[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40329-40344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17457]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 155
[Docket No. USCG-2018-0493]
RIN 1625-AC50
Person in Charge of Fuel Transfers
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to amend the requirements
regulating personnel permitted to serve as a person in charge (PIC) of
fuel oil transfers on an inspected vessel by adding the option of using
a letter of designation (LOD) in lieu of a Merchant Mariner Credential
(MMC) with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. Thousands of towing vessels are
currently transitioning from being uninspected vessels to becoming
inspected vessels. This proposal would allow a PIC currently using the
LOD option on one of those uninspected vessels to continue to use that
option to perform the same fuel oil transfers once the vessel receives
its initial Certificate
[[Page 40330]]
of Inspection. Under this proposal, obtaining a MMC with a Tankerman-
PIC endorsement would become optional for PICs of fuel oil transfers on
inspected vessels.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before October 15, 2019. Comments sent to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB
on or before October 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0493 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
Collection of information. Submit comments on the collection of
information discussed in section VI. D of this preamble both to the
Coast Guard's online docket and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and
Budget using one of the following two methods:
Email: [email protected].
Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Cathleen Mauro, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing
(CG-MMC-1), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1449, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
A. Requirements in 33 CFR Part 155 for Person in Charge of Fuel
Oil Transfers
B. Cargo-Based Origins of Requirements To Obtain MMC Tankerman-
PIC Endorsement
C. Different Standards Are Appropriate for Fuel Oil Transfers
D. Federal Advisory Committee Recommendations
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Amendments to Sec. 155.710(e)
B. Proposed Amendments to Sec. 155.715
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.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule
for alternate instructions. Documents this proposal mentions as being
available in the docket, and all public comments, will be available in
our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by
following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the
online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or if a final rule is published.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
We do not plan to hold a public meeting but you may submit a
request for one using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking we will issue a Federal
Register notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a
meeting.
II. Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COI Certificate of Inspection
CPI-U Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOI Declaration of inspection
FR Federal Register
GSA General Services Administration
LOD Letter of designation
MERPAC Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MMC Merchant Mariner Credential
MPH Miles per hour
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIC Person in charge
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
Sec. Section
TSAC Towing Safety Advisory Committee
U.S.C. United States Code
III. Basis and Purpose
The Coast Guard's authority under Subtitle II and Chapter 700 of
Title 46 United States Code, specifically 46 U.S.C 3306 and 70034,\1\
allows us to establish and amend regulations for a person in charge
(PIC) of fuel oil transfers. This proposed rule is authorized by
Subtitle II provisions to regulate lightering (46 U.S.C. 3715) and
personnel qualifications for all inspected vessels, including nontank
vessels (46 U.S.C. 3703), and by 46 U.S.C. chapter 700 provisions
regarding waterfront safety, including protection of navigable waters
and the resources therein (46 U.S.C. 70011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 was formerly reflected in 33
U.S.C. 1231. On December 4, 2018, the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2018, Public Law 115-282, was enacted. Its
section 401 titled ``Codification of Ports and Waterways Safety
Act,'' restated the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA)
authorities in an enacted title of the U.S. Code. Specifically, it
added chapter 700, Ports and Waterways Safety, to Title 46. Also,
its section 402 repealed the PWSA (Pub. L. 92-340), as amended,
which had been reflected in 33 U.S.C. 1221-1231, 1232-1232b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would allow an alternative method of meeting
requirements for personnel allowed to serve as the PIC of a fuel oil
transfer on an inspected vessel. In 1998, the Coast Guard established
the option of using a letter of designation (LOD) for uninspected
vessels in 33 CFR 155.710(e)(2).\2\ The LOD designates the holder as a
PIC of the transfer of fuel oil and states that the holder has received
sufficient formal instruction from the operator or agent of the vessel
to ensure his or her ability to safely and adequately carry out the
duties and responsibilities of the PIC.\3\ The same year we created the
LOD option, we stated that the formal instruction required by this
option should ensure that personnel acting as PICs of fuel oil
transfers have the ability to safely and adequately carry out their
duties and
[[Page 40331]]
responsibilities while minimizing the risks of pollution from fuel oil
spills.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Qualifications for Tankermen and for Persons in Charge
of Transfers of Dangerous Liquids and Liquefied Gases final rule (63
FR 35822, July 1, 1998).
\3\ 33 CFR 155.715.
\4\ 63 FR 35822, 35825, July 1, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of towing vessels are currently transitioning from being
uninspected vessels to becoming inspected vessels.\5\ While this
proposed rule is not limited to towing vessels, it would allow a PIC
currently using the LOD option on one of those uninspected towing
vessels to continue to use that option to perform the same fuel oil
transfers once the vessel becomes an inspected vessel. Both Executive
Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13777 (Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda) direct us to eliminate unnecessary regulatory
burdens.\6\ We believe that the LOD option provides a level of safety
and protection for fuel oil transfers equivalent to the Tankerman-PIC
option, while eliminating the burden of obtaining and maintaining a
Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC). As a result, the Coast Guard is
proposing to add this LOD alternative so that individuals on inspected
vessels would have an option that is currently only available to
individuals on uninspected vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 46 CFR 136.202, and discussion in Regulatory Analysis
regarding the number of towing vessel making this transition.
\6\ See Section 1(b)(11) and Section 1, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This option would be available only for transfers of fuel oil. The
PIC requirements in 33 CFR 155.710(a), (b) and (f) for vessels
transferring cargo would remain unchanged.
IV. Background
The need to issue this proposed rule to eliminate an unnecessary
burden became more evident after we published the ``Inspection of
Towing Vessels'' final rule. As towing vessels transition from an
uninspected to inspected status, fuel transfer operations on thousands
of towing vessels will now require PICs to have MMCs instead of LODs
even though fueling operations remain unchanged.\7\ The change in the
PIC requirement was triggered by the transition to inspected vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The ``Inspection of Towing Vessels'' final rule established
46 CFR subchapter M, which requires towing vessels described in 46
CFR 136.105 to obtain a Certificate of Inspection. When towing
vessels obtain their COI, their status changes from being an
uninspected vessel to an inspected vessel, affecting which
requirements in Sec. 155.710(e) must be met for someone to serve as
the PIC of a fuel oil transfer. (81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements for a Tankerman PIC endorsement described in 46
CFR 13.210 include the completion of Coast Guard approved training in
firefighting and in Tankship Dangerous Liquids or Liquefied Gas as
appropriate. Training is approved under the requirements in 46 CFR part
10, subpart D. Formal instruction provided by the owner or operator of
a vessel does not require review or approval by the Coast Guard prior
to delivery.
The Coast Guard compared the requirement to complete approved
training in order to obtain an MMC with a Tankerman PIC endorsement for
PICs on inspected vessels and the formal instruction provided on
uninspected vessels, as a requirement for issuing an LOD on uninspected
vessels. The Coast Guard could not discern a meaningful difference in
fueling operations on uninspected towing vessels and inspected vessels
that require Tankerman-PIC endorsements. As uninspected vessels move to
becoming inspected vessels their fuel oil transfer operations do not
change, but the change in the requirement to hold an MMC means the
individuals conducting the fuel oil transfer must obtain substantially
more costly training and demonstrate experience with cargo transfers.
While fuel oil transfers are similar in nature to cargo transfers, they
cannot be used to demonstrate the service requirements for a Tankerman
PIC endorsement described in 46 CFR 13.203(b). As a result, the Coast
Guard is proposing to allow the use of LODs on all inspected vessels.
The existing Sec. 155.710(e)(1) requirement is overly burdensome on
personnel engaged in fuel oil transfers on inspected vessels that
require a Declaration of Inspection (DOI),\8\ and we have no evidence
that it increases the level of safety of life, environmental
protection, or protection of property at sea beyond that provided by
the LOD option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section 156.150(a) requires a DOI before commencing any
transfer of fuel oil and applies to vessels with a capacity of 250
barrels or more that engage in the transfer of oil or hazardous
material on the navigable waters or contiguous zone of the United
States. This requirement does not apply to public vessels. For
source of applicability, see Sec. 156.100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Requirements in 33 CFR Part 155 for Person in Charge of Fuel Oil
Transfers
The regulations in Sec. 155.700 require the designation of a PIC
for any transfer of fuel oil to, from, or within a vessel with a
capacity of 250 or more barrels, and Sec. 155.710(e) specifically
refers to PICs engaged in the transfer of fuel oil requiring a DOI.
Personnel designated as a PIC through the LOD option described in 33
CFR 155.715 must receive formal instruction from the operator or agent
of the vessel to ensure their ability to safely and adequately carry
out the duties and responsibilities of the PIC. The Coast Guard
believes this formal instruction, which has been adequate for
uninspected vessels, is also adequate for inspected vessels. Section
155.710(e) specifies the qualifications of a PIC for any fuel oil
transfer requiring a DOI on inspected and uninspected vessels. On
inspected vessels, the PIC of a fuel oil transfer requiring a DOI must
hold a valid MMC with either an officer endorsement authorizing service
\9\ on board the vessel, or a Tankerman-PIC endorsement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In our references to an officer endorsement required under
Sec. 155.710(e), we are referring to an officer endorsement
authorizing service as a master, mate, pilot engineer, or operator
on the vessel where the office seeks to serve as a PIC for a fuel
oil transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Sec. 155.710(e)(2), on uninspected vessels, the PIC of a
fuel oil transfer has the option of either meeting PIC requirements for
inspected vessels, or being designated as a PIC through an LOD as
described in 33 CFR 155.715. The LOD must not only designate the person
as a PIC, but it must also state that the person has received
sufficient formal instruction from the operator or agent of the vessel
to ensure his or her ability to safely and adequately carry out the
duties and responsibilities of the PIC described in 33 CFR 156.120 and
156.150.
B. Cargo-Based Origins of Requirements To Obtain MMC Tankerman-PIC
Endorsement
In 1995, the Coast Guard established the requirements for
Tankerman-PIC endorsements in 46 CFR part 13, which were developed
primarily for the transfer of cargo.\10\ These requirements were
specifically intended to improve the handling of liquid cargoes and
reduce the risk and severity of spills from tankships. The provisions
were not necessarily designed for transfers of oil solely used to fuel
the propulsion or auxiliary machinery of the vessel, but fuel oil
transfers are subject to these part 13 requirements. The part 13
training and certification requirements, which include service on
tankships and completion of an approved course for Tankship Dangerous
Liquids,\11\ are extensive and appropriate for complex tankship
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A 1995 interim rule set out the handling, transfer, and
transport of oil and certain hazardous liquid cargoes in bulk aboard
vessels, and at that time the Coast Guard concluded, ``this rule
will improve the handling, transfer, and transport of these cargoes
and reduce the risk and severity of spillage from tank vessels.''
(60 FR 17134, April 4, 1995). When describing approval of tankerman
endorsement courses, we noted that the Coast Guard would evaluate
courses--including simulated transfer of cargo--to determine the
credit allowed toward meeting the proposed service requirements (60
FR at 17139).
\11\ Section 13.201(b)(2) and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40332]]
C. Different Standards Are Appropriate for Fuel Oil Transfers
Since 1998, when the Coast Guard established the LOD option, it has
recognized that not all of the training and service requirements for a
Tankerman-PIC endorsement were necessary for fuel oil transfers. The
Coast Guard's successful use of LODs for uninspected vessels reflects
that service on a tankship, and completing approved training oriented
toward tankships, are not necessary for non-tankship inspected vessels
when transferring fuel oil. As a result, in March 2017, the Coast Guard
issued CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-17 titled, ``Guidelines for Issuing
Endorsements for Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing
Vessels.''
Under CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-17, personnel on towing vessels
have been relieved of some approved training costs, including travel to
and from training facilities, and applicable tuition to comply with the
full Tankerman-PIC requirements in 46 CFR part 13. In addition, CG-MMC
Policy Letter No. 01-17 relieves the requirement for service experience
on a tankship. However, under CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-17, personnel
who do not hold an officer endorsement but who seek to be a PIC on an
inspected towing vessel still need to obtain an MMC with a Tankerman-
PIC endorsement restricted to fuel transfers on towing vessels to
comply with Sec. 155.710(e). This policy eased some of the
requirements for obtaining an MMC with a qualifying endorsement for
inspected towing vessels, but it did not completely relieve the burden
of obtaining the credential or maintaining the endorsement through the
renewal process every 5 years and it only addresses inspected towing
vessels--not other inspected vessels.
The review of the requirements to obtain an MMC with a Tankerman
PIC endorsement leading to the development of CG-MMC Policy Letter No.
01-17 also applies to other categories of inspected vessels
transferring fuel oil. The requirements in 46 CFR part 13 were
developed primarily for the transfer of cargo, and the approved
training and service requirements are not necessary when transferring
fuel oil. Although our existing requirements for inspected vessels that
receive oil solely to fuel the propulsion or auxiliary machinery of the
vessel offer some flexibility by allowing a credentialed officer to act
as the PIC, in practice this is of limited value because it is a common
practice for towing vessels to engage in operations such as
midstreaming--fueling while underway and holding the vessel midstream--
where it is not possible for the officers holding an MMC to serve as
PIC for the fuel transfer.
D. Federal Advisory Committee Recommendations
The Coast Guard tasked the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC)
\12\ and Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) \13\ to
review CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-17 and the existing PIC requirements
for vessel fuel transfers and make recommendations for amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Issued in June 2016, TSAC Task 16[hyphen]01,
Recommendations Regarding the Implementation of 46 Code of Federal
Regulations Subchapter M-Inspection of Towing Vessels, directed TSAC
to provide ``comments on the implementation of Subchapter M that the
Committee feels are necessary.'' In its third report in response to
this task, in December 2017, TSAC issued Report No. 3 that addressed
the subject of Persons-In-Charge of Towing Vessel Fuel Transfers. A
copy of this report is available in the docket.
\13\ Issued in May 2017, MERPAC Task 99, Towing Vessel
Restricted Tankerman PIC Endorsement, requested MERPAC to review and
comment on CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-17 and the applicable regulations
and provide recommendations for amendments, if needed. In October
2017, MERPAC issued its report, which is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2017, after reviewing CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-17
and existing regulations, TSAC recommended that the Coast Guard amend
Sec. 155.710(e) so that an LOD can be used by an individual on a
towing vessel inspected under subchapter M to satisfy the requirements
for the transfer of fuel oil described in 33 CFR 155.710.
MERPAC also reviewed CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-17 and the
existing regulations. In October 2017, MERPAC issued a report and
recommendation that viewed the policy as an appropriate interim
solution. However, MERPAC did not endorse requiring MMCs for PICs for
the long term. Instead, MERPAC recommended a regulatory change in which
all inspected vessels would have the option to satisfy the PIC
requirement for fuel transfers through either an LOD, as described in
33 CFR 155.715, or through holding an MMC with an officer or Tankerman-
PIC endorsement.
The Coast Guard reviewed the recommendations from both TSAC and
MERPAC, and agreed with MERPAC's broader recommendation that all
inspected vessels should have the option of using an LOD to satisfy the
requirement for designating the PIC of fuel transfers.
Under the LOD option, a PIC's formal instruction is tailored to the
vessel identified in the LOD and must meet the requirements in Sec.
155.715. This provides an equivalent level of safety of life,
environmental protection, or protection of property at sea as the
current requirement for a PIC on an inspected vessel. Therefore, we are
proposing to allow the LOD to be used by PICs of fuel oil transfers on
any inspected vessel. The TSAC and MERPAC recommendations are available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 155.710(e), which sets
forth the provisions for the qualifications of the PIC of any fuel oil
transfer requiring a DOI. The proposal would not change the existing
requirements for the PIC on uninspected vessels, and the requirements
for vessels transferring cargo would also remain unchanged. The change
would provide inspected vessels two options for meeting requirements to
serve as the PIC of a fuel oil transfer. Vessel operators could comply
with the current inspected vessel requirement of having a PIC with a
valid MMC with either an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement, or use
the new option for inspected vessels of designating a PIC with an LOD
as described in 33 CFR 155.715.
A. Proposed Amendments to Sec. 155.710(e)
We propose to revise the text of current paragraphs (e)(1) and
(e)(2) and redesignate them as paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii). We
would then redesignate the remaining paragraphs in that section and
amend a reference in the redesignated paragraph regarding tank barges
to reflect our removal of paragraph (e)(2).
With respect to MMCs, we would also remove obsolete terminology
such as merchant mariner ``licenses'' and ``Merchant Mariner
Documents.'' The Coast Guard ceased issuing those types of documents in
2009 when we transitioned to the streamlined MMC. Also, we would
clarify the first sentence of Sec. 155.710(e) by changing ``shall
verify'' to ``must verify.''
B. Proposed Amendments to Sec. 155.715
In Sec. 155.715, we would change the reference to Sec.
155.710(e)(2) so that it refers to Sec. 155.710(e)(1) instead. This
change would reflect our amendments to Sec. 155.710(e). Also, to
remove a long-standing conflict of referring to the same letter as both
``letter of instruction'' and ``letter of designation,'' we would amend
the reference to a letter of instruction by simply referring to it as
``the letter referenced in Sec. 155.710(e)(1).''
[[Page 40333]]
This letter has become known by the title we gave it in the Sec.
155.715 heading, ``letter of designation.'' Section 155.715 requires
the letter to designate the holder as a PIC of the transfer of fuel oil
and to state that the holder has received sufficient formal instruction
from the operator or agent of the vessel to ensure his or her ability
to safely and adequately carry out the duties and responsibilities of
the PIC described in 33 CFR 156.120 and 156.150. Changing our reference
to it as ``the letter referenced in Sec. 155.710(e)(1)'' would not
change any of those requirements, but it would make it clear that
``letter of designation'' is the correct way to refer to the letter
referenced in Sec. 155.710(e) that must satisfy the requirements of
Sec. 155.715.
C. Proposed Rule Only Addresses Fuel Oil Transfers, Not LNG Fuel
Transfers
This proposed rule would not apply to liquefied natural gas (LNG)
fuel transfers. Both Sec. Sec. 155.710(e) and 155.715 apply solely to
the transfer of ``fuel oil.'' Fuel oil means any oil used to fuel the
propulsion and auxiliary machinery of the ship carrying the fuel.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As provided in Sec. 155.110, this 33 CFR 151.05 definition
of ``fuel oil'' applies to Sec. Sec. 155.710 and 155.715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
and 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 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. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control
regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation
issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination,
and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and
controlled through a budgeting process.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a ``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. DHS
considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
See the OMB Memorandum titled ``Guidance Implementing Executive Order
13771, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ''
(April 5, 2017). Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed
rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis below.
On June 20, 2016, the Coast Guard published an Inspection of Towing
Vessels final rule.\15\ The Coast Guard estimated the rule would apply
to more than 5,500 towing vessels that had previously been uninspected
vessels. That rule established 46 CFR subchapter M, Towing Vessels
(parts 136 through 144), which requires vessels subject to it to obtain
a certificate of inspection (COI). The phase-in period for obtaining a
COI under subchapter M runs from July 20, 2018, to July 20, 2022.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016.
\16\ See 46 CFR 136.202, which calls for 25 percent of the
vessels to have COIs by July 22, 2019. It also calls for an
additional 25 percent to obtain COIs for each of the remaining 3
years of the phase-in period. The final rule was made effective July
20, 2016, but it delayed implementation of most of its part 140
operations requirements, part 141 lifesaving requirements, part 142
fire protection requirements, part 143 machinery and electrical
systems and equipment requirements, and part 144 construction and
arrangement requirements until July 20, 2018. See Sec. Sec.
140.105, 141.105, 142.105, 143.200, and 144.105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As uninspected vessels subject to the requirements of 33 CFR
155.710(e)(2), these towing vessels had the flexibility of designating
a PIC of a fuel oil transfer through an LOD rather than meeting the
requirement to have a mariner aboard with a valid MMC with an officer
or Tankerman-PIC endorsement.\17\ When a towing vessel covered by the
2016 rule (81 FR 40003) obtains a COI, it will become an inspected
vessel subject to the requirements of 33 CFR 155.710(e)(1) under which
individuals designated as PIC of a fuel oil transfer must hold an MMC
with either an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement. When exercising
the option to designate a PIC through an LOD, the cost of providing
formal instruction as described in 33 CFR 155.715 is borne by vessel
operating companies; whereas, we are assuming the cost of obtaining the
approved training for an MMC with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement is borne
by the individual obtaining the credential, making the MMC requirement
relatively more expensive for individuals who perform the same function
in either case. Further, because a Tankerman-PIC endorsement is
available as a minimum qualification, we do not assume that an
individual would choose to obtain an officer endorsement as their
qualification for PIC because a less burdensome option is available.
The option of obtaining an MMC with endorsements other than a
Tankerman-PIC, which is the minimum qualification necessary to comply
with existing regulations, is the choice of the individual. In cases
where an officer endorsement is used to satisfy the PIC requirement, we
assume that it is because the individual already holds an MMC with
other endorsements. The Coast Guard assumes the MMC was obtained in
order to seek employment as an officer on vessels and serves as a PIC
as part of their routine duties, rather than obtaining an officer
endorsement to serve explicitly as PIC. The Coast Guard seeks input on
the validity of this assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In previous information collections letters of designation,
LODs are referred to as letters of instruction (LOIs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2017, the Coast Guard issued CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-
17 titled ``Guidelines for Issuing Endorsements for Tankerman-PIC
Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels.'' This policy minimized
the burden of obtaining an MMC with the Tankerman-PIC endorsement
necessary to serve as a PIC of a fuel oil transfer on an inspected
towing vessel by allowing persons to obtain an MMC with a Tankerman-PIC
endorsement restricted to fuel transfers on towing vessels. This policy
allows those with an existing LOD to use the LOD to satisfy service
requirements. This proposed rule would allow for an alternative method
of designating who may serve as the PIC of a fuel oil transfer on an
inspected vessel by providing the LOD option to inspected vessels that
was previously only available to uninspected vessels. This would ease
the economic burden on individuals who would otherwise bear the cost to
obtain an MMC with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement.
Section 155.715 of title 33 of the CFR describes the requirements
for an LOD, including proof that the holder ``has received sufficient
formal instruction from the operator or agent of the vessel to ensure
his or her ability to safely and adequately carry out the duties and
responsibilities of the PIC.'' This formal instruction is less
burdensome than the approved training required to obtain the Tankerman-
PIC endorsement, including a Coast Guard-approved firefighting course
and a Coast Guard-approved tankship dangerous liquids course.\18\ This
deregulatory action relieves individuals of the cost of obtaining and
renewing an MMC while allowing continued operation of vessels during
[[Page 40334]]
fuel oil transfers. The individuals expected to take advantage of this
deregulatory action are the same individuals currently serving as a PIC
through the use of an LOD on an uninspected towing vessel. While the
inspection status of the vessels in the baseline population changes, we
do not expect the fuel oil transfer operations on those vessels to
change. Therefore we assume that the baseline risk of fuel oil
transfers on towing vessels remains the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 46 CFR 13.201--Original application for Tankerman-PIC
endorsement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This deregulatory action would modify the text of 33 CFR 155.710 to
specify that inspected vessels would also have the flexibility of
designating a PIC of a fuel oil transfer through an LOD rather than
meeting the requirement to have a mariner aboard with a valid MMC with
an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement. This is the only change to
Sec. 155.710, as the requirements for an LOD remain the same.
Table 1--Summary of Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability................ Extend the LOD option described in 33 CFR
155.710(e)(2) to inspected vessels for
fuel oil transfers. This would allow PIC
designation to be fulfilled by an LOD
rather than an MMC with an officer or
Tankerman-PIC endorsement.
Affected Population.......... The 11,480 individuals on 5,740 vessels
that transfer fuel oil and that have a
capacity to carry at least 250 barrels
or that receive fuel oil from a vessel
with a capacity to carry at least 250
barrels.
Cost Savings (2018 $ 10-year period of analysis: $250,384,488,
Discounted at 7%). Annualized: $35,649,118.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population
(1) Vessel Population.
Section 155.700 of 33 CFR requires each owner or operator of a
vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more that engages in the
transfer of fuel oil on the navigable waters or contiguous zone of the
United States to designate the PIC of each transfer of fuel oil to or
from the vessel. The affected population for this deregulatory action
is a subset of all inspected vessels subject to the PIC requirements in
33 CFR 155.710(e)(1). The recent change from uninspected to inspected
status makes subchapter M vessels uniquely impacted by the MMC
requirement. The Coast Guard is not aware of other inspected vessel
populations that would likely make use of this rule.
The vessel types identified as the affected population in the
subchapter M rule are the same types identified under this rule. Since
inspections started in 2018, more vessels have been identified, with a
current population of 5,740. There are still difficulties identifying a
steady population since inspections are ongoing through year 2022,
during which Coast Guard is able to identify previously unencountered
vessels and vessels not subject to subchapter M that were previously
thought to be.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Several vessel types are currently incorrectly marked as
Subchapter M in the Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) database, including harbor assist, emergency
assist, passenger barges, and non-self-propelled towing vessels. For
a list of vessels that are not included in subchapter M
applicability, see 46 CFR 136.105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all of the 5,740 affected vessels will become inspected vessels
(obtain their COI) at the same time. As of June 2019, there are 766
inspected towing vessels under subchapter M.\20\ That number will
continue to increase but is subject to change as inspections are
completed. Table 2 below lists the number of inspections completed or
expected to be completed in each year of the phase-in period.\21\ For
the purpose of this analysis, the first effective year will be 2020. We
will not count cost savings for vessels that already obtained their COI
in 2018 and 2019 because we assume they would already need individuals
with MMCs to continue operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Monthly numbers of inspections completed from July 2018
through June 2019 provided on June 27, 2019 by the National Towing
Vessel Coordinator of the Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance.
\21\ Projected inspections provided by the Office of Commercial
Vessel Compliance, June 27, 2019. A total of 1,236 inspections are
expected to be completed by the end of 2019, with 253 already
completed in 2018, and 513 already completed as of June 2019.
Another 470 are projected before the end of 2019 for a total of 983
to be completed in 2019. The office expects a surge of inspections
in 2020 because all single vessel companies will have to obtain a
COI for their vessel by July 2020. In addition the inspections
originally scheduled during the government shutdown of early 2019
were rescheduled as soon as possible.
Table 2--Projection of Subchapter M Vessels Obtaining a COI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total subchapter M
Year New COIs inspected vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 253 253
2019 983 1,236
2020 2,031 3,267
2021 1,236 4,503
2022 1,237 5,740
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of towing vessels, excluding a vessel from the
population based on fuel capacity is unreliable because a vessel with a
smaller (under 250 barrels) capacity may obtain fuel oil from a larger
(250 or more barrels) vessel causing both to need a PIC to initiate a
fuel oil transfer between the vessels. Section 156.120(s) requires a
PIC at the transferring and receiving ends, and Sec. 156.115 states
that no person may serve as PIC on both ends unless authorized by the
captain of the port.
The Coast Guard does not know if a given vessel with a capacity of
less than 250 barrels will receive fuel from a vessel with a capacity
of 250 or more barrels of fuel oil. Therefore, we assume that vessels
with a capacity under 250 barrels may sometimes be required to have a
designated PIC when transferring fuel oil with vessels with a larger
capacity based on the requirements in Sec. 156.120(s). The number of
fuel oil transfers between large- (250 or more barrels) and small-
(under 250 barrels) capacity vessels is unknown, but the Coast Guard
assumes it to be a significant amount.
(2) Affected Individuals.
To estimate the impact of this deregulatory action, we must first
establish a baseline of what the world would look like if no
deregulatory action was taken. In this case, the baseline assumes that
all newly inspected subchapter M vessels would use individuals with
MMCs to serve as the PIC for fuel oil transfers. Any cost savings from
this rule stem from the utilization of an LOD to qualify as PIC for
fuel transfers and thus the avoided costs of obtaining MMCs strictly
for the purpose of being qualified as PIC of a fuel oil transfer.
Each vessel from the affected population is assumed to have at
least two individuals able to serve as a PIC to ensure that at least
one of them is available for duty at any point in a 24-
[[Page 40335]]
hour period.\22\ Because a PIC cannot serve on more than one vessel at
a time (unless authorized by the captain of the port), the vessel
population can be used as an accurate basis for the number of PICs
needed. From the population of 5,740 vessels, each carrying two PICs,
we achieve an affected population of individuals equal to 11,480. The
population of 5,740 becomes constant in Year 3 of the analysis period
or in 2022 and thereafter, once all affected vessels are inspected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Information collection request (ICR), ``Waste Management
Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters of Instruction for Certain
Persons-in-Charge (PIC) and Great Lakes Dry Cargo Residue
Recordkeeping'' OMB control number 1625-0072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard assumes that as vessels obtain their COI,
individuals will get original MMCs to serve as the PIC of fuel oil
transfers on those vessels. The Coast Guard uses a turnover rate of 30
percent each year, and assumes that any mariner lost to turnover in a
given year is replaced by a mariner with an original MMC in order to
maintain a stable population of mariners able to serve the total
population of active vessels.\23\ Further, it is necessary to track the
length of service to determine when mariners would be required to renew
their MMC at 5 years of service as the cost of renewal is significantly
less than the cost of obtaining an original MMC.\24\ We request comment
on our assumption of a 30 percent turnover rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ We obtained the 30 percent turnover rate from an OMB-
approved ICR (OMB Control Number 1625-0072), which we updated as
part of a periodic renewal in 2018.
\24\ An MMC is valid for a term of 5 years from the date of
issuance. Per 46 CFR 10.205(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two estimates are central to estimating cost savings: First, the
number of individuals expected to obtain an original MMC in each year;
and second, the number of individuals expected to renew their MMC in
each year beginning in Year 4. An original MMC must be renewed every 5
years, such that an MMC originally obtained in 2018 would be renewed in
2023. While we do not count cost savings for original MMCs obtained
before 2020, we do count cost savings for avoided renewals of those
MMCs since the renewal would occur after the affective year of 2020.
The total numbers for these two estimates are listed below in table 3
in the columns labeled ``Total new MMCs'' and ``Renewals.''
Table 3--Summary of Affected Population of the Proposed Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Original Original
Calendar year Effective year affected MMCs needed New COIs MMCs from MMCs from Total new Renewals
vessels new COIs turnover MMCS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018................................ ....................... 253 506 253 506 0 506 0
2019................................ ....................... 1,236 2,472 983 1,966 152 2,118 0
2020................................ Year 1................. 3,267 6,534 2,031 4,062 742 4,804 0
2021................................ Year 2................. 4,503 9,006 1,236 2,472 1,960 4,432 0
2022................................ Year 3................. 5,740 11,480 1,237 2,474 2,702 5,176 0
2023................................ Year 4................. 5,740 11,480 0 0 3,444 3,444 121
2024................................ Year 5................. 5,740 11,480 0 0 3,444 3,444 508
2025................................ Year 6................. 5,740 11,480 0 0 3,444 3,444 1,153
2026................................ Year 7................. 5,740 11,480 0 0 3,444 3,444 1,064
2027................................ Year 8................. 5,740 11,480 0 0 3,444 3,444 1,243
2028................................ Year 9................. 5,740 11,480 0 0 3,444 3,444 827
2029................................ Year 10................ 5,740 11,480 0 0 3,444 3,444 827
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table does not contain totals because the values in the columns are not additive. The columns merely show the affected population annually
and should not be used for summation.
The ``Total new MMCs'' column equals the number of individuals who
are newly credentialed each year due to vessels obtaining COIs and
individuals who are newly credentialed to replace those who left in the
previous year. This is the sum of the columns ``Original MMCs from new
COIs'' and ``Original MMCs from turnover.'' In Year 1 (2020), there are
4,062 original MMCs from new COIs and 742 original MMCs from turnover
in 2019, for a total of 4,804 original MMCs. The 742 original MMCs from
turnover account for 30 percent of the total number of 2,472 MMCs
needed in 2019. In Year 2 (2021), there are 4,432 total new MMCs--2,472
are due to new COIs and 1,960 are from turnover in the first year. The
1,960 new MMCs due to turnover in the first year account for 30 percent
of the 6,534 total MMCs needed for that year.
We calculate renewals by multiplying the total number of original
MMCs in a given starting year by the probability that an individual
would still be employed as a PIC after five years. Where ((1-
0.30)[supcaret](5-1) = (0.7[supcaret]4) is the probability of
remaining, (0.7) given a turnover rate of 0.3, compounded for each year
after the first year of having the MMC in the 5 years before renewal.
For Year 4, this is equivalent to 121 = [506 x (0.7[supcaret]4)]. For
Year 5, this is equivalent to 508 = [2,118 x (0.7[supcaret]4)]. For
Year 6, this is equivalent to 1,153 = [4,804 x (0.7[supcaret]4)]. For
Year 7, this is equivalent to 1,064 = [4,432 x (0.7[supcaret]4)]. For
Year 8, this is equivalent to 1,243 = [5,176 x (0.7[supcaret]4)]. For
Year 9 and all subsequent years, renewals become 827 = [3,444 x
(0.7[supcaret]4)].
Cost Savings
Cost savings come from the forgone cost to individuals of obtaining
and renewing an MMC. For towing vessels that only recently became
inspected vessels, the cost of an MMC for the sole purpose of serving
as PIC of a fuel oil transfer is a new burden. Not all of the
individuals impacted by the 2016 towing vessel final rule have obtained
an MMC yet.\25\ The cost savings for this deregulatory analysis assumes
that the cost PICs would save for an MMC is comprised of two elements:
(1) PICs who obtained an MMC but would no longer need to renew it; and
(2) PICs who avoid getting an MMC altogether. The avoided cost includes
the evaluation and issuance fees for an MMC, the tuition and travel
expenses associated with the required approved training, and the
expense of meeting the MMC renewal requirements every 5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 81 FR 40003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the requirement in 33 CFR 155.715 for the operator or
agent of a vessel to ensure the holder of an LOD has received formal
instruction to ensure their ability to carry out the
[[Page 40336]]
duties of a PIC, the Coast Guard assumes that companies utilizing an
LOD would provide the formal instruction. All those companies already
utilizing an LOD while their vessels are uninspected would already have
the capacity to provide the formal instruction required for the holder
of an LOD on an inspected vessel after this rule; therefore, we
estimate companies who employ PICs would not incur additional costs
(and subsequently cost savings) as a result of the requirements of this
proposed rule. The Coast Guard requests comments from the public on
whether or not your company, who provides formal instruction for the
purpose of a PIC obtaining an LOD, would incur costs from this proposed
rule.
The costs to individuals stem from the requirements to obtain an
MMC with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement as described in 46 CFR 13.201.
These requirements include completion of Coast Guard-approved courses
in both firefighting and tankship Dangerous Liquids. As of May 2019,
the average cost of a Basic Fire Fighting course is $731.31 and ranges
in length of 2 to 5 days depending on whether it is offered as a
separate module or as part of the International Convention on Standards
of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers Basic
Training. We assume an average course length of 27 hours, which would
require 4 days of training. Similarly, the average cost of a Dangerous
Liquids course is $985.62 with almost all offerings being 5 days in
duration with an average of 38 hours of training. The length of the
training in days assumes an 8-hour day, and that any part of an
additional day would be considered a full day's opportunity cost in
order to account for travel (that is, a mariner would not be able to
leave training at noon and return to work). Because very few of the
training facilities offer both courses--and none of the training
facilities offer the courses concurrently--mariners would need to
schedule each training course separately. See table 4 below for the
summary of course costs.
Table 4--Average Course Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length (days
Course Tuition Length (days) rounded) Length (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Fire Fighting............................. $731.31 3.27 4 27
Dangerous Liquids............................... 985.62 4.80 5 38
---------------------------------------------------------------
Summary..................................... 1,716.93 8.07 9 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, 46 CFR 10.219 prescribes the fees for obtaining an MMC
with a Tankerman-PIC endorsement. This includes an evaluation fee of
$95 and an issuance fee of $45. Every 5 years there is a cost to renew
the credential with the endorsement, which includes a $50 evaluation
fee and a $45 issuance fee.\26\ For the original issuance and renewal,
there is a security screening expense of $125.25.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ From 46 CFR 10.219(a), Table 1--Fees. Using column
``Evaluation then the fee is . . .'' and rows ``Original endorsement
for ratings other than qualified ratings'' and ``Renewal endorsement
for ratings other than qualified ratings.''
\27\ Transportation Security Administration 30-Day notice.
[Docket No. TSA-2006-24191] Revision of Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC[supreg]) Program (82 FR 14521, March
21, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard assumes varying modes of travel for mariners
getting to and from approved training based on the distribution of
travel modes derived in the Vessel Security Officer (VSO) Interim
Rule.\28\ The percentages below in table 5 reflect the same percentages
from this rule.\29\ In further analysis, we use the average cost per
mariner, weighted by the distribution of travel type.\30\ We estimate
the total travel cost of the for mariners to be about $102,837,070,
undiscounted. We estimate the average travel cost for a mariner to be
about $8,958, undiscounted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 73 FR 29060, May 20, 2008, ``Implementation of Vessel
Security Officer Training and Certification Requirements-
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended'' rule corrected June
17, 2008 (73 FR 34190).
\29\ See Table 4.--TOTAL NATIONAL SHARE OR PERCENTAGE OF--Total
National Share of Percentage of VSOs THAT WILL COMMUTE, DRIVE/LODGE,
AND FLY/LODGE That Will Commute, Drive/Lodge, and Fly/Lodge in 73 FR
29060, 29065.
\30\ We use the average cost because the distribution in travel
does not change in any given year. If the actual locations of
individuals used to develop the baseline was known, then we could
base the distribution on actual travel. However, this information is
not known and could not be known for every individual in each year.
Table 5--Distribution of Travel Costs for Individuals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected
Mode of transport Distribution mariner Cost (2018
(%) population USD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commute......................................................... 26.50 3,042 $27,072,685
Drive/Lodge..................................................... 16.70 1,917 15,590,931
Fly/Lodge....................................................... 56.80 6,521 60,173,453
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 100 11,480 102,837,070
-----------------------------------------------
Average Cost per Mariner................................ .............. .............. 8,958
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
In table 6, we show the unit costs that comprise the total costs to
individuals in table 9. Each method of travel has a different cost,
while the costs of training courses and MMC applications are the same
for all travel types. The total cost per mariner includes the fixed
costs of the two approved training courses and travel costs. As travel
costs are highly
[[Page 40337]]
variable, we obtained the most recent cost figures for travel and
lodging, available from either 2017 or 2018, as described in the source
reference column.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 46 CFR 13.120 Renewal of tankerman endorsement.
Table 6--Unit Travel Cost Estimates
[Adjusted to 2018 USD]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Unit cost Source reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity cost of applicant time...... $60.66..................... The total opportunity cost of time is the
base wage multiplied by the loaded wage
factor to obtain total compensation
including non-wage benefits. $39.61 is
the mean wage estimate from the 2019
National Occupation Employment and Wage
Statistics for Captains, Mates, and
Pilots of Water Vessels (53-5021).
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes535021.htm.
The loaded wage factor of (33.11/21.62)
is obtained by dividing the total
compensation by wages and salaries for
full-time transportation workers. These
are annual averages of quarterly data
series CMU2010000520610D and
CMU2020000520610D respectively, obtained
from BLS Employer Cost for Employee
Compensation. https://www.bls.gov/data/.
Driving Mileage (rate per mile)......... $0.58...................... ``Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage
Reimbursement Rates'' from GSA tables
published on January 1, 2019. https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates.
Non-Commuting Driving Time.............. 100 mile/27.08 mph For a mariner who would drive/lodge to
commuting speed. the school 100 miles round trip, we
divide 100 miles by the average
commuting speed of 27.08 miles per hour
(mph). We obtained 27.08 mph from the
Federal Highway Administration's (FHA)
Summary of Travel Trends, 2017. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/documents/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf. pg
79.
Round-trip Air-Fare..................... $346....................... From the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS). Average
price of a round-trip airfare for 2018
in unadjusted dollars. https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/Annual%20Fares%201995-2018.xlsx.
Round-trip Airport Transfer............. $61.28..................... We used the cost of a round-trip airport
transfer from a Coast Guard interim
rule, ``Validation of Merchant Mariners'
Vital Information and Issuance of Coast
Guard Merchant Mariner's Licenses and
Certificates of Registry'', published on
January 13, 2006 (71 FR 2154). Figure
found in table 4, page 2160. A later
figure could not be found so this figure
was adjusted for inflation using the GDP
deflator factor of 1.23 times the
original cost of $50. The round-trip
airport transfer cost is based on
research of the average private and
public transfer costs, including taxi or
car rental costs associated with U.S.
airports and regional destinations. It
is not a mathematical or rigorous
estimate, but an average transfer cost
based on information available from
associations and trade groups, airports,
transit authorities, and governments.
Flying Excursion Time................... 16 hours................... A mariner that would fly/lodge in order
to attend a training course or school
would incur an opportunity cost of
flying. We assume the total air
excursion time of 16 hours, equivalent
to two days of travel.
Incidentals and Meals (per diem)........ $64.57..................... Obtained from the Composite of General
Services Administration (GSA) domestic
per diem rates for meals/incidentals
(https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates) in training site and REC
cities for January 2018. Taxes ARE
included in the M&IE rate per FAQ #12.
https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates/frequently-asked-questions-per-diem#12.
Lodging (per night)..................... $142.16.................... Obtained from the Composite of General
Services Administration (GSA) domestic
per diem rates for lodging (https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates rates) training site, and REC cities for
January 2018. Taxes are not
automatically included, so lodging taxes
and state sales taxes were added to the
lodging per diem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7, ``MMC Costs for Mariners,'' shows how the above unit costs
for travel and tuition contribute to the total average cost per
mariner. The average cost of $8,957.93 is for each mariner expected to
obtain an original MMC. Tuition costs and travel costs do not apply for
renewal if a mariner served at least 90 days of service during the
preceding 5 years.\31\ If a mariner cannot fulfill that service
requirement, we assume that they turnover and must complete the
requirements for an original MMC. The Coast Guard estimates the average
travel cost for a mariner that commutes to approved training is about
$8,899.05. The average travel cost for a mariner that drives and stays
overnight for approved training is about $8,132.31. Finally, we
estimate the average travel cost for a mariner that flies and stays
overnight for approved training to be about $9,228.15. This cost
analysis uses an average because the distribution of travel is constant
year to year.
[[Page 40338]]
Table 7--MMC Costs for Mariners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training cost by travel mode
Category Derivation Amount -----------------------------------------------
Commuting Drive/Lodge Fly/Lodge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuition....................... Average price of $1,716.93 $1,716.93 $1,716.93 $1,716.93
$731.31 for
Basic
Firefighting,
and $985.62 for
Dangerous
Liquids.
MMC Fees...................... $95 evaluation 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00
fee, $45
issuance fee.
Security Screening Fee........ $125.25......... 125.25 125.25 125.25 125.25
Round-trip Airfare............ $346.00......... 346.00 NA NA 346.00
Round-trip Airport transfer... $61.28.......... 61.28 NA NA 61.28
Lodging....................... $142.16 per 1,279.45 NA 1,279.45 1,279.45
lodging night x
9 lodging
nights.
Commuting Meals & Incidental $48.43 per diem 435.86 435.86 NA NA
Expenses. x 9 training
days
(equivalent to
75% of full per
diem).
Non-Commuting Meals & $64.57 per diem 645.71 NA 645.71 645.71
Incidental Expenses. x (7 training
days) + $48.43
x (4 first and
last days of
travel 75% of
total).
Commuting Motor Vehicle Costs. 100-mile commute 522.00 522.00 NA NA
x $0.58 per
mile x 9
training days.
Non-Commuting Motor Vehicle 100-mile round- 58.00 NA 58.00 NA
Costs. trip x $0.58
per mile.
Training Time (Opportunity 65 hrs. training 3,942.95 3,942.95 3,942.95 3,942.95
Cost). x loaded hourly
wage.
Commuting Driving Time (100-mile round 2,016.05 2,016.05 NA NA
(Opportunity Cost). trip / 27 mph
commuting
speed) x loaded
hourly wage x 9
days.
One Non-Commuting Driving Time (100-mile round 224.01 NA 224.01 NA
(Opportunity Cost). trip / 27 mph
commuting
speed) x loaded
hourly wage.
One Flying Time (Opportunity 16 hours x 970.57 NA NA 970.57
Cost). loaded hourly
wage.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost per Mariner.... ................ .............. 8,899.05 8,132.31 9,228.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Table 8, ``Cost Savings to Individuals,'' shows how the
introduction of newly inspected vessels, and turnover from subsequent
years, impact costs over a 10-year period of analysis. It should be
noted that the renewal costs only enter in Year 6, when the first
cohort of original MMCs from Year 1 would be eligible to renew, given
turnover in the first 5 years. The affected population in this analysis
are reflected in the columns ``Original MMCs'' and ``Renewals'' in
table 10. We showed this population previously in table 3. As shown in
table 8, the Coast Guard estimates the total discounted costs savings
to mariners of this deregulatory savings analysis over a 10-year period
of analysis to be about $249.2 million using a 7-percent discount rate.
We estimate the annualized cost savings over 10 years to be about $35.5
million using a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 8--Cost Savings to Individuals
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost Renewal Total
Effective Original of fee + Total annual annual Grand total Grand total Grand total
Calendar year year MMCs original Renewals security cost of new cost of annual cost annual cost annual cost
MMC * screening MMCs renewals discounted 7% discounted 3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.................................................... .......... 506 .......... .......... .......... .............. .......... .............. .............. ..............
2019.................................................... .......... 2,118 .......... .......... .......... .............. .......... .............. .............. ..............
2020.................................................... 1 4,804 $8,958 .......... .......... $43,030,327 .......... $43,030,327 $40,215,258 $41,777,016
2021.................................................... 2 4,432 8,958 .......... .......... 39,703,350 .......... 39,703,350 34,678,444 37,424,216
2022.................................................... 3 5,176 8,958 .......... .......... 46,364,469 .......... 46,364,469 37,847,218 42,430,057
2023.................................................... 4 3,444 8,958 121 220 30,851,121 26,758 30,877,879 23,556,586 27,434,596
2024.................................................... 5 3,444 8,958 508 220 30,851,121 111,994 30,963,114 22,076,273 26,709,055
2025.................................................... 6 3,444 8,958 1,153 220 30,851,121 254,024 31,105,145 20,726,672 26,050,069
2026.................................................... 7 3,444 8,958 1,064 220 30,851,121 234,384 31,085,505 19,358,490 25,275,360
2027.................................................... 8 3,444 8,958 1,243 220 30,851,121 273,707 31,124,828 18,114,933 24,570,226
2028.................................................... 9 3,444 8,958 827 220 30,851,121 182,126 31,033,247 16,880,030 23,784,399
2029.................................................... 10 3,444 8,958 827 220 30,851,121 182,126 31,033,247 15,775,729 23,091,650
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .............. .......... 346,321,110 249,229,632 298,546,644
Annualized...................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .............. .......... .............. 35,484,693 34,998,774
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* This column includes the cost for courses plus travel costs and fees.
We do not estimate cost savings to owners and operators of vessels
because we assume that companies operating towing vessels already have
the capability of providing necessary formal instruction to those
individuals being issued an LOD since they offered this formal
instruction prior to their vessels becoming inspected under the 2016
rule (81 FR 40003). Turnover in owners and operators is expected to be
stable for the near future, so we do not expect there
[[Page 40339]]
to be new companies that would have to establish new formal instruction
capabilities.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Analysis from the 2016 towing vessel final rule found entry
of 91 vessels and exit of 88 vessels. A subject matter expert
confirmed that these numbers are similar and that it matches with
firms' ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without this deregulatory action, the Coast Guard would need to
evaluate the MMC applications that would be submitted if an MMC with a
Tankerman PIC endorsement were still required to serve as a PIC for
fuel oil transfers. This deregulatory savings analysis accounts for the
cost savings to the Coast Guard as MMC applications for Tankerman-PIC
endorsements would no longer require evaluation or issuance. Each
application takes approximately 55 minutes to process, at a GS-8 loaded
mean hourly wage rate of $49, for a cost of $44.92 per application.\33\
As shown in table 9, over a 10-year period of analysis, the Coast Guard
would save about $1,402,143 in 2018 dollars, discounted at a 7-percent
discount rate, from the lower volume of MMC applications. We estimate
annualized cost savings to the government to be $199,634 using a 7-
percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Information provided by subject matter expert in the Office
of Merchant Mariner Credentialing, and corroborated by NMC
officials. GS-8 mean hourly wage rate is $49 Outside Government Rate
per Commandant Instruction 7310.1T November 2018.
Table--9 Cost Savings to the Coast Guard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Cost of Grand total Grand total
Effective year Original MMCs reviewing Renewals reviewing Grand total annual cost annual cost
original MMC renewed MMC annual cost discounted 7% discounted 3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 4,804 $44.92 .............. $ $215,762 $201,646 $209,477
2....................................... 4,432 44.92 .............. .............. 199,080 173,884 187,652
3....................................... 5,176 44.92 .............. .............. 232,480 189,773 212,752
4....................................... 3,444 44.92 121 44.92 160,150 122,178 142,291
5....................................... 3,444 44.92 508 44.92 177,532 126,578 153,141
6....................................... 3,444 44.92 1,153 44.92 206,497 137,598 172,938
7....................................... 3,444 44.92 1,064 44.92 202,492 126,102 164,645
8....................................... 3,444 44.92 1,243 44.92 210,511 122,520 166,180
9....................................... 3,444 44.92 827 44.92 191,835 104,345 147,025
10...................................... 3,444 44.92 827 44.92 191,835 97,519 142,743
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1,988,174 1,402,143 1,698,844
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 199,634 199,156
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Costs Incurred To Prepare Letter of Designation
While the use of an LOD saves the individual approved training
costs, the actual letter of designation still takes time to prepare.
Using the time estimate from the existing collection of information for
PICs, we assume the preparation of a letter takes approximately 10
minutes.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ From OMB Control Number 1625-0072 (ICR 201803-1625-007)--
0.167 hours equals approximately 10 minutes from Table 12.3 in
Appendix A of ICR 201803-1625-007 (OMB Control Number 1625-0072)
last updated in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projected number of LODs used is based on the number of vessels
becoming inspected and otherwise requiring a credentialed mariner to
serve as PIC of a fuel oil transfer. The opportunity cost of the time
to prepare an LOD uses the wage of a compliance officer, with a loaded
mean hourly wage rate of $53.39, multiplied by the time to prepare the
LOD ($53.39 x 10 minutes or 0.167 hours), which is approximately
$8.92.\35\ The opportunity cost for new individuals using an LOD over
the 10-year analysis period is about $247,287 in 2018 dollars,
discounted, using a 7-percent discount rate. See table 10 below. We
estimate the annualized cost to be about $35,208 using a 7-percent
discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ $34.86 is the mean hourly wage estimate from the 2018
National Occupation Employment and Wage Statistics for Compliance
Officers (13-1041) https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes131041.htm.
The loaded wage factor of ($33.11/$21.62) is obtained by dividing
the total compensation by wages and salaries for full-time
transportation workers. These are annual averages of quarterly data
series CMU2010000520610D and CMU2020000520610D respectively,
obtained from BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation (https://www.bls.gov/data/).
Table 10--Costs of Preparing an LOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals Cost of Total annual Grand total Grand total
Year needing a new preparing LOD cost of annual cost annual cost
LOD per mariner preparing LOD discounted 7% discounted 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 4,804 $8.92 $42,827 $40,025 $41,579
2............................... 4,432 8.92 39,515 34,514 37,247
3............................... 5,176 8.92 46,145 37,668 42,229
4............................... 3,444 8.92 30,705 23,425 27,281
5............................... 3,444 8.92 30,705 21,892 26,486
6............................... 3,444 8.92 30,705 20,460 25,715
7............................... 3,444 8.92 30,705 19,122 24,966
8............................... 3,444 8.92 30,705 17,871 24,239
9............................... 3,444 8.92 30,705 16,702 23,533
10.............................. 3,444 8.92 30,705 15,609 22,847
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. 343,423 247,287 296,124
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40340]]
Annualized.............. .............. .............. .............. 35,208 34,715
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Costs Incurred by the Coast Guard
The cost incurred by the Coast Guard only includes the time for
inspectors in the field to review the documentation designating a PIC
of a fuel oil transfer on board, which takes the same amount of time
whether an LOD or an MMC is being reviewed since any method used to
designate a PIC must be immediately available for inspection. We assume
no cost change to the Coast Guard. Since the LOD is not a credential
issued by the Coast Guard, and is only verified on board a vessel,
there is no additional time cost to reviewing LODs.
Net Cost Savings
Using a perpetual period of analysis, the Coast Guard estimates the
total annualized cost savings of the proposed rule to be $24,442,840 in
2016 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate. The total cost savings
is the sum of the cost savings to individuals no longer obtaining MMCs,
shown in table 8, and the time cost savings to the Coast Guard, shown
in table 9, of no longer reviewing MMCs. Net cost savings are the total
cost savings minus the costs incurred, shown in table 11. We estimate
the net cost savings of this proposed rule over a 10-year period of
analysis to be about $250,384,488 discounted at 7-percent in 2018
dollars.
Table 11--Summary of Net Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule 2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Net cost Annualized
Cost savings incurred savings cost savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total..................................... $348,309,284 $343,423 $347,965,861 ..............
Discounted 7%................................... 250,631,775 247,287 250,384,488 35,649,118
Discounted 3%................................... 300,245,488 296,124 299,949,365 35,163,216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives Considered
(1) MMC with officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement (No Limited
Endorsement).
Continue to require inspected vessels with a fuel oil capacity of
250 barrels or more--or that obtain fuel oil from a vessel with a fuel
oil capacity of 250 barrels or more--to have an individual holding an
MMC with either an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement designated as
the PIC of any fuel oil transfer. Under this alternative, any
designated PIC of a fuel oil transfer would be required to hold an MMC
with an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement, without a limited
endorsement for fuel oil transfers.
The Coast Guard rejected this alternative because there are no cost
savings associated with it and therefore it would not meet the Coast
Guard's goal of reducing regulations under E.O. 13771. Individuals
would still bear the cost of obtaining an MMC, and after a vessel
receives its COI, individuals previously qualified as PIC through the
LOD options would not be able to be designated as a PIC until they
obtain their MMC.
(2) Continue to Issue Limited Endorsement MMCs with Tankerman-PIC
Restricted to Fuel Oil Transfers on Towing Vessels.
No regulatory change would be associated with this alternative. The
Coast Guard would continue to utilize the CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-17 to
issue MMC endorsements for Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers
on Towing Vessels. Under this continued action alternative, the
existing policy letter would continue to provide a means for
individuals on towing vessels previously designated as PIC of a fuel
oil transfer using an LOD to be issued a limited endorsement Tankerman-
PIC restricted to Fuel Transfers.
While limited endorsements save individuals the cost of approved
training courses, such that they only pay the cost of applying for an
MMC, the Coast Guard must still evaluate the MMC application and issue
the credentials. These applications take 45 minutes to evaluate at a
loaded GS-8 wage rate of $49 per hour for a labor cost of about $36.75.
Over a 10-year period of analysis, we estimate the cost to the
Government to review these applications to be about $861,027 in 2018
dollars. In total, the net costs of continuing the letter over a 10-
year period of analysis are about $ $8,984,618 in 2018 dollars using a
7-percent discount rate. We estimate annualized cost savings to be
about $1,279,208 using a 7-percent discount rate.
The Coast Guard rejected this alternative because it provides
neither a full solution nor long-term alternatives for designating the
PIC of a fuel oil transfer and it is more costly than the preferred
alternative. The policy letter only applies to one industry segment,
and individuals who obtain an MMC according to the policy letter would
still incur the cost of renewing their credential every 5 years.
(3) Preferred Alternative--new regulatory action allowing use of
LODs for inspected vessels.
Under this alternative, the regulations would be modified to
provide the option for inspected vessels to designate the PIC of a fuel
oil transfer utilizing an LOD. Under a new regulatory action, the Coast
Guard would provide flexibility to all inspected vessels in how they
designate the PIC of a fuel oil transfer. This is the preferred
alternative as it relieves individuals who would otherwise not be
required to have an MMC to obtain and renew a credential, and provides
flexibility to industries equally.
Conclusion
The Coast Guard is interested in the potential impacts from this
rule and we request public comment on these potential impacts. If you
think that this rule would have a significant economic impact on you,
your business, or your organization, please submit a comment to the
docket at the address under ADDRESSES in the rule. In your comment,
explain why, how, and to
[[Page 40341]]
what degree you think this rule would have an economic impact on you.
We are especially interested in information on interactions of small
and large vessels for fuel oil transfers.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. Below is a threshold analysis of the small entity impacts.
In lieu of current revenue figures which may be distorted by
ongoing inspections, for this analysis we use the small entity impact
analysis of the 2016 Subchapter M rule, which we assume will be closely
representative of revenues after the inspection period is over. The
2016 rule's small entity impact analysis used a sample of 304 vessels
from the population of 5,509.\36\ Of the 304 vessels, about 59 percent
were owned or operated by a small entity. We assume the same number of
small entities would be impacted going forward, but will know better
once inspections are completed and all fleets resume active status. As
this is a deregulatory action, the majority of impact is cost savings
to individuals, who do not qualify as small entities. The only impact
to small entities is the cost imposed to industry as the time cost of
preparing the letter of designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard finds the average annual cost to be $75.91 based on
the known fleet sizes of all towing vessel entities. Ideally, we would
use the same population used in the cost model to account for turnover,
but accounting for turnover within each entity is complex. Instead, we
make the most conservative assumption, which is that entities would
need to prepare LODs for their entire fleet every year and compare to
the revenue of the lowest earning fleet. There is no additional initial
cost, only this annual cost.
Average annual cost takes the number of vessels in a fleet, times
the cost of preparing a letter, $8.92, times 2 to account for each of
the two PICs needed per vessel. This average varies by the number of
vessels in an entity's fleet, see the distribution below. Note that the
number of vessels in a fleet does not correlate with company size; a
small business may have a large fleet or a large business may have a
small fleet. On average, the cost incurred per entity is $75.91, which
is on average 0.0152 percent of revenues.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ While fleet size is known for all 1,295 entities covering
the entire affected population of vessels, revenues are known only
for a sample of 183 vessels of the original 5,509 vessels, data from
the original FRFA of Inspection of Towing Vessels final rule (81 FR
40003). In Table 14, ``Average cost'' is based on the entire
population of entities, ``average of cost as a % of total revenue''
is based only on entities for whom revenue is known.
Table 14-- Average Cost by Fleet Size Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average of
Fleet size category Description Number of Average cost cost as % of
entities total revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small_1............................... Entity with only one 611 $17.83 0.0011
vessel.
Small_2-5............................. Entity with 2 to 5 472 52.25 0.0037
vessels.
Medium................................ Entity with 6 to 25 179 194.05 0.0292
vessels.
Large................................. Entity with >25 vessels. 32 873.17 0.0072
Avg................................... All fleet sizes......... .............. 75.91 0.0152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the most conservative case, a medium-sized fleet owned by the
entity with the lowest revenue in the sample, which would have the
highest possible cost as percentage of total revenue for the affected
population, the cost imposed by this rule is still less than one
percent of total revenues. In this conservative example, the entity's
estimated annual cost would be approximately $321 for a fleet of 18
vessels, 0.76 percent of their $42,000 revenue.\38\ On average, the
cost incurred is less than a quarter of one percent of revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The value of $42,000 comes from the original FRFA of 81 FR
40003, June 20, 2016.
Table 15--Distribution of Revenue Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small entities with known Portion of small entities
% Revenue impact Average annual impact revenue impact with known revenue data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1 $75.91 183 100
1-3 75.91 0 0
>3 75.91 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the most conservative case shows that the impact of this rule
would be less than 1 percent of revenues for a small entity, no small
entity would have an impact greater than 1 percent of revenues.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies
and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect
it.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
[[Page 40342]]
If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question
or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
D. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for a collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. As defined in
5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar
actions. The title and description of the information collections, a
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden follow below. The estimate covers the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection.
The collection of information under this proposed rule falls under
the same collection of information already required for letters of
designation described in OMB Control Number 1625-0072. This proposed
rule does not change the content of responses, nor the estimated burden
of each response, but does increase the number of annual respondents
and responses from 190 to 3,111.
Title: Waste Management Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters
of Instruction \39\ for Certain Persons-in-Charge (PIC) and Great Lakes
Dry Cargo Residue Recordkeeping.
OMB Control Number: 1625-0072.Summary of the Collection of
Information: The Letter of Instruction's contents should verify the
PIC's credentials, stating that the holder has received sufficient
formal instruction from the owner, operator, or agent of the vessel, as
required by 33 CFR 155.715 and the current CFR 155.710(e)(2) and
proposed 155.710(e)(1).
Need for Information: This information is needed to ensure that:
(1) Certain U.S. vessels develop and maintain a waste plan; (2) certain
U.S. vessels maintain refuse discharge records; (3) certain individuals
that act as fuel transfer PIC receive a letter of instruction for
prevention of pollution; and (4) certain Great Lakes vessels conduct
dry cargo residue recordkeeping.
Use of Information: To ensure that fuel transfer competency
standards are met, all PICs on uninspected vessels must carry a Letter
of Instruction if they do not hold a Coast Guard issued credential.
Description of Respondents: Compliance officers for entities
conducting transfers of fuel oil and needing to designate a PIC of such
transfers.
Number of Respondents: Increase of 3,254 respondents from 190 to
3,444.
Burden of Response: 0.167 hours.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: Increase of 611 hours from 32
hours to 643 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ As stated in the Discussion of Proposed rule section, this
proposed rule would provide for a consistent name of this letter by
referring to it as a ``Letter of Designation,'' and we would
accordingly amend the title of this collection of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this
proposed rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine, among other things--
How useful the information is;
Whether the information can help us perform our functions
better;
How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of
the information;
Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
How valid our methods are for determining the burden of
collection; and
How we can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them by the date listed in the DATES section of this preamble to both
the OMB and to the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to
collect this information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is explained below.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and
8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation,
equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels)--as well as
the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress
intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's
obligations--are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the
States. See the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Locke and
Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000).) This proposed
rule, as promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 3306 and 3703, concerns personnel
qualifications because it would amend requirements for who may serve as
the PIC of fuel oil transfers on inspected vessels. Therefore, because
the States may not regulate within these categories, this rule is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
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 rule has implications for
federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or
[[Page 40343]]
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 a risk to safety
that might disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211
(Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning
COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guides 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 where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble. This
proposed rule would be categorically excluded under paragraph L56 in
Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing
Procedures 5090.1. Paragraph L56 pertains to the training, qualifying,
licensing, and disciplining of maritime personnel. This proposed rule
involves letters of designation to assign PIC of fuel oil transfers on
inspected vessels. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155
Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend part 155 as follows:
PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS
0
1. The authority citation for part 155 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 3 U.S.C. 301 through 303; 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 1903(b),
2735; 46 U.S.C 3306, 3703, 70011, 70034; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1. Section 155.1020 also issued under section 316 of Pub.
L. 114-120. Section 155.480 also issued under section 4110(b) of
Pub. L. 101-380.
Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or
hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 40,
150, 151, and 153.
0
2. Amend Sec. 155.710(e) as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text, remove the word ``shall'' and add, in its
place, the word ``must'';
0
b. Revise paragraph (e)(1);
0
c. Remove paragraph (e)(2);
0
d. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) as paragraphs (e)(2) and
(e)(3), respectively; and
0
e. In newly redesignated paragraph (e)(2), remove the text ``or (2)''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 155.710 Qualifications of person in charge.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) On each inspected vessel required by 46 CFR chapter I to have
an officer aboard, and on each uninspected vessel, either:
(i) Holds a valid merchant mariner credential issued under 46 CFR
chapter I, subchapter B, with an endorsement as master, mate, pilot,
engineer, or operator aboard that vessel, or holds a valid merchant
mariner credential endorsed as Tankerman-PIC; or
(ii) Carries a letter satisfying the requirements of Sec. 155.715
and designating him or her as a PIC, unless equivalent evidence is
immediately available aboard the vessel or at his or her place of
employment.
* * * * *
Sec. 155.715 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 155.715, remove the text ``letter of instruction required
in Sec. 155.710(e)(2)'' and add, in its place, the text ``letter
referenced in Sec. 155.710(e)(1)''.
[[Page 40344]]
Dated: August 9, 2019.
David C. Barata,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-17457 Filed 8-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P