify--
* * * * *

PART 14--SHIPMENT AND DISCHARGE OF MERCHANT MARINERS

0
126. The authority citation for part 14 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 103 and 104; 46 
U.S.C. 70105.

0
127. In part 14, revise all references to ``his or her'' to read 
``their''.


Sec.  14.103  [Amended]

0
127. In Sec.  14.103(c), remove the text ``https://www.uscg.mil/nmc'' 
and add, in its place, the text ``https://www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/''.

0
128. Revise and republish Sec.  14.205 to read as follows:


Sec.  14.205  Production of credentials by merchant mariner signing 
shipping articles.

    On engagement for a voyage upon which shipping articles are 
required, each merchant mariner must provide to the master or 
individual in charge of the vessel a merchant mariner credential with 
endorsements required by law for the service the mariner would perform.


Sec.  14.207  [Amended]

0
129. In Sec.  14.207(a)(1), remove the text ``license, MMD or''.
0
130. Revise Sec.  14.307 to read as follows:


Sec.  14.307  Entries on certificate of discharge.

    (a) Each master or individual in charge of a vessel must, for each 
merchant mariner being discharged from the vessel, prepare a 
certificate of discharge in accordance with the procedure prescribed by 
the Coast

[[Page 18738]]

Guard. The prescribed format may include the current form CG-718A or 
other means provided by the Coast Guard. If not using the Coast Guard 
prescribed format, the mariner must be provided with all the same 
information included on the certificate of discharge.
    (b) Each mariner being discharged must validate the information on 
the certificate of discharge by signing it.
    (c) When the mariner leaves the vessel, the master or individual in 
charge must give the certificate of discharge to the mariner.


Sec.  14.403  [Amended]

0
131. Amend Sec.  14.403(a)(2) by removing the word ``presented'' and 
adding, in its place, the word ``provided''.
0
132. Amend Sec.  14.405 by:
0
a. In paragraph (c), before the words ``will forward the request'', 
adding the text ``OCMI''; and
0
b. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  14.405  Procedures.

* * * * *
    (d) If operating conditions change, the owner, charterer, managing 
operator, master, or individual in charge of the vessel must so advise 
the Coast Guard OCMI in whose zone the vessel is located. The Coast 
Guard OCMI will forward pertinent information on how the conditions 
have changed, along with his or her recommendation, to the Commandant, 
who will determine whether any exemption should remain granted.


Sec.  14.407  [Amended]

0
133. In Sec.  14.407(a), remove the words ``to the address provided'' 
and add, in their place, the words ``in a manner specified''.

PART 15--MANNING REQUIREMENTS

0
134. The authority citation for part 15 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 3306, 3703, 8101, 8102, 8103, 
8104, 8105, 8301, 8304, 8502, 8503, 8701, 8702, 8901, 8902, 8903, 
8904, 8905(b), 8906 and 9102; sec. 617, Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat. 
2905; and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
135. In part 15, revise the following references wherever they appear:
0
a. ``his or her'' to read ``their'';
0
b. ``he or she'' to read ``they''; and
0
c. ``him or her'' to read ``them''.


Sec.  15.103  [Amended]

0
136. Amend Sec.  15.103(a) by removing the period after the text ``2703 
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE''.


Sec.  15.105  [Amended]

0
137. Amend Sec.  15.105 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``licenses and''; and
0
b. In paragraph (h), remove the words ``license or''.


Sec.  15.403  [Amended]

0
138. Amend Sec.  15.403 by removing the text ``or MMD'' wherever it 
appears.


Sec.  15.404  [Amended]

0
139. Amend Sec.  15.404 by removing the text ``or MMD'' wherever it 
appears.
    [Amended]
0
140. Revise and republish Sec.  15.410 by to read as follows:


Sec.  15.410  Credentialed individuals for assistance towing vessels.

    Every assistance towing vessel must be under the direction and 
control of an individual holding an MMC authorizing him or her to 
engage in assistance towing under the provisions of Sec.  11.482 of 
this subchapter.


Sec.  15.515  [Amended]

0
141. In Sec.  15.515(c), remove the words ``license or''.


Sec.  15.520  [Amended]

0
142. Amend Sec.  15.520 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``a license or'' wherever they appear, and add, in 
their place, the word ``an'';
0
b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``A license or'' wherever it 
appears, and add, in their place, the word ``An'';
0
c. In paragraph (d), remove the text ``a license as master endorsed as 
OIM, or'';
0
d. In paragraph (e), remove the text ``a license as master endorsed as 
OIM or''; and
0
e. In paragraph (g), remove the words ``license, or an''.


Sec.  15.605  [Amended]

0
143. Amend Sec.  15.605 by removing the words ``a license or'' wherever 
they appear and adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  15.610  [Amended]

0
144. Amend Sec.  15.610(b) as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``a license or'' and add, in their place, the word 
``an''; and
0
b. Before the text ``MMC for towing vessels'', remove the words 
``license or''.


Sec.  15.701  [Amended]

0
145. Amend Sec.  15.701(b) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  15.730  [Amended]

0
146. In Sec.  15.730(d), remove the word ``presented'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``provided''.


Sec.  15.805  [Amended]

0
147. Amend Sec.  15.805 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``a license or'' wherever they appear, and add, in 
their place, the word ``an'';
0
b. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``license as or a''; and
0
c. In paragraph (b), remove the word ``is'' and add, in their place, 
the word ``are''.


Sec.  15.810  [Amended]

0
148. Amend Sec.  15.810 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``a license or'' wherever they appear and add, in 
their place, the word ``an'';
0
b. In paragraphs (c) and (d)(2), remove the words ``license or'';
0
c. In paragraph (d)(2)(ii), remove the words ``A license or'' and add, 
in their place, the word ``An'';
0
d. In paragraph (e), remove the word ``determines'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``determine''; and
0
e. In paragraph (g), remove the word ``is'' and add, in its place, the 
word ``are''.
0
149. Amend Sec.  15.812 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (b) and (c), table 1 to Sec.  15.812(e)(1), and 
table 1 to Sec.  15.812(e)(2);
0
b. In paragraph (f), remove the words ``valid license or'' wherever 
they appear and add, in their place, the word ``or''; and
0
c. In paragraph (f)(1)(i), remove the words ``a license or'' and add, 
in their place, the word ``an''.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  15.812  Pilots

* * * * *
    (b) The following individuals may serve as a pilot on a vessel 
subject to paragraph (a) of this section, when underway on the 
navigable waters of the United States that are designated areas:
    (1) An individual holding a valid MMC officer endorsement as first-
class pilot, operating within the restrictions of their credential, may 
serve as pilot on any vessel to which this section applies.
    (2) An individual holding a valid MMC officer endorsement as master 
or mate, employed aboard a vessel within the restrictions of their 
credential, may serve as pilot on a vessel of not more than 1,600 GRT 
propelled by machinery, described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) of 
this section, provided they--
    (i) Are at least 21 years old;
    (ii) Are able to show current knowledge of the waters to be 
navigated, as required in Sec.  11.713 of this subchapter; and
    (iii) Provide evidence of completing a minimum of four roundtrips 
over the route to be traversed while in the wheelhouse as watchstander 
or observer. At least one of the roundtrips

[[Page 18739]]

must be made during the hours of darkness if the route is to be 
traversed during darkness.
    (3) An individual holding a valid MMC officer endorsement as 
master, mate, or operator employed aboard a vessel within the 
restrictions of their credential, may serve as pilot on a tank barge or 
tank barges totaling not more than 10,000 GRT/GT, described in 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) of this section, provided they--
    (i) Are at least 21 years old;
    (ii) Are able to show current knowledge of the waters to be 
navigated, as required in Sec.  11.713 of this subchapter;
    (iii) Have a current physical examination in accordance with the 
provisions of Sec.  11.709 of this subchapter;
    (iv) Have at least 6 months of service in the deck department on 
towing vessels engaged in towing operations; and
    (v) Provide evidence of completing a minimum of 12 roundtrips over 
the route to be traversed, as an observer or under instruction in the 
wheelhouse. At least three of the roundtrips must be made during the 
hours of darkness if the route is to be traversed during darkness.
    (c) An individual holding a valid MMC officer endorsement as 
master, mate, or operator, employed aboard a vessel within the 
restrictions of their credential, may serve as a pilot for a vessel 
subject to paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, when underway 
on the navigable waters of the United States that are not designated 
areas of pilotage waters, provided they--
    (1) Are at least 21 years old;
    (2) Are able to show current knowledge of the waters to be 
navigated, as required in Sec.  11.713 of this subchapter; and
    (3) Have a current physical examination in accordance with the 
provisions of Sec.  11.709 of this subchapter.
* * * * *

    Table 1 to Sec.   15.812(e)(1)--Quick Reference Table for Federal
  Pilotage Requirements for U.S.-Inspected, Self-Propelled Vessels, Not
                           Sailing on Register
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Designated areas
                                  of pilotage waters    Non-designated
                                   (routes for which   areas of pilotage
                                      First-Class       waters (between
                                      Pilot's MMC       the 3-mile line
                                        officer        and the start of
                                   endorsements are       traditional
                                        issued)        pilotage routes)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspected self-propelled vessels  First-Class Pilot.  Master or Mate may
 greater than 1,600 GRT,                              serve as pilot if
 authorized by their COI to                            they--
 proceed beyond the Boundary
 Line, or operating on the Great
 Lakes.
                                                      1. Are at least 21
                                                       years old;
                                                      2. Have an annual
                                                       physical exam;
                                                       and
                                                      3. Maintain
                                                       current knowledge
                                                       of the waters to
                                                       be navigated.\1\
Inspected self-propelled vessels  First-Class Pilot,  Master or Mate may
 not more than 1,600 GRT,          or Master or Mate   serve as pilot if
 authorized by their COI to        may serve as        they--
 proceed beyond the Boundary       pilot if they--.   1. Are at least 21
 Line, or operating on the Great  1. Are at least 21   years old; and
 Lakes.                            years old;.        2. Maintain
                                  2. Maintains         current knowledge
                                   current knowledge   of the waters to
                                   of the waters to    be navigated.\1\
                                   be navigated; and
                                   \1\.
                                  3. Have four
                                   roundtrips over
                                   the route.\2\.
Inspected self-propelled vessels  First-Class Pilot.  Master or Mate may
 greater than 1,600 GRT, not                           serve as pilot if
 authorized by their COI to                            they--
 proceed beyond the Boundary                          1. Are at least 21
 Line (inland route vessels);                          years old;
 other than vessels operating on                      2. Have an annual
 the Great Lakes.                                      physical exam;
                                                       and
                                                      3. Maintain
                                                       current knowledge
                                                       of the waters to
                                                       be navigated.\1\
Inspected self-propelled vessels  No pilotage         No pilotage
 not more than 1,600 GRT, not      requirement.        requirement.
 authorized by their COI to
 proceed beyond the Boundary
 Line (inland route vessels);
 other than vessels operating on
 the Great Lakes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One roundtrip within the past 60 months.
\2\ If the route is to be traversed during darkness, one of the four
  roundtrips must be made during darkness.

* * * * *

    Table 2 to Sec.   15.812(e)(2)--Quick Reference Table for Federal
  Pilotage Requirements for U.S.-Inspected Tank Barges, Not Sailing on
                                Register
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Designated areas
                                  of pilotage waters    Non-designated
                                   (routes for which   areas of pilotage
                                      First-Class       waters (between
                                      Pilot's MMC       the 3-mile line
                                        officer        and the start of
                                   endorsements are       traditional
                                        issued)        pilotage routes)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tank Barges greater than 10,000   First-Class Pilot.  Master, Mate, or
 GRT/GT, authorized by their COI                       Master, Mate
 to proceed beyond the Boundary                        (Pilot) of towing
 Line, or operating on the Great                       vessels may serve
 Lakes.                                                as pilot if they:
                                                      1. Are at least 21
                                                       years old;
                                                      2. Have an annual
                                                       physical exam;
                                                       \2\
                                                      3. Maintain
                                                       current knowledge
                                                       of the waters to
                                                       be navigated; \1\
                                                       and
                                                      4. Have at least 6
                                                       months' service
                                                       in the deck
                                                       department on
                                                       towing vessels
                                                       engaged in towing
                                                       operations.

[[Page 18740]]

 
Tank Barges 10,000 GRT/GT or      First-Class Pilot,  ..................
 less, authorized by their COI     or Master, Mate,
 to proceed beyond the Boundary    or Master, Mate
 Line, or operating on the Great   (Pilot) of towing
 Lakes.                            vessels may serve
                                   as pilot if they:
                                  1. Are at least 21
                                   years old;.
                                  2. Have an annual
                                   physical exam;
                                   \2\.
                                  3. Maintain
                                   current knowledge
                                   of the waters to
                                   be navigated; \1\.
                                  4. Have at least 6
                                   months' service
                                   in the deck
                                   department on
                                   towing vessels
                                   engaged in towing
                                   operations; and.
                                  5. Have 12
                                   roundtrips over
                                   the route.\3\.
Tank Barges authorized by their   No pilotage         No pilotage
 COI for inland routes only        requirement.        requirement.
 (lakes, bays, and sounds/
 rivers); other than vessels
 operating on the Great Lakes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One roundtrip within the past 60 months.
\2\ Annual physical exam does not apply to an individual who will serve
  as a pilot of a tank barge of less than 1,600 GRT.
\3\ If the route is to be traversed during darkness, three of the 12
  roundtrips must be made during darkness.

* * * * *


Sec.  15.815  [Amended]

0
150. Amend Sec.  15.815(c) by removing the words ``a license or'' and 
adding, in their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  15.818  [Amended]

0
151. Amend Sec.  15.818 by removing the words ``is competent'' and 
adding, in their place, the words ``are competent''.


Sec.  15.820  [Amended]

0
152. Amend Sec.  15.820 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``or license'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the words ``a license or'';
0
c. In paragraph (b), remove the word ``is'' and add, in its place, the 
word ``are''; and
0
d. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``license or''.


Sec.  15.825  [Amended]

0
153. Amend Sec.  15.825 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``license or''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the word ``is'' and add, in its place, the 
word ``are''.


Sec.  15.860  [Amended]

0
154. Amend Sec.  15.860 by removing the text ``MMDs or'' wherever it 
appears.


Sec.  15.901  [Amended]

0
155. Amend Sec.  15.901 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``individual's license or'' wherever they appear 
and add, in their place, the word ``individual's''; and
0
b. Remove the words ``a license or'' wherever they appear and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''.


Sec.  15.905  [Amended]

0
156. Amend Sec.  15.905 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``a license or'' wherever they appear and add, in 
their place, the word ``an''; and
0
b. Remove the words ``individual's license or'' wherever they appear, 
and add, in their place, the word ``individual's''.


Sec.  15.915  [Amended]

0
157. Amend Sec.  15.915 as follows:
0
a. Remove the words ``licenses and'' wherever they appear; and
0
b. Remove the words ``license or'' wherever they appear.


Sec.  15.1001  [Amended]

0
158. In Sec.  15.1001, remove the words ``or license with'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``with an''.


Sec.  15.1103  [Amended]

0
159. Amend Sec.  15.1103 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (f), remove the text ``a license, MMD, or'' and add, in 
its place, the word ``an''; and
0
b. In paragraph (g), remove the words ``is competent'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``are competent''.


Sec.  15.1105  [Amended]

0
160. Amend Sec.  15.1105 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), remove the word ``Knows'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``Know''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``is familiar'' and add, in their 
place, the words ``are familiar''.

PART 16--CHEMICAL TESTING

0
161. The authority citation for part 16 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 7101, 7301, and 7701; DHS 
Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
162. Amend Sec.  16.105 by revising the definition of ``Credential'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  16.105  Definitions of terms used in this part.

* * * * *
    Credential is the same as defined in 46 CFR 10.107.
* * * * *


Sec.  16.201  [Amended]

0
163. Amend Sec.  16.201 by removing the words ``his or her'' wherever 
they appear, and adding, in their place, the word ``their''.


Sec.  16.210  [Amended]

0
164. Amend Sec.  16.210(b) by removing the word ``he or she has'' and 
adding, in their place, the words ``they have''.

0
165. Amend Sec.  16.220 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the text ``a license, COR, MMD, or'' 
and adding, in its place, the word ``an'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(3) removing the text ``a license or COR'' and 
adding, in its place, the text ``an MMC'';
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(5); and
0
d. In paragraph (c), removing the words ``he or she provides 
satisfactory evidence that he or she has'' and adding, in their place, 
the words ``they provide satisfactory evidence that they have''.
    The revision reads follows:


Sec.  16.220  Periodic testing requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (5) A reissuance of a credential with a new expiration date. 
Results of the test

[[Page 18741]]

must be provided to the Coast Guard in a manner prescribed by the Coast 
Guard. The test results must be completed and dated not more than 185 
days before submission of the application.
* * * * *


Sec.  16.230  [Amended]

0
166. Amend Sec.  16.230 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the word ``license'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``credential''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``his or her'' and add, in their 
place, the word ``their''.


Sec.  16.500  [Amended]

0
167. Amend Sec.  16.500 by removing the period after the text ``2703 
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE''.

    Dated: February 26, 2024.
W.R. Arguin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-04351 Filed 3-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.