68042 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Operating a motor vehicle in 

violation of a posted sign or traffic 

control device. 

■ 9. Amend § 261.15 by revising 

paragraphs (e) and (g) to read as follows: 

§ 261.15 Use of vehicles off roads. 

* * * * * 

(e) While under the influence of an 

alcoholic beverage or a controlled 

substance in violation of State law. 

* * * * * 

(g) Carelessly, recklessly, or in a 

manner or at a speed that endangers or 

is likely to endanger any person or 

property. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 261.50 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 261.50 Orders. 

(a) The Chief, each Regional Forester, 

each Experiment Station Director, the 

head of each administrative unit, their 

deputies, or persons acting in these 

positions may issue orders, consistent 

with their delegations of authority, that 

close or restrict the use of described 

areas by applying the prohibitions 

authorized in this subpart, individually 

or in combination. 

(b) The Chief, each Regional Forester, 

each Experiment Station Director, the 

head of each administrative unit, their 

deputies, or persons acting in these 

positions may issue orders, consistent 

with their delegations of authority, that 

close or restrict the use of any National 

Forest System road or National Forest 

System trail. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Revise § 261.52 to read as follows: 

§ 261.52 Fire. 

When provided by an order, the 

following are prohibited: 

(a) Building, maintaining, attending, 

or using a fire, campfire, or stove fire. 

(b) Using an explosive. 

(c) Smoking. 

(d) Smoking, except within an 

enclosed vehicle or building, at a 

recreation site, or while stopped in an 

area at least 3 feet in diameter that is 

barren or cleared of all flammable 

material. 

(e) Entering or being in an area. 

(f) Entering an area without any 

firefighting tool prescribed by the order. 

(g) Operating an internal combustion 

engine. 

(h) Welding or operating an acetylene 

or other torch with open flame. 

■ 12. Amend § 261.53 by revising the 

title and introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 261.53 Special closures or restrictions. 

When provided by an order, it is 

prohibited to go into or be in any area 

which is closed or restricted for the 

protection of: 

* * * * * 

§ 261.54 [Amended] 

■ 13. Amend § 261.54 by removing 

paragraph (f). 

■ 14. Amend § 261.58 by revising 

paragraphs (b), (d), and (bb) to read as 

follows: 

§ 261.58 Occupancy and use. 

* * * * * 

(b) Entering or using a recreation site 

or portion thereof. 

* * * * * 

(d) Occupying a recreation site with 

prohibited camping equipment 

prescribed by the order. 

* * * * * 

(bb) Possessing an alcoholic beverage. 

* * * * * 

Homer Wilkes, 

Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 

Environment. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21563 Filed 10–2–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 10 

[Docket No. USCG–2021–0288] 

RIN 1625–AC83 

Exemption for Active-Duty Uniformed 

Service Members From Merchant 

Mariner Credentialing Fees 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to exempt certain members of the 

uniformed services from Merchant 

Mariner Credential (MMC) fees for the 

evaluation of an MMC application, the 

administration of an examination 

required for an MMC endorsement, and 

the issuance of an MMC. This proposal 

is in response to Executive Order 13860, 

‘‘Supporting the Transition of ActiveDuty Service Members and Military 

Veterans Into the Merchant Marine,’’ 

and section 3511 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2020. Under this proposal, 

members of the uniformed services 

would be exempt from paying fees for 

an MMC. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before January 2, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2021–0288 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

See the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

Collection of information. Submit 

comments on the collection of 

information discussed in section VI.D of 

this preamble both to the Coast Guard’s 

online docket and to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the White House Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) using 

their website www.reginfo.gov/public/ 

do/PRAMain. Comments sent to OIRA 

on the collection of information must 

reach OMB on or before the comment 

due date listed on their website. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document, call or 

email Mr. James Cavo, U.S. Coast Guard 

Office of Merchant Mariner 

Credentialing; telephone 202–372–1205, 

email James.D.Cavo@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Background 

IV. Legal Authority 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

The Coast Guard views public 

participation as essential to effective 

rulemaking and will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. Your comment can 

help shape the outcome of this 

rulemaking. If you submit a comment, 

please include the docket number for 

this rulemaking, indicate the specific 

section of this document to which each 

comment applies, and provide a reason 

for each suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision Making Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68043 

1An endorsement is a ‘‘statement of a mariner’s 

qualifications.’’ 46 CFR 10.107(b). The particular 

endorsement(s) on each mariner’s MMC indicate 

what capacities they may serve in, such as a ‘‘barge 

supervisor’’ or a ‘‘lifeboatman.’’ See id.; 46 CFR 

10.109(a)–(b). 

2A rating endorsement is an annotation on an 

MMC that allows a mariner to serve in those 

capacities set out in 46 CFR 10.109(b). 46 CFR 

10.107(b). Officer endorsement means an 

annotation on an MMC that allows a mariner to 

serve in the capacities listed in 46 CFR 10.109. Id. 

3 ‘‘Increase in scope’’ and ‘‘raise of grade’’ are 

defined at 46 CFR 10.107. 

4E.O 13860, section 3, paragraph (a)(ii) (84 FR 

8407 (Mar. 7, 2019)). 

5Public Law 116–92, Dec. 20, 2019. 

6Section 3511of the NDAA 2020 is codified as a 

note to 46 U.S.C. 7302; ‘‘Uniformed services’’ 

defined at 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(5). 

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2021– 

0288 in the search box, and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this document 

in the Search Results column, and click 

on it. Then click on the Comment 

option. If you cannot submit your 

material by using www.regulations.gov, 

call or email the person in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this proposed rule for alternate 

instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the 

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. That FAQ page 

also explains how to subscribe for email 

alerts that will notify you when 

comments are posted or if a final rule is 

published. We review all comments 

received, but we will only post 

comments that address the topic of the 

proposed rule. We may choose not to 

post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see the 

DHS’s eRulemaking System of Records 

notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

Public meeting. We do not plan to 

hold a public meeting, but we will 

consider doing so if we determine from 

public comments that a meeting would 

be helpful. We would issue a separate 

Federal Register notice to announce the 

date, time, and location of such a 

meeting. 

II. Abbreviations 

CATEX Categorical exclusion 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CG–MMC U.S. Coast Guard Office of 

Merchant Mariner Credentialing 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

GS General Schedule 

MMC Merchant Mariner Credential 

MMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing 

Documentation 

NDAA 2020 National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

NMC National Maritime Center 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

RA Regulatory analysis 

§ Section 

STCW International Convention on 

Standards of Training, Certification and 

Watchkeeping for Seafarers 

USPHS U.S. Public Health Service 

U.S.C. United States Code 

III. Background 

As described in title 46 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), section 

10.107, a Coast Guard-issued Merchant 

Mariner Credential (MMC) serves as a 

mariner’s qualification document and 

certificate of identification. Mariners 

employed aboard most U.S. merchant 

vessels are required to hold a valid 

MMC. 

As mandated by title 46 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.), section 2110, and 

in accordance with the Independent 

Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 

9701), the Coast Guard has established 

fees associated with MMC applications, 

which are codified in table 1 to 46 CFR 

10.219(a). There are three types of 

credentialing fees: an evaluation fee, an 

examination fee, and an issuance fee. 

The fee amount varies based on the 

individual credential transaction that an 

applicant seeks. 

Evaluation fees for MMCs range from 

$50 to $100, and the applicant must pay 

the fee at the time an application is 

submitted to the Coast Guard. 

Examination fees range from $45 to 

$140, depending on the endorsement 

sought, and must be paid before the 

professional examination for an 

endorsement is taken.1 If an applicant 

applies for an MMC with both a rating 

and an officer endorsement, the higher 

evaluation fee is charged. Issuance fees 

are $45 and must be paid before an 

MMC is issued.2

The original issuance of an MMC, as 

well as any subsequent credential 

transactions, such as increasing the 

scope of authority, raising the grade of 

authority, or renewing an MMC, all 

require a fee.3 MMCs are valid for a 

period of 5 years and may be renewed 

at any time during the validity period of 

the credential and for 1 year after 

expiration. 

Mariners typically seek additional 

endorsements after accruing the 

required sea service and completing 

required training. There are no fees 

associated with the issuance of mariner 

medical certificates or International 

Convention on Standards of Training, 

Certification and Watchkeeping for 

Seafarers (STCW) endorsements. 

The Coast Guard does not require a 

fee for MMC transactions if one of the 

following three conditions is met: 

(1) The application is for a Document 

of Continuity, as specified in 46 CFR 

10.219(e)(3). 

(2) The credential is a duplicate of a 

credential lost in a shipwreck or other 

casualty under 46 CFR 10.229(c) and 

reflected in table 1 to § 10.219(a). 

(3) The applicant qualifies for a ‘‘nofee’’ Merchant Mariner Credential under 

46 CFR 10.219(h). 

Currently, an applicant only qualifies 

for a ‘‘no-fee’’ MMC if they are a 

volunteer for or an employee of an 

organization that is youth-oriented, notfor-profit, and charitable, 46 CFR 

10.219(j). The holder of a ‘‘no fee’’ MMC 

is restricted to using vessels owned or 

operated by the sponsoring 

organization, 46 CFR 10.219(k). 

In March 2019, Executive Order 

13860, ‘‘Supporting the Transition of 

Active-Duty Service Members and 

Military Veterans Into the Merchant 

Marine,’’ directed the Coast Guard to 

waive the fees associated with MMC 

applications ‘‘for active duty service 

members, if a waiver is authorized and 

appropriate.’’ 4 The Executive Order 

applied only to members of the armed 

forces. 

Subsequently, in December 2019, 

Congress enacted the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 

(NDAA 2020).5 Building upon Executive 

Order 13860, section 3511(c)(1) of the 

NDAA 2020 directed the Coast Guard to 

waive evaluation, examination, and 

issuance fees associated with MMCs, if 

a waiver is authorized and appropriate, 

not just for the armed forces (Army, 

Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space 

Force, and Coast Guard), but for all 

‘‘members of the uniformed services on 

active duty.’’ The uniformed services 

include the Commissioned Corps of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and the 

Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public 

Health Service (USPHS) in addition to 

the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine 

Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard.6

In accordance with Executive Order 

13860 and section 3511 of the NDAA 

2020, on May 26, 2020, the Coast 

Guard’s Office of Merchant Mariner 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68044 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

7CG–MMC Policy Letter 02–20 is available at 

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/ 

DCO%20Documents/5p/5ps/MMC/CG-MMC2%20Policies/CG-MMC-Policy-Letter-02-20.pdf. 8Executive Order 13860, section 1. 

9 84 FR 8407 (Mar. 7, 2019) (‘‘With respect to 

National Maritime Center license evaluation, 

issuance, and examination, [the Coast Guard shall] 

take all necessary and appropriate actions to 

provide for the waiver of fees for active-duty service 

members.’’). 

10Public Law 116–92, Dec. 20, 2019. 

11Section 5e of the policy letter. A copy of the 

policy letter can be found in the docket. 

Credentialing (CG–MMC) issued Policy 

Letter 02–20, ‘‘Waiver of Fees 

Associated with Merchant Mariner 

Credential Applications for Active Duty 

Members of the Uniformed Services.’’ 7

CG–MMC Policy Letter 02–20 provides 

guidance for the waiver of MMC fees for 

active duty members of the uniformed 

services. The policy provided a waiver 

of fees for mariners who provide 

documentation evidencing their 

eligibility for the fee waiver. This 

documentation may include active-duty 

orders or a letter from their command or 

personnel office on official letterhead 

that states the applicant is a current 

member of the uniformed services on 

active duty or a member of the Selected 

Reserve of the Ready Reserve of any of 

the armed forces or the Ready Reserve 

Corps of the USPHS. 

IV. Legal Authority 

Section 3511(c)(1) of the NDAA 2020 

directed the Coast Guard to waive 

evaluation, examination, and issuance 

fees associated with MMCs for members 

of the uniformed services on active 

duty, if a waiver is authorized and 

appropriate. The Coast Guard has found 

that such a waiver is authorized and 

appropriate. Under 46 U.S.C. 2110(g), 

the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) may exempt 

a person from paying such a fee if the 

Secretary determines that it is in the 

public interest to do so. The Secretary 

has delegated this authority to the Coast 

Guard through article II, paragraph 92, 

subparagraph (a) of DHS Delegation No. 

00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. The Coast 

Guard concludes that it is in the public 

interest to exempt members of the 

uniformed services (Army, Navy, Air 

Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, Coast 

Guard, Commissioned Corps of the 

NOAA, and Commissioned Corps of 

USPHS) on active duty; members of the 

Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve 

of any of the armed forces (Army 

National Guard of the United States, 

Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine 

Corps Reserve, Air National Guard of 

the United States, Air Force Reserve, 

and Coast Guard Reserve); and the 

Ready Reserve Corps of the USPHS from 

fees associated with obtaining an MMC. 

As discussed in Executive Order 13860, 

it is the policy of the United States to 

establish and maintain an effective 

merchant marine and to provide 

sufficient support and resources to 

active duty and separating service 

members who pursue or possess MMCs. 

The goals of not requiring these fees are 

to: (1) help attract active-duty service 

members with the appropriate skills and 

expertise to obtain an MMC for 

employment in the maritime industry; 

(2) support U.S. national security 

requirements; and (3) provide 

meaningful, well-paying jobs to U.S. 

veterans.8

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard is proposing to 

amend 46 CFR 10.219 and codify this 

MMC fee waiver in the regulations. 

Specifically, the Coast Guard proposes 

to exempt members of the uniformed 

services on active duty, members of the 

Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve 

of any of the armed forces (Army 

National Guard of the United States, 

Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine 

Corps Reserve, Air National Guard of 

the United States, Air Force Reserve and 

Coast Guard Reserve), and the Ready 

Reserve Corps of the USPHS from 

paying evaluation, examination, or 

issuance fees for an MMC. 

For purposes of this rule, ‘‘uniformed 

services’’ would have the same meaning 

as defined at 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(5): the 

Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, 

Space Force, and Coast Guard, as well 

as members of the NOAA and USPHS 

Commissioned Corps. Members of the 

Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve 

of a reserve component named in 10 

U.S.C. 10101 and members of the Ready 

Reserve Corps of the USPHS would also 

be eligible for the exemption. (The 

NOAA Commissioned Corps does not 

have a reserve component.) 

For members of the armed forces, 

‘‘active duty’’ would have the same 

meaning as under 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(1). 

For members of the NOAA 

commissioned corps, ‘‘active duty’’ 

would have the same meaning as under 

33 U.S.C. 3002(b)(1). For members of the 

USPHS Commissioned Corps, ‘‘active 

duty’’ would have the same meaning as 

‘‘active service’’ under 42 U.S.C. 212(d). 

‘‘Selected Reserve’’ would have the 

same meaning as under 10 U.S.C. 

10143(a). 

This fee exemption would be located 

in a new paragraph, paragraph (m), in 

46 CFR 10.219. 

VI. Regulatory Analysis 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

A summary of our analyses based on 

these statutes and Executive orders 

follows. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), as amended by 

Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing 

Regulatory Review), and 13563 

(Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review) direct agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not designated this rule a 

significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094. 

Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed 

this rule. 

The Coast Guard has developed an 

analysis of the costs and benefits of the 

proposed rule to assess its impacts. The 

regulatory analysis (RA) follows. 

The rule is being proposed in 

response to two items. The first is 

section 3, paragraph (a)(ii) of Executive 

Order 13860, ‘‘Supporting the 

Transition of Active-Duty Service 

Members and Military Veterans Into the 

Merchant Marine,’’ signed March 4, 

2019.9 The second is section 3511(c)(1) 

of the NDAA 2020.10

For purposes of the analysis, this RA 

is presented in two parts. Part I 

examines the impacts of CG–MMC 

Policy Letter 02–20, which was issued 

on May 26, 2020.11 Part II examines the 

impacts of the proposed rulemaking 

post the issuance of the CG–MMC 

Policy Letter 02–20. The policy letter 

and the proposed rulemaking cover 

different populations. The difference 

between the two populations arises from 

which components of the reserves are 

eligible for a waiver of fees under the 

policy letter and which would be 

eligible under this proposed rule. The 

policy letter covers all reservists on 

active duty currently and in the past. 

The proposed rulemaking, however, 

would cover only those reservists who 

are currently members of the Selected 

Reserve, as described in 10 U.S.C. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68045 

12Although the NMC has data on the aggregate 

number of applicants for the fee waiver, it does not 

have data on the applicants broken out by subcategories such as what service they are in (or were 

in) or their active or reserve status. Executive Order 

13860 does not require the Coast Guard to collect 

this data. As a result, the Coast Guard does not 

collect it. In addition, the Department of Defense, 

as of when this proposed rule was written, did not 

publish data on the number of Selected Reservists 

or Ready Reservists who are currently on active 

duty or who were in the recent past. 

10143(a), or a reserve component named 

in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or the Ready 

Reserve of the USPHS. The in-scope 

population of the proposed rulemaking 

is a subset of that of the policy letter. 

The Coast Guard does not have data 

on the number of Selected Reservists or 

Ready Reservists who were granted fee 

exemptions under the policy letter, nor 

does it have data on the number of the 

reservists who were granted fee 

exemptions while on active-duty status. 

Due to this lack of data, it is not possible 

to estimate the differences in the 

affected populations between the policy 

letter and the proposed rulemaking.12

Therefore, the Coast Guard is treating 

the estimated difference as an 

unquantified impact of the proposed 

rule, though the Coast Guard explores 

potential cost savings effects in its 

analysis. Further discussion can be 

found below. 

Since the policy letter and proposed 

rulemakings are implemented at 

different time periods (the policy letter 

was implemented in 2020, and the 

proposed rulemaking is expected to be 

implemented in 2024), two different 

baselines need to be examined. The first 

is that associated with the pre-policy 

baseline (covering 2020–2033), and the 

second is that associated with the 

proposed rulemaking baseline (covering 

2024–2033). The pre-policy baseline 

analyzes the effects of the Policy Letter 

02–20 published in 2020 which allowed 

certain eligible applicants to receive an 

MMC fee exemption. The pre-policy 

baseline estimates the costs and savings 

that applicants and the Coast Guard 

received as a result of the policy letter 

as well as the costs and savings from 

this proposed rulemaking. The second 

baseline, the proposed rulemaking 

baseline, estimates the costs and savings 

that would occur as the result of this 

proposed rulemaking only. However, 

since we are unable to determine the 

change in population there are no 

additional costs or savings that can be 

attributed to the proposed rulemaking 

baseline. 

Table 1, below, provides a summary 

of all impacts from Policy Letter 02–20 

and the proposed rulemaking on a perapplicant basis. Section 1a of that table 

discusses the impacts of the policy 

letter, and section 1b discusses those of 

the proposed rulemaking. The dollar 

figures are presented in both nominal 

and discounted terms (7 percent on an 

annualized basis) for a 10-year period. 

TABLE 1a—SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF POLICY LETTER 02–20 

Category Impacts 

Applicability ......................................... 46 U.S.C. 2110, Executive Order 13860, and NDAA 2020. 

Affected Population ............................ Members of the uniformed services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, 

Commissioned Corps of NOAA, Commissioned Corps of USPHS), including reservists and members 

of the National Guard, who are on active duty at the time of application, or are current members of the 

reserve forces and were previously on active duty. 

Estimated Fee Waivers (annually) ..... The estimated number of fee waivers in the future is 622 (annually). 

Labor costs for applicants to provide 

documentation of eligibility for an 

MMC fee exemption.

$9.87 per application. 

The 14-year documentation cost for the 622 yearly applicants is $85,948 (in total nominal dollars) and 

$61,468 and $6,139 annualized (discounted at 7%). 

Labor costs to the Coast Guard to 

evaluate applicant’s eligibility for 

MMC fee exemption.

$7.82 per application. 

The 14-year cost to the Coast Guard is $68,097 (in total nominal dollars) and $48,702 and $4,864 

annualized (discounted at 7%). 

Transfer payments (eliminated applicant’s MMC fees paid to the Federal Government).The mean estimated transfer is $159.38 per MMC. 

Over the 14-year period, the transfers are estimated at $1,387,881 (in total nominal dollars) and 

$992,601 and $99,134 on an annualized basis (discounted at 7%). 

Unquantified benefits .......................... May provide uniformed services members greater flexibility with respect to pursuing careers after leaving 

the uniformed services. 

TABLE 1b—SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED RULE

Category Impacts 

Applicability ......................................... 46 U.S.C. 2110, Executive Order 13860, and NDAA 2020. 

Affected Population ............................ The proposed rulemaking covers only uniformed service members and reservists on active duty, members of the Selected Reserve, and members of the Ready Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service. 

The proposed rulemaking involves a narrower in-scope population, as Policy Letter 02–20 covers reservists currently on active duty as well as those who were on active duty in the past. 

Estimated Fee Waivers (annually) ..... The number of fee waivers in the future is estimated, for purposes of our analysis, at 622 (annually). 

However, as the only change from Policy Letter 02–20 involves a potential decrease in the reservist 

population, the actual number may be smaller. Due to a lack of data, it is not possible to quantify this 

number. 

Labor costs for applicants to provide 

documentation of eligibility for an 

MMC fee exemption.

$9.87 per application. 

There are no labor costs to the applicants to provide documentation as the proposed rulemaking codifies 

the already existing Policy Letter 02–20. 

Labor costs to the Coast Guard to 

evaluate applicant’s eligibility for 

MMC fee exemption.

$7.82 per application. 

There are no labor costs expected from the implementation of the proposed rulemaking as it codifies the 

already existing Policy Letter 02–20. 

Transfer payments (eliminated applicant’s MMC fees paid to the Federal Government).Codifies MMC Fee Waiver. The mean estimated transfer is $159.38 per MMC. 

There are no transfer payments expected from the implementation of the proposed rulemaking as it 

codifies the already existing Policy Letter 02–20. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68046 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

13Applicants must submit documentation 

consistent with CG–MMC Policy Letter 02–20 to 

show that they are eligible for the fee exemption. 

This may include a copy of active-duty orders citing 

Titles 10 or 14 of the United States Code or a letter 

from the relevant command or personnel office on 

official letterhead stating that the applicant is a 

current member of the uniformed services. 

14The legal authority is discussed in greater 

detail in section III of this preamble, ‘‘Background’’. 

15https://www.usphs.gov/ready-reserve, accessed 

June 20, 2023. 

TABLE 1b—SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Category Impacts 

Unquantified benefits .......................... May provide increased clarity and transparency to the affected public as a published rule in the CFR as 

opposed to a standalone guidance document.1

Note: all dollar figures are rounded to the closest whole dollar. 1The proposed rulemaking also incorporates the greater flexibility with respect to pursuing careers. Due to the fact that this has already been 

achieved by the policy letter, independent of the proposed rulemaking, we only list the increased clarity and transparency obtained through the 

codification of the MMC Fee Waiver. These are the additional benefits obtained through the creation of the proposed rulemaking.

Part I. CG–MMC Policy Letter 02–20 

(Pre-Policy Baseline) 

A policy letter was published to 

immediately implement Executive 

Order 13860, section 3511(c)(1) of the 

NDAA 2020. The implementation of the 

policy letter had three impacts. The first 

impact is the time that applicants are 

required to provide documentation to 

show eligibility for the MMC fee 

exemption.13 Prior to the 

implementation of the policy letter, 

applicants did not need to provide such 

documentation. The second impact 

involves the labor costs to the Coast 

Guard to evaluate documentation for 

eligibility of the fee exemption. Prior to 

the policy letter, the Coast Guard did 

not have to evaluate such 

documentation, so there was no cost to 

the Government. The third impact of the 

policy letter was in the form of transfer 

payments, which are monetary 

payments from one group to another 

that do not affect the total resources 

available to society. Prior to the 

implementation of the policy letter, the 

affected population were required to 

pay the MMC fees. Following 

publication of the Policy Letter, the 

Federal Government incurs the cost of 

those fees. These three factors comprise 

the effects of the of Policy Letter 02–20. 

The population will be discussed in 

greater detail below in the ‘‘Affected 

Population’’ section of this RA. 

Affected Population for Policy Letter 

02–20 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13860 and section 3511 of the NDAA 

2020, and the authority under 46 U.S.C. 

2110(g), the Coast Guard waived MMC 

fees for members of the uniformed 

services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine 

Corps, Space Force, Coast Guard, and 

the Commissioned Corps of NOAA and 

the USPHS), including reservists and 

members of the National Guard, if they 

are currently on active duty at the time 

of application, or are a current member 

of the reserve forces and were 

previously on active duty.14 The waiver 

was implemented through Policy Letter 

02–20. This policy letter took effect on 

May 26, 2020. Data is available for all 

these categories of personnel except the 

Ready Reserve Corps of the USPHS. The 

Ready Reserve Corps of the USPHS was 

authorized and funded by the 

Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic 

Security Act and signed into law on 

March 27, 2020. It only began to accept 

applications in the fall of 2020.15 With 

respect to the other groups mentioned 

above, the maximum potentially 

affected population is 2,145,035. This is 

the total number of personnel who may 

be eligible for an MMC fee exemption. 

A detailed breakdown of this population 

can be found below in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—MAXIMUM TOTAL POTENTIALLY AFFECTED POPULATION BY POLICY LETTER 02–20 

Service branch Number Source Notes 

Members of Uniformed Services 

Army .............................. 466,172 Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) website, (https:// 

dwp.dmdc.osd.mil/dwp/app/dod-data-reports/workforce-reports, 

downloaded September 1, 2022). Downloaded from section ‘‘military 

personal, Military and civilian personnel by service/agency by state/ 

country, March 2022’’.

This data is as of the 

quarter ending March 

2022.1

Navy ............................... 340,390 

Air Force and Space 

Force.

329,257 

Marines .......................... 176,259 

Coast Guard .................. 40,308 

Commissioned Corps of 

NOAA.

327 Information from NOAA, provided May 27, 2021.

Commissioned Corps of 

USPHS.

6,100 Department of Health and Human Services website (https://www.hhs.gov/ 

about/news/2020/06/30/trump-administration-re-establishes-ready-reserve-corps-as-part-of-the-us-phs.html, downloaded January 4, 2021).

Total Active Uniformed 

Service Members.

1,358,813 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68047 

16Table 1 of 46 CFR 10.219(a). 

TABLE 2—MAXIMUM TOTAL POTENTIALLY AFFECTED POPULATION BY POLICY LETTER 02–20—Continued 

Service branch Number Source Notes 

Members of Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve 

Army Reserve ................ 180,647 Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) website, (https://

dwp.dmdc.osd.mil/dwp/app/dod-data-reports/workforce-reports, 

downloaded September 1, 2022). Downloaded from section ‘‘military 

personal, Military and civilian personnel by service/agency by state/ 

country, March 2022’’.

This data is as of March 

2022.2

Army National Guard of 

the U.S. 

333,182 

Navy Reserve ................ 56,017 

Air Force Reserve ......... 69,697 

Air National Guard of the 

U.S. 

106,964 

Marine Corps Reserves 33,607 

Coast Guard Reserves .. 6,108 

Commissioned Corps of 

USPHS (Ready Reserve).

N.A.3

Space Force Reserve .... 0 4

Total Members of Selected Reserve of the 

Ready Reserve.

786,222 

Total Active Uniformed 

Service Members + 

Members of Selected 

Reserve of the Ready 

Reserve.

2,145,035 

1The table does not include personnel on temporary duty or deployed in support of contingency operations. The data is the latest available as 

of June 2022. 2 Latest available data as of the search date, September 1, 2022. 

3 USPHS Ready Reserve was created in March 2020 and only started to take applications in the Fall of 2020. 

4Space Force, as of September 1, 2022, does not have a reserve element. 

Of the 2,145,035 eligible persons, only 

a small number applied for an MMC and 

received a fee waiver. Based on 

available data, 2020 through 2022 

(inclusively), an average of 622 eligible 

persons were granted a waiver of MMC 

fees (per year). The Coast Guard 

assumes that, in the 10-year period 

following implementation of Policy 

Letter 02–20, an average of 622 persons 

will continue to annually request and 

receive a waiver of MMC fees. 

MMC Fees To Be Exempted 

Table 3 provides the MMC evaluation, 

examination, and issuance fees waived 

for qualifying individuals for the policy 

letter.16 The column on the right side 

shows the aggregated evaluation, 

examination, and issuance fees for each 

type of credential transaction. The 

average fee for an MMC, as can be seen 

at the bottom of table 3, is $159.38. 

TABLE 3—FEE FOR MMCS AND ASSOCIATED ENDORSEMENTS FROM TABLE 1 OF 46 CFR 10.219(a) 

If you apply for 

Evaluation, 

then the fee 

is . . . 

Examination, 

then the fee 

is . . . 

Issuance, 

then the fee 

is . . . 

Total 

MMC with officer endorsement: 

Original: 

Upper level 1 ............................................................................................ $100 $110 $45 ................. $255 

Lower level 2 ............................................................................................ 100 95 45 ................... 240 

Renewal .................................................................................................... 50 45 45 ................... 140 

Raise of grade .......................................................................................... 100 45 45 ................... 190 

Modification or removal of limitation or scope ......................................... 50 45 45 ................... 140 

Radio officer endorsement: 

Original ..................................................................................................... 50 45 45 ................... 140 

Renewal .................................................................................................... 50 n/a 45 ................... 95 

Staff officer endorsements: ......................................................................

Original ..................................................................................................... 90 n/a 45 ................... 135 

Renewal ........................................................................................................... 50 n/a 45 ................... 95 

MMC with rating endorsement: 

Original endorsement for ratings other than qualified ratings ................. 95 n/a 45 ................... 140 

Original endorsement for qualified rating ................................................. 95 140 45 ................... 280 

Upgrade or raise of grade ........................................................................ 95 140 45 ................... 280 

Renewal endorsement for ratings other than qualified ratings ................ 50 n/a 45 ................... 95 

Renewal endorsement for qualified rating ............................................... 50 45 45 ................... 140 

Modification or removal of limitation or scope ......................................... 50 45 45 ................... 140 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68048 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

17 In order to provide maximum flexibility to 

applicants, for the proposed rulemaking the 

acceptable forms of documentation will be provided 

in updated guidance that the Coast Guard is 

planning to publish when a final rule is published. 

18The NMC is responsible for receiving and 

evaluating MMC applications and issuing MMCs to 

qualified mariners. 

19The Coast Guard, in its calculations, has 

assumed that applicants provide their own 

documentation as opposed to command personnel 

providing the documentation on their behalf. The 

Coast Guard does not have information on the 

breakdown between the two groups. 

20This dollar figure for uniformed service 

members is provided in nominal terms, as opposed 

to a loaded rate (adjusted for benefits). This is due 

to the complexity of measuring and obtaining 

readily available data on the uniformed service 

members benefit compensation package. We 

compared civilian employees and uniformed 

service members and concluded that the 

comparison is not appropriate, since civilian 

employees and uniformed service members receive 

significantly different benefits. Uniformed 

personnel, for example, are provided full housing 

(or equivalent financial compensation), food or 

partial food stipend, full medical coverage for 

themselves and their families, significant 

educational benefits during their time in service 

and, upon completing terms of military service, 

pensions (for those who complete the requisite 

amount of service) complete moving expenses 

throughout their careers, and other benefits that are 

dependent upon an individual’s assignment. By 

comparison, few employees in the private sector 

receive such benefits. 

21We calculated this figure using the Jan. 2021 

Monthly Basic Pay Table on the Department of 

Defense website, https://militarypay.defense.gov/ 

Portals/3/Documents/ 

2021%20Pay%20Table%203%20percent%20- 

%20FINAL.pdf (accessed Nov. 10, 2021), which in 

turn was found under ‘‘active-duty pay’’ at https:// 

militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Basic-Pay/ActiveDuty-Pay/. In calculating this average, we excluded 

all zero cells in the table, as they are fields for 

which wages cannot exist. For example, it is not 

possible to obtain a 0–10 rating with fewer than 20 

years of experience. Hence the zeros in the table for 

that rating, for years of experience under 20, were 

excluded from our calculations. 

22Rounded to nearest whole cent. 

23 It should be noted that for the 3 years 2020– 

2022 (inclusively), we are implicitly applying our 

assumptions regarding in-scope population 

numbers and costs for the years 2022 and going 

forward. The same reasoning applies to analysis 

later on in this RA on the 2020–2022 periods 

examined for Policy Letter 02–20. 

TABLE 3—FEE FOR MMCS AND ASSOCIATED ENDORSEMENTS FROM TABLE 1 OF 46 CFR 10.219(a)—Continued 

If you apply for 

Evaluation, 

then the fee 

is . . . 

Examination, 

then the fee 

is . . . 

Issuance, 

then the fee 

is . . . 

Total 

STCW endorsement: 

Original ............................................................................................................ 0 0 0 ..................... n/a 

Renewal .................................................................................................... 0 0 0 ..................... n/a 

Reissue, replacement, and duplicate ....................................................... n/a n/a 45 ................... 45 

Summation Statistics 

Mean .............. $159.38 

Lower Bound $45.00 

Upper Bound $280.00 

Credential 

transaction 

types that 

require Fees.

16 

Cost and Transfer Impacts of Policy 

Letter 02–20 

As stated previously, there were three 

impacts of the policy letter. The first 

was that it resulted in a cost to 

applicants to provide the 

documentation needed to show 

eligibility for the MMC fee exemption. 

The second was the cost to the Coast 

Guard to process this documentation. 

The third was the transfer price 

associated with the costs of the fees 

being shifted from individual applicants 

to the Federal Government. The costs to 

applicants are discussed in detail in 

section (1), below. Costs to the Coast 

Guard are discussed in section (2). 

Section (3) discusses the combined costs 

to applicants and the Coast Guard, and 

section (4) details the transfer costs. 

(1) Labor Costs to Applicants Providing 

Documentation Showing Eligibility for 

MMC Fee Waiver 

Applicants for an MMC fee waiver, 

under Policy Letter 02–20, need to 

provide documentation to show 

eligibility. Examples of documentation 

include, but are not limited to, activeduty orders citing Titles 10 or 14 of the 

United States Code, a letter from the 

command or personnel office on official 

letterhead stating that the applicant is 

currently serving under Titles 10 or 14, 

or similar documentation. The applicant 

should submit the documentation with 

their application for an MMC.17

The National Maritime Center (NMC) 

estimates that it would take applicants 

15 minutes to obtain eligibility 

documentation and include it with an 

MMC application.18 19 The Coast Guard 

estimates the mean hourly rate of active 

duty uniformed service members at 

$39.48 per hour.20 The Coast Guard 

estimates the mean monthly pay of 

active duty uniformed service members 

at $6,865.77.21 That figure, $6,865.77, is 

multiplied by 12 to obtain an annual 

figure of $82,389.24 ($6,865.77 × 12). To 

estimate hourly rates, the Coast Guard 

divides $82,389.24 by 2,087, which the 

Office of Personnel and Management 

(OPM) uses as the number of working 

hours in a year, per 5 U.S.C. 5504(b)(1). 

Hence, the Coast Guard estimates the 

average hourly rate of active-duty 

uniformed service members at $39.48 22

($82,389.24 ÷ 2,087) and estimates the 

cost to this population to provide 

documentation showing eligibility for 

the fee waiver at $9.87 ((15 minutes ÷ 

60 minutes) × $39.48 = $9.87). As the 

Coast Guard forecasts 622 applicants per 

year, the total nominal cost is estimated 

at $6,139 per annum (622 × $9.87 = 

$6,139.14, rounded to $6,139). Table 4 

shows the estimated nominal cost over 

a 14-year period, including discounted 

and annualized figures. As the policy 

letter became effective in 2020, table 4 

shows the estimated costs for the 14- 

year period covering 2020 through 2033 

(the 14-year period following the 

implementation of the policy letter).23

Table 4 is showing the pre-policy letter 

baseline. All dollar figures in Table 4, 

and all other tables in this regulatory 

analysis, are in 2021 terms unless 

otherwise stated. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68049 

24Page two of enclosure 2 to Commandant 

Instruction 7310.1U (https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/ 

0/NPFC/docs/7310/CI_7310_1U.pdf?ver=2020-04-

06-135219-117). 

TABLE 4—LABOR COSTS TO IN-SCOPE APPLICANTS OF COMPLETING MMC FEE WAIVER DOCUMENTATION (POLICY

LETTER 02–20 IMPACT) (PRE-POLICY LETTER IMPLEMENTATION BASELINE) 

Year Nominal 3% 7% 

Year 1 (2020) ............................................................................................................. $6,139 $6,323 $6,569 

Year 2 (2021) ............................................................................................................. 6,139 6,139 6,139 

Year 3 (2022) ............................................................................................................. 6,139 5,960 5,737 

Year 4 (2023) ............................................................................................................. 6,139 5,787 5,362 

Year 5 (2024) ............................................................................................................. 6,139 5,618 5,011 

Year 6 (2025) ............................................................................................................. 6,139 5,454 4,683 

Year 7 (2026) ............................................................................................................. 6,139 5,296 4,377 

Year 8 (2027) ............................................................................................................. 6,139 5,141 4,091 

Year 9 (2028) ............................................................................................................. 6,139 4,992 3,823 

Year 10 (2029) ........................................................................................................... 6,139 4,846 3,573 

Year 11 (2030) ........................................................................................................... 6,139 4,705 3,339 

Year 12 (2031) ........................................................................................................... 6,139 4,568 3,121 

Year 13 (2032) ........................................................................................................... 6,139 4,435 2,917 

Year 14 (2033) ........................................................................................................... 6,139 4,306 2,726 

Total .................................................................................................................... 85,948 73,570 61,468 

Annualized ................................................................................................... .............................. 6,139 6,139 

(2) Labor Costs to the Coast Guard To 

Evaluate and Process Documentation 

Showing Eligibility for MMC Fee 

Waivers 

Just as there are labor costs for 

applicants to submit documentation, 

there are labor costs to the Coast Guard 

to evaluate and process the 

documentation showing eligibility for 

an MMC fee waiver. The NMC estimates 

that the time to process the typical 

documentation is 10 minutes, or 0.17 

hours (10 ÷ 60). The processing is 

performed by personnel holding 

positions at the government General 

Schedule (GS) pay scale of GS–07. 

According to Commandant Instruction 

7310.1U, the hourly loaded rate for a 

GS–07 Coast Guard employee is $46.24

Thus, the labor cost to the Coast Guard 

to process the eligibility documentation 

is $7.82 (0.17 hours × $46 per hour) per 

applicant. As stated previously, the 

Coast Guard assumes 622 applicants 

would receive a MMC fee waiver each 

year. Given this, the Coast Guard 

predicts it would spend $4,864 per year 

to evaluate and process documentation 

provided by applicants showing 

eligibility for fee exemptions (622 × 

$7.82 = $4,864.04, rounded to the 

nearest whole dollar). The Coast Guard 

estimates that the aggregate 14-year cost 

to the Government is $48,702, with an 

annualized figure of $4,864, discounted 

at 7 percent. These numbers can be seen 

in table 5. 

TABLE 5—LABOR COSTS TO COAST GUARD TO EVALUATE ELIGIBILITY FOR MMC FEE WAIVER (POLICY LETTER 02–20 

IMPACT) (PRE-POLICY LETTER IMPLEMENTATION BASELINE) 

Year Nominal 3% 7% 

Year 1 (2020) ............................................................................................................. 4,864 5,010 5,205 

Year 2 (2021) ............................................................................................................. 4,864 4,864 4,864 

Year 3 (2022) ............................................................................................................. 4,864 4,722 4,546 

Year 4 (2023) ............................................................................................................. 4,864 4,585 4,248 

Year 5 (2024) ............................................................................................................. 4,864 4,451 3,971 

Year 6 (2025) ............................................................................................................. 4,864 4,322 3,711 

Year 7 (2026) ............................................................................................................. 4,864 4,196 3,468 

Year 8 (2027) ............................................................................................................. 4,864 4,074 3,241 

Year 9 (2028) ............................................................................................................. 4,864 3,955 3,029 

Year 10 (2029) ........................................................................................................... 4,864 3,840 2,831 

Year 11 (2030) ........................................................................................................... 4,864 3,728 2,646 

Year 12 (2031) ........................................................................................................... 4,864 3,619 2,473 

Year 13 (2032) ........................................................................................................... 4,864 3,514 2,311 

Year 14 (2033) ........................................................................................................... 4,864 3,412 2,160 

Total .................................................................................................................... 68,097 58,291 48,702 

Annualized ................................................................................................... .............................. 4,864 4,864 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68050 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

25Listed in table 3 of this RA. 26This number is rounded to the closest whole 

number. The number can be found in table 3 of this 

RA. 

(3) Aggregated Labor Costs of 

Applicants and the Coast Guard 

Associated With Documentation of 

Eligibility for an MMC Fee Waiver 

The Coast Guard estimates the total 

costs related to the documentation of 

eligibility, for applicants and the Coast 

Guard (shown in tables 4 and 5), for the 

14-year period following the 

implementation of the policy letter, in 

table 6. The estimated total costs to 

evaluate and process the documentation 

for the applicants and the Coast Guard 

for the 14-year period is $110,171, with 

an annualized cost of $11,003, 

discounted at 7 percent. 

TABLE 6—TOTAL COSTS TO APPLICANTS AND COAST GUARD TO EVALUATE AND PROCESS DOCUMENTATION OF

ELIGIBILITY FOR MMC FEE WAIVER (IMPACT OF POLICY LETTER 02–20) (PRE-POLICY LETTER IMPLEMENTATION BASELINE) 

Year Nominal 3% 7% 

Year 1 (2020) ............................................................................................................. $11,003 $11,333 $11,773 

Year 2 (2021) ............................................................................................................. 11,003 11,003 11,003 

Year 3 (2022) ............................................................................................................. 11,003 10,683 10,283 

Year 4 (2023) ............................................................................................................. 11,003 10,372 9,611 

Year 5 (2024) ............................................................................................................. 11,003 10,069 8,982 

Year 6 (2025) ............................................................................................................. 11,003 9,776 8,394 

Year 7 (2026) ............................................................................................................. 11,003 9,491 7,845 

Year 8 (2027) ............................................................................................................. 11,003 9,215 7,332 

Year 9 (2028) ............................................................................................................. 11,003 8,947 6,852 

Year 10 (2029) ........................................................................................................... 11,003 8,686 6,404 

Year 11 (2030) ........................................................................................................... 11,003 8,433 5,985 

Year 12 (2031) ........................................................................................................... 11,003 8,187 5,593 

Year 13 (2032) ........................................................................................................... 11,003 7,949 5,228 

Year 14 (2033) ........................................................................................................... 11,003 7,717 4,886 

Total .................................................................................................................... 154,045 131,862 110,171 

Annualized ................................................................................................... .............................. 11,003 11,003 

(4) Elimination of Transfer Payments to 

Federal Government of Providing MMC 

Fee Waivers 

Prior to the implementation of the 

policy letter, applicants had to pay 

evaluation, examination, and issuance 

fees to obtain an MMC.25 The 

implementation of the policy letter 

eliminated this requirement for 

applicants eligible for a fee waiver. The 

elimination of the payment of MMC fees 

represents a loss of revenue to the 

Federal Government and an equal gain 

to eligible MMC applicants. This is 

referred to as a transfer payment. For 

those MMC fees that were eliminated by 

the policy letter, the Federal 

Government will face a shortfall in 

revenues. The revenues from those fees 

will need to be made up through 

alternative means (i.e., increased taxes, 

new or increased fees for other services 

or similar sources of revenue or in some 

other manner). Thus, there would be no 

net social benefit or cost with respect to 

transfer payments. 

As stated previously, the average 

annual number of uniformed service 

members who received a waiver of 

MMC fees between 2020 and 2022 

(inclusively) was 622. The estimated 

average fee associated with the 

applications for these MMCs was $159 

each.26 For this population, the cost was 

$99,134 per year in nominal terms (622 

× $159.38 = $99,134.36, rounded to the 

nearest whole number). Thus, for the 14 

years after the implementation of the 

policy letter, the Coast Guard estimates 

transfer payments would total $992,601, 

with an annualized amount of $99,134, 

discounted at 7 percent. These estimates 

can be seen in table 7. 

TABLE 7—TRANSFER PAYMENTS—ELIMINATED (IMPACT OF POLICY LETTER 02–20) (PRE-POLICY LETTER IMPLEMENTATION

BASELINE) 

Year Nominal 3% 7% 

Year 1 (2020) ............................................................................................................. $99,134 $102,108 $106,074 

Year 2 (2021) ............................................................................................................. 99,134 99,134 99,134 

Year 3 (2022) ............................................................................................................. 99,134 96,247 92,649 

Year 4 (2023) ............................................................................................................. 99,134 93,444 86,588 

Year 5 (2024) ............................................................................................................. 99,134 90,722 80,923 

Year 6 (2025) ............................................................................................................. 99,134 88,080 75,629 

Year 7 (2026) ............................................................................................................. 99,134 85,514 70,681 

Year 8 (2027) ............................................................................................................. 99,134 83,023 66,057 

Year 9 (2028) ............................................................................................................. 99,134 80,605 61,736 

Year 10 (2029) ........................................................................................................... 99,134 78,258 57,697 

Year 11 (2030) ........................................................................................................... 99,134 75,978 53,923 

Year 12 (2031) ........................................................................................................... 99,134 73,765 50,395 

Year 13 (2032) ........................................................................................................... 99,134 71,617 47,098 

Year 14 (2033) ........................................................................................................... 99,134 69,531 44,017 

Total .................................................................................................................... 1,387,881 1,188,027 992,601 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68051 

27This is as opposed to in-scope population. The 

issues regarding the in-scope population are 

discussed below. 

28See the cost difference discussions between the 

proposed rulemaking and the policy letter in the 

‘‘Cost and Transfer Impacts of Cost Analysis of 

Policy Letter 02–20’’ section of the RA. 

29The proposed rulemaking would also 

incorporates greater flexibility with respect to 

pursuing careers. As this has already been achieved 

by issuance of the policy letter, independent of the 

proposed rulemaking, we only list the increased 

clarity and transparency that would be obtained 

through codification of the Coast Guard’s MMC fee 

exemption policy through the proposed rulemaking. 

TABLE 7—TRANSFER PAYMENTS—ELIMINATED (IMPACT OF POLICY LETTER 02–20) (PRE-POLICY LETTER IMPLEMENTATION

BASELINE)—Continued 

Year Nominal 3% 7% 

Annualized ................................................................................................... .............................. 99,134 99,134 

Benefits of Policy Letter 02–20 

The Coast Guard has identified one 

qualitative benefit of Policy Letter 02–20 

stemming from the elimination of the 

MMC fees referred to in Executive Order 

13860. The fee waiver may provide 

eligible uniformed service members 

greater flexibility with respect to 

pursuing careers after leaving the 

uniformed services. 

Part II. Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard expects the proposed 

rulemaking to have an impact for two 

reasons. First, it would implement 

Policy Letter 02–20 in terms of required 

actions.27 Second, the proposed 

rulemaking only covers a subset of the 

affected population of the policy letter. 

The proposed rulemaking covers 

Selected or Ready Reservists while the 

policy letter covered all reservists who 

were on active duty in the past. As a 

result, the proposed rule covers a 

smaller portion of the affected 

population than the policy letter. 

However, as discussed previously, there 

is no available data to accurately 

estimate this difference. The reason 

there is no available data is because the 

NMC only collects data, on those 

receiving the NMC fee exemptions, on 

an aggregate basis. The NMC only 

collects data on the number of those 

who receive the fee exemption. The 

NMC does not collect more detailed 

data such as what branch they are in or 

whether they are in the reserves or not. 

Due to the smaller number of eligible 

applicants, the Coast Guard surmises 

that, when compared to the policy 

letter, the proposed rule would result in 

a small cost savings to the applicant and 

the Coast Guard for no longer needing 

to provide and review the 

documentation for the fee waiver. 

The following cost analysis discusses 

the impact of the difference in the 

reservist populations on the number of 

MMC applications. However, due to a 

lack of data, it is not possible to quantify 

the cost difference. 

Affected Population for Proposed Rule 

As the proposed rulemaking covers a 

narrower definition of reservists than 

Policy Letter 02–20, it may cover fewer 

than 622 persons per year. Due to a lack 

of data, the Coast Guard assumes that, 

for the proposed rulemaking, the 

number of applicants for MMC 

exemptions is 622. 

Cost Analysis for Proposed Rule 

Since the proposed rule covers a 

narrower population of reservists, it 

may decrease the number of MMC 

exemptions per year. Therefore, the 

Coast Guard assumes that the aggregate 

reduction in exemptions between the 

policy letter and the proposed 

rulemaking is unquantifiable and could 

be zero.28 In other words, the proposed 

rulemaking may have no impact on the 

number of exemption requests. 

If the number of applicants seeking 

exemptions under the proposed 

rulemaking is fewer than under the 

policy letter, there will be a decrease in 

the costs of the proposed rulemaking 

when compared to the costs of the 

policy letter. For every applicant that 

does not seek an exemption under the 

proposed rulemaking (as opposed to the 

policy letter), the proposed rule would 

result in a cost savings of $9.87 per 

applicant related to providing the 

necessary documentation, and a cost 

savings of $7.82, per applicant, for the 

Coast Guard related to reviewing that 

documentation. If the proposed rule 

results in any decrease in the number of 

individuals seeking an exemption from 

MMC fees, that amount would be $159 

per applicant (the average MMC fee paid 

by an applicant). 

As stated previously, the proposed 

rulemaking is codifying an already 

existing policy letter. The only 

differences between the policy letter 

and the proposed rulemaking is that the 

proposed rulemaking covers a subset of 

the reserve forces that the policy letter 

covers. Due to a lack of data regarding 

this potential difference it is not 

possible to estimate differences in costs 

or benefits. The lack of data also makes 

it impossible to even determine whether 

there actually is a difference in 

populations between the proposed 

rulemaking and the policy letter. If there 

is a difference between the policy letter 

and proposed rulemaking in 

populations, the costs and cost savings 

differences would amount to the figures 

cited in the previous paragraph on a per 

individual basis. 

Benefits of the Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard believes the 

proposed rulemaking may reduce the 

burden on the affected public by 

increasing efficiency and transparency 

as a result of being in the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as opposed to 

being a standalone policy letter.29

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

In developing this proposed rule, the 

Coast Guard considered three 

alternatives to the proposed exemption. 

The first alternative would be to not 

exempt the MMC fees listed in table 1 

of 46 CFR 10.219(a), as shown in table 

3 of this proposal. As this alternative 

would not fulfill the requirements of 

Executive Order 13860 or NDAA 2020, 

the Coast Guard rejected this alternative. 

The second alternative would be to 

make no change to the user fee schedule 

for members of the uniformed services, 

but to establish an MMC fee 

reimbursement program for uniformed 

service members. Under this alternative, 

the population applying for MMCs 

would initially pay MMC fees and then 

file a request for reimbursement with 

their service in order to be compensated 

for the cost. Under this alternative, the 

fee compensation process would be a 

greater burden than the proposed rule’s 

framework for eligible applicants, who 

would pay MMC fees out of pocket and 

then request compensation through 

their service. Filing a request for 

reimbursement would increase the 

amount of documentation applicants 

would be required to file and would add 

an administrative burden to the services 

in establishing and implementing 

reimbursement programs. The Coast 

Guard rejected this alternative. 

The third alternative would be to 

extend the exemption only to the 

portion of the population consisting of 

members of the Selected Reserve of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68052 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

30Active duty is defined here as under 10 U.S.C. 

101(d)(1). Under that section it means ‘‘full-time 

duty in the active military service of the United 

States. Such term includes full-time training duty, 

annual training duty, and attendance, while in the 

active military service, at a school designated as a 

service school by law or by the Secretary of the 

military department concerned. Such term does not 

include full-time National Guard duty.’’ 

31All members of the Ready Reserve are in active 

status. Selected Reserves are only part of that group. 

Individual ready reserves are also active status. 

32 In order to provide maximum flexibility to 

applicants, for the proposed rulemaking the 

acceptable forms of documentation will be provided 

in updated guidance that the Coast Guard is 

planning to publish when a final rule is published. 

Ready Reserve of any of the armed 

forces (Army National Guard of the 

United States, Army Reserve, Navy 

Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air 

National Guard of the United States, Air 

Force Reserve and Coast Guard 

Reserve), and the Ready Reserve Corps 

of the USPHS who are on ‘‘active 

duty,’’ 30 while excluding those simply 

in an ‘‘active status.’’ 31 The Coast Guard 

rejected this alternative, as it does not 

best support the intent of Executive 

Order 13860 and NDAA 2020 to help 

attract active duty service members to 

obtain an MMC, and provide 

meaningful, well-paying jobs to U.S. 

veterans in support of U.S. national 

security requirements. 

The Coast Guard believes that the 

intent of Executive Order 13860 and 

NDAA 2020 is best supported through a 

fourth alternative—extending the 

eligibility for MMC fee exemptions to 

members of the Selected Reserve of the 

Reserves of the Army, Navy, Air Force, 

Marines, Coast Guard and Space Force 

(such as Selected and Ready Reservists) 

and not limiting eligibility to only 

members of the uniformed services on 

active duty. This alternative best 

supports the intent of Executive Order 

13860 and the NDAA 2020 by ensuring 

a wide range of service members who 

wish to pursue an MMC are provided 

support and by expanding the 

population eligible to receive an 

exemption from MMC fees, and 

ultimately resulting in a larger number 

of credentialed mariners available to 

support U.S national security 

requirements and provide meaningful, 

well-paying jobs to U.S. veterans. 

B. Small Entities 

Below are the small business entity 

impacts for Policy Letter 02–20 and for 

the proposed rulemaking on a separate 

basis. 

Small Business Impacts of Policy Letter 

02–20 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, the Coast Guard has 

considered whether Policy Letter 02–20 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ 

comprises small businesses, not-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Policy Letter waived fees for the 

evaluation of an MMC application, the 

administration of a required 

examination, and the issuance of an 

MMC for members of the uniformed 

services. Since the impacts discussed 

above in the RA affect individuals and 

not business (firms), not-for-profit 

entities and State or Local governmental 

jurisdictions, the proposed rule would 

not impact small entities as defined by 

the Small Business Administration in 13 

CFR 121.201. Based on this analysis, 

this proposed rule would not affect a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small Business Impacts of the Proposed 

Rulemaking 

This proposed rulemaking codifies 

certain actions taken in the previously 

implemented Policy Letter 02–20. In 

addition, the population in the 

proposed rulemaking is defined more 

narrowly than in the policy letter. 

However, due to the fact that the 

proposed rulemaking, like the policy 

letter, only affects individuals and not 

business (firms), not-for-profit entities 

and State or Local governmental 

jurisdictions, the proposed rule would 

not impact small entities as defined by 

the Small Business Administration in 13 

CFR 121.201. Based on this analysis, 

this proposed rule would not affect a 

substantial number of small entities. 

For the aforementioned reasons, the 

Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that Policy Letter 02–20 and 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 of this preamble. In your 

comment, explain why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this proposed rule would economically 

affect it. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 

121, we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please 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 

Policy Letter 02–20 called for a 

change to an existing 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. 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 information collection associated 

with Policy Letter 02–20 is the currently 

approved collection, OMB Control 

Number 1625–0040, ‘‘Application for 

Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC), 

Application for Merchant Mariner 

Medical Certificate, Application for 

Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate 

for Entry Level Ratings, Small Vessel 

Sea Service Form, DOT/USCG Periodic 

Drug Testing Form, Disclosure 

Statement for Narcotics, DWI/DUI, and/ 

or Other Convictions, Merchant Mariner 

Medical Certificate, Recognition of 

Foreign Certificate.’’ In order to process 

the fee exemptions proposed in this 

rule, the Coast Guard would require 

eligible applicants for an MMC to 

provide documentation of their 

eligibility for a fee exemption.32 In 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68053 

33 Information collections normally list the total 

number of annual respondents. However, there is 

currently a periodic renewal under review at OMB, 

and another proposed rulemaking expected to 

change the number of annual respondents is 

expected to be submitted to OMB. Therefore, the 

total number of annual respondents is not included 

in this RA. 

34As there is currently a periodic renewal under 

review at OMB, and another proposed rulemaking 

that is expected to change the total annual burden 

is expected to be submitted to OMB, it is not 

possible to list the total current annual burden. 

addition, it would require the NMC to 

evaluate and process this 

documentation part of an evaluation for 

an MMC. 

With respect to the proposed 

rulemaking, no new or additional 

documentation related to collection of 

information would be required (relative 

to the policy letter). The number of 

respondents may decrease from the 

policy letter. This is because the 

proposed rulemaking codifies what the 

policy letter currently requires in terms 

of collection of information 

documentation and applies to a 

potentially narrower in-scope 

population. 

Title: Application for Merchant 

Mariner Credential (form CG–719B), 

Application for Medical Certificate 

(form CG–719K), Application for 

Medical Certificate, Short Form (form 

719K/E), Small Vessel Sea Service Form 

(form CF–719S), DOT/USCG Periodic 

Drug Testing Form (form CG–719P), 

Disclosure Statement for Narcotics, 

DWI/DUI, and/or Other Convictions 

(form CG–719C). 

OMB Control Number: 1625–0040. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: The Coast Guard currently 

collects information from individuals 

seeking to obtain an MMC, renew an 

MMC, and obtain a merchant mariner 

medical certificate. Policy Letter 02–20 

would require applicants who are 

members of the uniformed services (622 

persons per year), and who wish to be 

exempted from MMC fees, to provide 

documentation of eligibility for the 

MMC fee exemption as part of an MMC 

application (form CG–719B). 

As the proposed regulation only 

currently codifies current practices, 

regarding the collection of information, 

stated in Policy Letter 02–20 (and makes 

no changes to these requirements), as 

well as having between the same or 

fewer applicants than the MMC fee 

waivers, it would be expected to have 

no impact on the collection of 

information. The only reason for any 

reduction in documentation would be 

due to the fact that the proposed 

rulemaking covers a narrower in-scope 

definition than does the policy letter. 

However, there is no data available to 

the Coast Guard to determine how small 

the decrease would be or even, for that 

matter, if there even is one. 

Need for Information: Title 46 CFR, 

section 10.217(a), requires MMC 

applicants to apply at one of the Coast 

Guard’s 17 Regional Exam Centers, 

located nationwide or any other location 

designated by the Coast Guard. MMCs 

are established for individuals who are 

required to hold a credential under 46 

U.S.C, subtitle II. The Coast Guard has 

the responsibility of issuing MMCs to 

applicants found qualified as to age, 

character, and habits of life, experience, 

professional qualifications, and physical 

fitness. The instruments contained 

within OMB Control No. 1625–0040 

serve as a means for the applicant to 

apply for an MMC and a merchant 

mariner medical certificate. 

Proposed Use of Information: The 

Coast Guard conducts this collection of 

information solely for the purposes of 

determining eligibility for issuance of an 

MMC in accordance with applicable 

statutes and regulations. This evaluation 

is performed on occasion, meaning as 

submitted by the respondents when 

they apply for an MMC. Applicants for 

an MMC must apply using the Form 

CG–719–B for an original MMC and 

every 5 years for renewal, or when 

seeking a new endorsement or a raise of 

grade of an existing endorsement. The 

Coast Guard evaluates the collected 

information to determine whether 

applicants are qualified to serve under 

the authority of the requested credential 

with respect to their professional 

qualifications and suitability. 

Description of the Respondents: All 

applicants for an MMC, whether 

original, renewal, duplicate, raise of 

grade, or to add a new endorsement on 

a previously issued MMC, are included 

in this collection. The population 

covered by Policy Letter 02–20 includes 

the number of uniformed service 

members applying for MMCs who 

receive an exemption of MMC fees (622 

annually). The population covered by 

the proposed rulemaking is expected to 

remain the same or be less, because the 

proposed rulemaking codifies the Policy 

Letter in terms of documentation 

requirements but applies to a narrower 

in-scope population. 

Number of Respondents: The number 

of respondents from the policy letter are 

estimated at 622 per year. The proposed 

rule would either not increase the 

annual number of respondents or be 

expected to only decrease them.33

Frequency of Response: The 

frequency of response is once per year. 

Burden of Response: The collection of 

information from both the policy letter 

and the proposed rule requires the 

population to spend 15 minutes (0.25 

hours) to provide evidence of eligibility 

for an MMC fee exemption (622 persons 

per year), which would be submitted 

with the requisite Form CG–719B. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The 

Coast Guard estimates that the total 

annual burden, for the implementation 

of the policy letter, has increased by 156 

(0.25 × 622 = 155.5, rounded up to 

nearest whole number) hours.34

As the proposed rulemaking covers 

the same documentation and has a 

narrower definition with respect to inscope population, it is expected to have 

either no impact on these hours or to 

reduce the burden level already existing 

under the policy letter. 

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 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68054 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

preemption requirements described in 

Executive Order 13132. Our analysis 

follows. 

It is well settled that States may not 

regulate in categories reserved for 

regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also 

well settled that all of the categories 

covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, 

and 8101 (design, construction, 

alteration, repair, maintenance, 

operation, equipping, personnel 

qualification, and manning of vessels), 

as well as the reporting of casualties and 

any other category in which Congress 

intended the Coast Guard to be the sole 

source of a vessel’s obligations, are 

within the field foreclosed from 

regulation by the States. See United 

States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 99–101 

(2000). 

Additionally, for rules with 

federalism implications and preemptive 

effect, Executive Order 13132 

specifically directs agencies to consult 

with State and local governments during 

the rulemaking process. If you believe 

this proposed rule would have 

implications for federalism under 

Executive Order 13132, please call or 

email the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble. 

F. Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531; 1538, requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Although this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

potential effects of this proposed rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630 (Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights). 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045 

(Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks). This proposed rule is not an 

economically significant rule and would 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments) because it would not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use). We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act, codified as a 

note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies 

to use voluntary consensus standards in 

their regulatory activities unless the 

agency provides Congress, through 

OMB, with an explanation of why using 

these standards would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (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, 

Rev. 1, associated implementing 

instructions, and Environmental 

Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. A preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. For instructions 

on locating the docket, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

This proposed rule would be 

categorically excluded under paragraphs 

L54 and L56 of Appendix A, Table 1 of 

DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–001– 

01, Rev. 1. The categorical exclusion 

(CATEX) L54 pertains to regulations 

which are editorial or procedural; and 

CATEX L56 pertains to regulations 

concerning the training, qualifying, 

licensing, and disciplining of maritime 

personnel. 

This proposed rule involves the fees 

for MMCs and associated endorsements. 

We seek any comments or information 

that may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 10 

Penalties, Personally identifiable 

information, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 46 CFR part 10 as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 10 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 503; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 

46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2104, 2110; 46 U.S.C. 

chapters 71, 73, and 75; 46 U.S.C. 7701, 8903, 

8904, and 70105; Executive Order 10173; 

DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 

01.3. 

■ 2. Amend § 10.219 by adding 

paragraph (m) to read as follows: 

§ 10.219 Fees. 

* * * * * 

(m) Members of the uniformed 

services. A qualified applicant under 

this subsection is exempt from paying 

evaluation, examination, or issuance 

fees for an MMC as described in (b)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) For purposes of paragraph (m) of 

this section, qualified applicant means 

an individual who, at the time of 

submission of an application, is: 

(i) A member of the uniformed 

services listed in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(5) on 

active duty; 

(ii) A member of the Selected Reserve, 

as described in 10 U.S.C. 10143(a), of a 

reserve component named in 10 U.S.C. 

10101; or 

(iii) A member of the Ready Reserve 

Corps of the Public Health Service 

established in 42 U.S.C. 204(a)(1). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68055 

(2) For purposes of paragraph (m)(1)(i) 

of this section: 

(i) For the members of the armed 

forces, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(4), 

active duty is defined by 10 U.S.C. 

101(d)(1); 

(ii) For the commissioned corps of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, active duty has the 

same meaning as found in 33 U.S.C. 

3002(b)(1); and 

(iii) For the members of the 

commissioned corps of the Public 

Health Service, active duty has the 

meaning defined in 42 CFR 21.72(f). 

Dated: September 21, 2023. 

W.R. Arguin, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Prevention Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21660 Filed 10–2–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 39, 

and 52 

[FAR Case 2021–017; Docket No. FAR– 

2021–0017; Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 9000–AO34 

Federal Acquisition Regulation: Cyber 

Threat and Incident Reporting and 

Information Sharing 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

partially implement an Executive order 

on cyber threats and incident reporting 

and information sharing for Federal 

contractors and to implement related 

cybersecurity policies. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division at the address 

shown below on or before December 4, 

2023 to be considered in the formation 

of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FAR Case 2021–017 to the 

Federal eRulemaking portal at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

‘‘FAR Case 2021–017’’. Select the link 

‘‘Comment Now’’ that corresponds with 

‘‘FAR Case 2021–017’’. Follow the 

instructions provided on the ‘‘Comment 

Now’’ screen. Please include your name, 

company name (if any), and ‘‘FAR Case 

2021–017’’ on your attached document. 

If your comment cannot be submitted 

using https://www.regulations.gov, call 

or email the points of contact in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document for alternate instructions. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite ‘‘FAR Case 2021–017’’ in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. Public comments 

may be submitted as an individual, as 

an organization, or anonymously (see 

frequently asked questions at https://

www.regulations.gov/faq). To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check https://www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Ms. 

Marissa Ryba, Procurement Analyst, at 

314–586–1280 or by email at 

Marissa.Ryba@gsa.gov. For information 

pertaining to status, publication 

schedules, or alternate instructions for 

submitting comments if https://

www.regulations.gov cannot be used, 

contact the Regulatory Secretariat 

Division at 202–501–4755 or 

GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite FAR 

Case 2021–017. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing 

to revise the FAR to increase the sharing 

of information about cyber threats and 

incident information between the 

Government and information 

technology and operational technology 

service providers, pursuant to Executive 

Order (E.O.) 14028, Improving the 

Nation’s Cybersecurity. The E.O. was 

signed by the President on May 12, 

2021, and published in the Federal 

Register at 86 FR 26633 on May 17, 

2021. 

The E.O. is focused on improving the 

nation’s cybersecurity, in part through 

increased protection of Government 

networks. As directed in sections 2(d) 

and 2(g)(ii) of the E.O., this proposed 

rule implements Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) recommendations 

from section 2(b) of the E.O., and 

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 

Security Agency (CISA) 

recommendations from section 2(g)(i) of 

the E.O. This proposed rule considers 

recommendations issued by the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) pursuant to section 8(b). CISA is 

an agency within DHS. Additionally, 

this proposed rule supports 

implementation of the National Cyber 

Strategy by strengthening and 

standardizing contract requirements for 

cybersecurity and by providing 

mechanisms to help ensure that entities 

or individuals that knowingly put U.S. 

information or systems at risk, by 

violating these cybersecurity 

requirements, are held accountable. 

Finally, this proposed rule implements 

OMB Memorandum M–21–07, 

Completing the Transition to internet 

Protocol Version 6 (IPv6), dated 

November 19, 2020. 

Recent cybersecurity incidents such 

as those involving SolarWinds, 

Microsoft Exchange, and the Colonial 

Pipeline incident are a sobering 

reminder that U.S. public and private 

sector entities increasingly face 

sophisticated malicious cyber activity 

from both nation-state actors and cyber 

criminals. These incidents share 

commonalities, including insufficient 

cybersecurity defenses that leave public 

and private sector entities more 

vulnerable to incidents. The E.O. makes 

a significant contribution toward 

modernizing cybersecurity defenses by 

protecting Federal networks, improving 

information sharing between the U.S. 

Government and the private sector on 

cyber issues, and strengthening the 

United States’ ability to respond to 

incidents when they occur. This 

proposed rule underscores that the 

compliance with information-sharing 

and incident-reporting requirements are 

material to eligibility and payment 

under Government contracts. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

The following summarizes the 

proposed changes to the FAR: 

FAR 2.101 currently defines 

information and communication 

technology as information technology 

and other equipment, systems, 

technologies, or processes, for which the 

principal function is the creation, 

manipulation, storage, display, receipt, 

or transmission of electronic data and 

information, as well as any associated 

content. Examples include, but are not 

limited to, the following: Computers 

and peripheral equipment; information 

kiosks and transaction machines; 

telecommunications equipment; 

customer premises equipment; 

multifunction office machines; software; 

applications; websites; videos; and 

electronic documents. This definition 

was implemented in FAR case 2017–011 

(August 11, 2021, 86 FR 44229, effective 

September 10, 2021). It has examples 

primarily aimed at section 508 of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1