18706 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

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

and 16 

[Docket No. USCG–2021–0834] 

RIN 1625–AC86 

Mariner Credentialing Program 

Transformation 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard’s Mariner 

Credentialing Program issues merchant 

mariner credentials and medical 

certificates, approves training courses 

and programs, and approves other 

qualifications such as a Qualified 

Assessor and a Designated Examiner. 

Under this rulemaking, the Coast Guard 

proposes to allow for the electronic 

submission of information required for 

credentialing to allow for the future 

implementation of a new information 

technology system to support the 

mariner credentialing process. The 

Coast Guard also proposes to require the 

electronic payment of mandatory fees 

for merchant mariner credentials 

through Pay.Gov, to remove the 

requirement for prospective mariners to 

take an oath before an authorized 

official, and to change the requirements 

for the Certificate of Discharge to 

Merchant Mariners. Finally, the Coast 

Guard proposes technical amendments 

to update addresses and websites, to 

remove antiquated terminology, and to 

amend language to use gender-neutral 

terms. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 13, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2021–0834 using the Federal DecisionMaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

See the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

Collection of information. Submit 

comments on the collection of 

information discussed in section VI.D of 

this preamble both to the Coast Guard’s 

online docket and to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the White House Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) using 

their website www.reginfo.gov/public/ 

do/PRAMain. Comments sent to OIRA 

on the collection of information must 

reach OMB on or before the comment 

due date listed on their website. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document call or 

email Mr. Charles J. Bright, CG–MMC– 

1, Coast Guard; telephone 202–372– 

1046, email Charles.J.Bright@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Basis and Purpose 

IV. Background 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

The Coast Guard views public 

participation as essential to effective 

rulemaking and will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. Your comment can 

help shape the outcome of this 

rulemaking. If you submit a comment, 

please include the docket number for 

this rulemaking, indicate the specific 

section of this document to which each 

comment applies, and provide a reason 

for each suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision-Making Portal at 

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

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2021– 

0834 in the search box and click 

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

in the Search Results column, and click 

on it. Then click on the Comment 

option. If you cannot submit your 

material by using www.regulations.gov, 

call or email the person in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this proposed rule for alternate 

instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the 

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see DHS’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

Public meeting. We do not plan to 

hold a public meeting, but we will 

consider doing so if we determine from 

public comments that a meeting would 

be helpful. We would issue a separate 

Federal Register notice to announce the 

date, time, and location of such a 

meeting. 

II. Abbreviations 

ACH Automated Clearing House 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CBO Congressional Budget Office 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CG–MMC Coast Guard Office of Merchant 

Mariner Credentialing 

CG–719B Application for Merchant Mariner 

Credential 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

EFT Electronic Funds Transfer 

Form CG–718A Certificate of Discharge to 

Merchant Mariner 

FR Federal Register 

FRED Federal Reserve Economic Data 

GS General Schedule 

GSA General Services Administration 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IT Information Technology 

MCP Mariner Credentialing Program 

MMC Merchant Mariner Credential 

MMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing and 

Documentation 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

NMC National Maritime Center 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

RA Regulatory analysis 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

REC Regional Exam Center 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

III. Basis and Purpose 

The legal basis of this proposed rule 

is title 46 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.), Sections 7101(b) and 7301(b), 

which authorize the Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) to establish the experience and 

professional qualifications required for 

the issuance of merchant mariner 

licenses and documents. The DHS 

Secretary has delegated the rulemaking 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18707 

1Qualified Assessor and Designated Examiner are 

as defined in 46 CFR 10.107 and 10.405. 

authority under 46 U.S.C. 7101 and 

7301 to the Coast Guard through DHS 

Delegation No. 00170.1(II)(92)(e) and (f), 

Revision No. 01.3. Additionally, 14 

U.S.C. 102(3) grants the Coast Guard 

broad authority to issue and enforce 

regulations for the promotion of safety 

of life and property on waters subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States, 

which includes establishing the 

experience and professional 

qualifications required for the issuance 

of credentials. 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to revise title 46 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), subchapter A, part 1, 

and subchapter B, parts 10–16, to allow 

for the electronic submission of 

information to the Coast Guard for the 

issuance of a Merchant Mariner 

Credential (MMC) and the supporting 

administrative processes, including 

requiring the payment of mandatory fees 

through the federal governmentrecognized system, Pay.gov. The Coast 

Guard also proposes removing the 

requirement for prospective mariners to 

take an oath before an authorized 

official and changing requirements for 

the completion and issue of a Certificate 

of Discharge to Merchant Mariner (Form 

CG–718A). In addition, the Coast Guard 

proposes technical amendments, such 

as updating addresses and websites, 

removing antiquated terminology, and 

adopting gender-inclusive language by 

replacing gender-specific terms. 

IV. Background 

The Coast Guard’s Mariner 

Credentialing Program (MCP) issues 

MMCs and Medical Certificates to 

applicants who have met the regulatory 

criteria established in 46 CFR 

subchapter B. This includes the 

evaluation of individual qualifications 

and medical fitness, administering 

examinations and issuing the MMC. In 

addition, the MCP also conducts 

supporting processes, such as approving 

mariner training courses and programs; 

approving course instructors; 

conducting course oversight and 

auditing; and approving Qualified 

Assessors (QA) and Designated 

Examiners (DE).1 The National Maritime 

Center (NMC) and its field units, called 

Regional Exam Centers (REC) and 

Monitoring Units (MU), conduct these 

MCP processes, which have 

traditionally relied on handwritten 

applications, mailed correspondence, 

and recordkeeping in paper-based files. 

It was not until the early 1990s that the 

Coast Guard implemented its Merchant 

Mariner Licensing and Documentation 

(MMLD) database to partially automate 

the process. 

MMLD is a database used by the NMC 

to issue MMCs, medical certificates and 

manage mariner information. MMLD is 

internal to the Coast Guard and does not 

allow for direct interaction with 

maritime stakeholders. Even with the 

addition of MMLD, all aspects of the 

MCP rely heavily on the paper-based 

submittal of information. This includes 

the submission of handwritten, paper 

forms, such as Form CG–719B, 

Application for Merchant Mariner 

Credential, CG–719K, Application for 

Medical Certificate, and supporting 

documentation, as well as conducting 

paper-based examinations that are 

mailed to mariners, or administered in 

person, by the Coast Guard. In recent 

years, the Coast Guard has accepted 

Adobe Acrobat versions of the paper 

applications and information through 

emails to improve customer service and 

efficiency during the COVID–19 

pandemic. However, this still requires 

the transfer of the mariner’s information 

from emailed documentation by manual 

entry of all information into the MMLD 

database for reviewing and processing. 

This process is time-consuming, 

inefficient, and does not provide 

effective customer service. These 

inefficiencies also make the Coast Guard 

susceptible to fraudulent activities 

related to accepting documents that 

cannot be validated and may contain 

falsified information or incorrect data. 

For example, if a mariner submits a 

training course completion or sea 

service document, it is difficult to 

validate this information against the 

course provider completed course 

information submitted to the Coast 

Guard or vessel information such as 

propulsion type or registered tonnage. 

The Coast Guard is working to replace 

MMLD with a more technologically 

advanced, secure, agile, and userfriendly system that would reduce risk 

and improve customer service to 

mariners and the maritime industry. 

The anticipated replacement system 

will be web-based, allowing for direct 

virtual interaction between the Coast 

Guard and maritime industry 

stakeholders. Currently over 50 percent 

of MMC applications submitted are 

incomplete, resulting in delays to 

request and receive the missing 

information. The replacement system 

would aim to eliminate these delays and 

would allow for more efficient 

processing, tracking, and feedback on 

the status of the credential or medical 

certificate. In addition, system users 

would be able to electronically provide 

required information directly to the 

Coast Guard for review or approval. 

These users would include maritime 

training providers, maritime employers, 

and other entities submitting required 

information on behalf of the mariner, 

such as course completion data, 

documentation of sea service, or 

assessments of competency. This would 

increase the ability to validate and 

protect information and reduce the 

likelihood of fraud from the falsification 

of such mariner records. As the primary 

source of consolidated data on merchant 

mariners and their qualifications, this 

would also support national defense 

requirements by allowing for accurate 

data analysis of merchant mariners 

needed to support contingency 

operations. 

The future MCP system would enable 

the electronic submission of information 

for the processing of credentials and 

other qualifications and approvals, as 

well as reconciling the collection of 

mandatory fees through Pay.gov. 

Allowing for the electronic submission 

of certain data and requiring electronic 

payments requires a regulatory update 

to 46 CFR part 1 of subchapter A and 

parts 10–16 of subchapter B. While the 

development and testing of the new 

system will take time, these regulatory 

changes are required to set the 

conditions for the implementation of the 

new system’s capabilities. 

Mariners must pay mandatory fees for 

the Coast Guard evaluation of an MMC 

application, administration of an 

examination, and issuance of an MMC. 

The Coast Guard is not proposing to 

change the amount of any of the 

mandatory fees. Regulations establish 

the amount and method for the payment 

of fees; specifically, 46 CFR 10.219(d)(3) 

allows for payments by cash, check, 

money order, or credit card. Accepting 

cash, checks, and money orders as 

payments is costly and inefficient, often 

creating issues with fee reconciliation 

for mariners. Cash must be converted to 

a money order, checks and money 

orders must be deposited via standard 

mail to the Federal Lockbox, and all 

deposits must be reconciled. The Coast 

Guard currently does not have an 

efficient way to track mandatory fees, 

particularly cash and money orders, in 

MMLD or the Coast Guard financial 

management system. This has led to 

overpayments and underpayments of 

mandatory fees, delays in processing 

refunds, and delays in issuing mariner 

credentials when proper fees have not 

been received. There are also no 

automated mechanisms to identify the 

need for a refund. Instead, a refund 

usually occurs only after it is requested 

by the individual receiving services. 

These inefficiencies typically delay 

refunds to individuals. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18708 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

2Approximately 80 percent of payments received 

from 2015–2019 were through Pay.gov. This 

increased to over 90 percent during the years from 

2020–2022. 

3The number of cash payments recorded by the 

Coast Guard: CY 2020—31, CY2021—2, and 

CY2022—19. 

4The 2019 Federal Reserve Payments Study, p14, 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/ 

pressreleases/files/2019-payments-study20191219.pdf. 

Requiring electronic payment via 

Pay.gov would allow for more efficient 

processing of mandatory fees, including 

easier reconciliation, refunds, and 

protection of financial information, and 

would eliminate the burden of Coast 

Guard personnel handling nonelectronic forms of payment. From 2015 

to 2019, most payments of mandatory 

fees affected by this proposal were made 

electronically through Pay.gov.2 Cash 

payments were not accepted during the 

COVID–19 pandemic. Only a few cash 

payments have been received since 2019 

and this trend is anticipated to 

continue.3 Credit or debit card (or a 

purchased credit card) and check 

payments, via bank automated clearing 

house (ACH) payments, would still be 

accepted as a means of payment through 

Pay.gov. 

In addition, this proposal would align 

Coast Guard regulations with U.S. 

Treasury regulations on the 

management of federal agency receipts, 

disbursements, and the operation of 

cash management. Specifically, 31 CFR 

part 206 prescribes regulations for 

promoting efficient, effective cash 

management through improved billing, 

collection, deposit, and payment of 

funds. These objectives seek to improve 

funds’ availability and the efficiency 

and effectiveness with which funds are 

transferred. Specifically, 31 CFR 206.4 

establishes that all funds are to be 

collected and disbursed by Electronic 

Funds Transfer (EFT) when costeffective, practicable, and consistent 

with current statutory authority. In 

addition, 31 CFR 206.4(b)(1) specifies 

that EFT will be adopted as the 

presumed collection method when fees 

and fines are recurring or of large dollar 

amounts. 

The Coast Guard also proposes to 

remove the requirement for original 

applicants to take an oath before an 

authorized official and to change the 

requirements for the completion and 

submission of Form CG–718A. Taking 

the oath before an authorized official is 

duplicative because the oath is part of 

Form CG–719B that the original 

applicant must attest to when they 

provide their signature. Requiring an 

oath before an authorized official or 

notary, places an undue burden on the 

original applicant who may need to pay 

for notary services. The signature and 

attestation on Form CG–719B legally 

binds the original applicant to that oath 

without the additional requirements and 

potential cost. 

Form CG–718A, Certificates of 

Discharge, and associated processes are 

used to document a mariner’s time on 

a vessel including the capacity the 

mariner sailed (3rd Mate, 2nd Engineer, 

etc.), date joining the vessel, and date 

leaving the vessel among other 

information. By reviewing and attesting 

to the information on Form CG–718A, 

the vessel master and mariner agree to 

its correctness. This information can be 

used to verify the mariner’s time for 

salary, sea service, and for other 

purposes. Form CG–718A process is 

clarified to ensure proper information is 

obtained and provided to the mariner 

and the Coast Guard by the vessel 

master and shipping company. This 

updates the process from paper and 

carbon copy forms, allowing for updated 

methods, such as electronic forms, 

electronic signatures, and improved 

recordkeeping, in the modern-day 

maritime industry. The information 

required for Form CG–718A would 

remain the same, but the method of 

obtaining, processing, and retaining the 

Form would allow for electronic 

processing by the owner, operator, 

Master, or Chief Engineer of the vessel. 

Finally, the Coast Guard proposes 

technical amendments, such as 

updating addresses and websites, 

removing antiquated terminology, and 

adopting gender-inclusive language by 

replacing gender specific terms. This 

would align with other sections of Coast 

Guard regulations, where outdated 

terminology has been removed or 

updated when provided the opportunity 

to do so through rulemaking. It would 

also provide a clearer understanding of 

Coast Guard and governmental 

requirements. 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This rule proposes to allow for the 

electronic submission of MMC 

applications and supporting documents 

to the Coast Guard, and to require 

electronic payment of mandatory fees 

through Pay.gov. This rule also proposes 

to remove the requirement for original 

MMC applicants to take an oath before 

an authorized official or notary because 

the Coast Guard has determined it is a 

redundant part of the original MMC 

application process. This rule further 

proposes to amend the process for 

issuing certificates of discharge for 

mariners after completing a voyage to 

clarify the procedures and allow for 

electronic processing and 

recordkeeping. Finally, the Coast Guard 

proposes to make non-substantive 

changes to antiquated terminology and 

out-of-date website and address 

information to clarify existing regulatory 

text in the affected subparts of the CFR. 

To prepare for the future acquisition 

of an information technology (IT) 

system to replace the antiquated and 

inefficient MMLD system used by the 

MCP, this rule proposes to amend 46 

CFR subchapter A, part 1, and 

subchapter B, parts 10–16, to allow for 

electronic submission of information, in 

a manner specified by the Coast Guard, 

to obtain MMCs, medical certificates, 

and the approval of mariner training 

courses and programs, Qualified 

Assessors, and Designated Examiners. 

Providing for the electronic submission 

of required information would 

streamline the credentialing process and 

would prepare for the fully electronic IT 

system that will be used by the MCP 

and industry. 

This proposed rule requires electronic 

payment of mandatory fees through 

Pay.gov. Manual processing of the 

remaining cash, checks, credit cards, or 

money orders that are still allowed 

requires significant work hours by NMC 

and REC personnel, is difficult to 

validate and protect using the current 

system, and does not meet the 

requirements of the U.S. Treasury. 

Currently, applicants can make 

payments in person at an REC using 

cash, check, credit card, or money order. 

With this proposed rule, the Coast 

Guard would no longer directly accept 

payments made using these methods at 

RECs. Applicants who wish to continue 

to use cash or money orders could 

obtain a prepaid credit card to pay fees 

using Pay.gov. Applicants who wish to 

pay via personal check can make an 

ACH payment through Pay.gov. As 

noted in IV. Background, the Coast 

Guard anticipates the use of cash or 

money orders to continue to decrease, 

based upon previous payment statistics. 

This also reflects the overall public 

trend in the United States to make 

payments using a credit card, debit card, 

or check. The 2019 Federal Reserve 

Payments Study and subsequent 

updates indicate a continued trend to 

using cards and ACH with the growth 

rate of core noncash payments being 6.7 

percent per year from 2015 to 2018, 

higher than the growth rate of 5.1 

percent per year from 2012 to 2015.4


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18709 

5 Developments in Noncash Payments for 2019 

and 2020: Findings from the Federal Reserve 

Payments Study, p7, https://

www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/ 

developments-in-noncash-payments-for-2019-and2020-20211222.pdf. 

6The proposed rule affects all applicants who 

apply for MMCs. Mandatory fees include 

evaluation, examination, and issuance fees. The 

Coast Guard data does not differentiate between 

these fees in the data it collects; the data the Coast 

Guard collected for this analysis are for any fees 

where applicants may pay for any or all of them at 

one time. 

Credit and debit card usage numbers 

declined with the onset of the COVID– 

19 pandemic, mostly from the lack of inperson transactions, but general growth 

continued, including the percentage of 

ACH payments.5 Electronic payment 

would reduce the burden on Coast 

Guard personnel who process nonelectronic payments (cash, check, 

money orders) and improve customer 

service to mariners by allowing for 

better reconciliation and more efficient 

processing of payments and refunds. 

This rule also proposes changes to 46 

CFR 14.307 regarding entries on 

certificates of discharge for mariners 

after completing a voyage to clarify the 

procedures and allow for electronic 

processing and recordkeeping. The 

process would be clarified by requiring 

that each master or person in charge 

must, for each individual mariner being 

discharged from the vessel, prepare a 

Form CG–718A in accordance with the 

procedures prescribed by the Coast 

Guard. The prescribed format may 

include the current CG–718A or other 

means provided by the Coast Guard, 

which would allow for electronic 

processing if available in a new MCP 

system. If a Master or persons in charge 

of a vessel do not use a Coast Guardprescribed format, the mariner must be 

provided with all the same information 

included on Form CG–718A. This 

ensures the vessel Master or operating 

companies provide the required 

information to the mariner but allows 

for them to use vessel or company 

specific means, such as a payroll system 

incorporated in their vessel 

administrative systems. Following each 

voyage, every mariner being discharged 

must validate the information on Form 

CG–718A by signing it. The proposed 

change from signing in ‘‘permanent ink’’ 

to ‘‘by signing’’ allows for more modern 

methods such as electronic signature or 

document verification. Finally, when 

the mariner departs the vessel, the 

Master or individual in charge must give 

Form CG–718A to the mariner, which 

could be provided electronically with 

the proposed changes. The proposed 

changes to Form CG–718A’s process 

creates a more modern and electronic 

means of processing the document. 

Under this proposed rule, there would 

be no change to the certificate of 

discharge transmission process under 46 

CFR 14.311. 

In addition, this proposed rule would 

remove the requirement to take an oath 

before an authorized official while 

certifying an Application for Merchant 

Mariner Credential (Form CG–719B). By 

signing the form, an individual attests 

that they do ‘‘solemnly swear or affirm’’ 

to abide by the requirements of the oath. 

This legally binds a mariner, so no 

additional requirement before an 

authorized official is necessary. The 

Coast Guard also anticipates that the 

future MCP system will allow for 

electronic signatures and additional 

verification of identity, negating the 

need for the requirement to take an oath 

before an authorized official. 

Finally, the Coast Guard proposes 

technical amendments to 46 CFR parts 

1 and 10 through 16 as part of this 

rulemaking. These amendments would 

account for updates to websites and 

addresses, remove antiquated language 

(such as ‘‘licenses’’ and ‘‘Merchant 

Mariner Document (MMD),’’ as those 

credentials are no longer issued by the 

Coast Guard), and make non-substantive 

changes to ensure gender-neutrality 

throughout. 

VI. Regulatory Analysis 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

A summary of our analyses based on 

these statutes or Executive orders 

follows. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), as amended by 

Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing 

Regulatory Review), and 13563 

(Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review) direct agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not designated this proposed 

rule a significant regulatory action 

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866, as amended by Executive Order 

14094. Accordingly, OMB has not 

reviewed it. A regulatory analysis (RA) 

follows. 

For this regulatory analysis, the term 

‘‘applicants’’ refers to all individuals 

who pay mandatory fees associated with 

an MMC application. The proposed 

changes and estimated cost savings for 

§ 10.219(d) would affect these 

applicants. The phrase ‘‘original 

applicants’’ refers to individuals who 

are applying for their first MMC and 

therefore are currently required to take 

an oath before an authorized official. 

The number of original applicants is a 

subset of all applicants because they 

must also pay fees. The proposed 

changes and cost savings to § 10.225(c) 

would affect only original applicants. 

In this rulemaking, the Coast Guard 

proposes to update 46 CFR subchapter 

A, part 1, and subchapter B, parts 10 

through 16. The proposed rule would: 

• Require electronic payment of 

merchant mariner credentialing fees in 

§ 10.219(d); 6

• Remove the requirement for an oath 

to be administered by an official who 

serves as a notary public (or an 

authorized official who can administer 

an oath) on Form CG–719B in 

§ 10.225(c); 

• Allow for the electronic submission 

of certain documents in §§ 1.03– 

15(h)(2)(i) for appeals involving course 

approvals and merchant mariner 

personnel issues and 10.219(i) for 

requests involving no-fee MMCs; 

• Consolidate, condense, and clarify 

regulatory text for the processing of 

Form CG–718A in §§ 14.307(a), (b), and 

(c) when a mariner completes a voyage; 

and 

• Make non-substantive, editorial 

changes to current regulatory text, such 

as pronoun changes, address changes, 

the removal of certain terms, and other 

minor grammatical changes. 

Table 1 presents a summary of the 

impacts of the proposed rule. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18710 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

7Readers can access the National Maritime 

Center’s (NMC) website and Pay.gov to obtain 

information about the payment of fees at 

www.dco.uscg.mil/nmc/fees/. The Coast Guard 

accessed this web page in the summer of 2022. 

8For this regulatory analysis, the term 

‘‘applicants’’ refers to all individual applicants who 

pay mandatory fees. The proposed changes and 

estimated cost savings for § 10.219(d) would affect 

these applicants. The phrase ‘‘original applicants’’ 

refers to individuals who apply for their first MMC 

and therefore are required by existing regulation to 

take an oath before an authorized official. The 

proposed changes and cost savings to § 10.225(c) 

would affect only original applicants. We also 

assume the affected population of applicants has 

bank accounts. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE NPRM 

Category Summary 

Applicability—46 CFR subchapter A, part 1, and subchapter B, parts 

10–16.

—Requires applicants for an MMC to pay evaluation, examination, and 

issuance fees electronically through Pay.gov; 7

—Removes requirement for original applicants to take an oath before 

an authorized official; 

—Provides the option of electronic submission of additional documents 

to support MMC applications and Coast Guard approvals; and 

—Makes editorial changes that clarify, remove, condense, and add 

non-substantive regulatory text. 

Affected Population .................................................................................. —Applicants for MMCs; and 

—Approximately 36,838 applicants,8 annually. 

Total Cost Savings of Proposed Rule (7-percent discount rate-all estimates in table, $2021).Assumption 1 (Cost Savings to applicants of MMCs): Approximately 

$2.6 million over 10-year period of analysis. Annualized, approximately $364,945. 

Assumption 2 (Cost Savings to applicants of MMCs): Approximately 

$3.0 million over 10-year period of analysis. Annualized, approximately $433,379. 

Federal Government Cost Savings: Approximately $215,655 over 10- 

year period of analysis. Annualized, approximately $30,704. 

Total Cost Savings of Proposed Rule: 

Assumption 1: Approximately $2.8 million over 10-year period of analysis. Annualized, approximately $395,650. 

Assumption 2: Approximately $3.3 million over 10-year period of analysis. Annualized, approximately $464,084. 

Unquantifiable Costs ................................................................................ —There are no regulatory provisions of the proposed rule that would 

impose net costs on individuals, companies, or the maritime industry. 

—The proposed rule would remove non-electronic and in-person payments options for applicants. 

—This proposed rule would remove requirements in § 10.219(d) and 

§ 10.225(c), which would produce net cost savings to applicants. 

Unquantifiable Cost Savings .................................................................... —Provides cost savings from the option of electronic submission of 

certain documents in parts 1.03–15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i). 

Unquantifiable Benefits ............................................................................. —Provides flexibility with option of electronic submission of certain documents; 

—Clarifies submission of Form CG–718A in part 14.307; allows for additional signature methods and retention procedures. 

Note: Cost savings estimates in each assumption include estimates for § 10.219(d). 

We discuss the economic impact of 

these items individually in the cost 

savings section of this RA. We request 

public comment on the numerical 

estimates and assumptions in the RA for 

this proposed rule. 

This proposed rule would generate 

cost savings to applicants, including 

original applicants, for two proposed 

changes in 46 CFR 10.219(d) and 

10.225(c), and for the Federal 

Government in § 10.219(d). 

For part 10.219(d), each applicant 

would save about $13.53 for a credit 

card payment and about $11.82 for a 

cash payment with this proposed rule. 

For part 10.225(c), under Assumption 

1, for all applicants, an individual 

applicant would save about $14.95; and 

under Assumption 2, for half of the 

applicants (6,976), each applicant who 

goes to a bank branch would save about 

$14.95; for the other half (6,976) of the 

applicants who go to a notary service, 

half of whom pay by credit card (3,488) 

and half of whom pay by cash (3,488); 

each applicant who pays by credit card 

would save about $25.37, and by cash, 

about $24.15. 

First, the proposed changes in 

§ 10.219(d) would require an applicant 

for an MMC to pay the required 

evaluation, examination, and issuance 

mandatory fees by electronic means 

through Pay.gov. Currently, an applicant 

can make a payment in person at an 

REC using cash, check, credit card or 

money order. With this proposed rule, 

the Coast Guard would no longer 

directly accept payments made using 

these methods; as a result, this proposed 

rule would remove the payment options 

made with cash, check (in person), 

credit card (in person), and money 

order, and payments made by standard 

mail. The cost savings that we estimate 

for § 10.219(d) are for applicants who 

would no longer expend the time to 

visit an REC to pay the fees by cash, 

check, credit card, and for payments 

made by check through standard mail. 

For the purpose of this analysis, we 

analyzed payments made by cash and 

credit card because they represented the 

majority of payments made in person at 

RECs. We also analyzed check and 

money order payments made by 

applicants outside of RECs. In addition 

to cash and credit card payments, 

applicants can also make payments by 

check and money order in person at an 

REC. However, the Coast Guard does not 

collect data to show where applicants 

made these payments. For this analysis 

and based on Coast Guard information 

from RECs, where most applicants pay 

by cash or credit card, we then assumed 

applicants made check and money order 

payments by standard mail outside of an 

REC. 

The changes we propose to 

§ 10.219(d) would also generate cost 

savings for the Federal Government for 

Coast Guard employees who would no 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18711 

9A notary public is an individual who has met 

the requirements to provide notary public services 

to the general public in order to verify a person’s 

identity. Currently, in the case of Form CG–719B, 

when an original applicant applies for an MMC 

either at an REC or near an original applicant’s 

place of residence (either at a bank or bank branch 

or where there is a notary service in the U.S.), the 

original applicant must sign the form in the 

presence of a notary public. The notary public must 

also sign the form; this process serves as the oath 

for the original applicant in accordance with the 

information contained in Form CG–719B. Readers 

can access www.nationalnotary.org to obtain more 

information about notary services in the U.S. The 

Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer 

of 2022. 

10The Coast Guard collects information on the 

number of payment transactions for original 

applications and for other payments of MMC fees. 

For the purpose of this analysis, we assumed each 

payment transaction represents one individual or 

mariner. There may be more than one payment 

transaction for an application, but for tractability of 

this analysis, we assumed a one-to-one ratio. 

11The Coast Guard acknowledges that some 

banks or bank branches may not provide a notary 

public service free of charge; however, we assumed 

applicants with a bank account at a given bank do 

not incur a cost for a notary public service if they 

are a member of that bank. Readers can access these 

websites for more information on notary public 

services at banks: https://www.bankofamerica.com/ 

signature-services/notary/, and https://

www.citizensbank.com/learning/notary-publicservices.aspx. 

longer expend the time to process inperson payment transactions at RECs. 

The cost savings associated with 

§ 10.225(c) would be from the removal 

of the requirement to have an oath 

administered by a person legally 

qualified to administer an oath, or a 

notary public, near an original 

applicant’s place of residence (in the 

town or city where an original applicant 

resides) before an original applicant 

receives an MMC.9 The Coast Guard 

does not estimate the Federal 

Government would realize any cost 

savings associated with this proposed 

change. The remaining changes of the 

proposed rule would not generate any 

costs or cost savings to the maritime 

industry, individuals, or the Federal 

Government. Lastly, this proposed rule 

would not alter any current OMBapproved Coast Guard information 

collection request (ICR). 

§ 10.219(d) 

We estimate the total discounted cost 

savings for the proposed change to 

§ 10.219(d) for applicants who pay 

mandatory fees at RECs (typically by 

cash or credit card) and for applicants 

who pay by check and money order 

outside of an REC through standard mail 

would be approximately $1.0 million, 

rounded, over a 10-year period of 

analysis, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. The cost savings are associated 

with the time (transaction time) 

applicants would save from making inperson payments to using Pay.gov. We 

estimate the annualized cost savings for 

applicants who pay in-person at RECs 

and by cash would be approximately 

$3,439 rounded, using a 7-percent 

discount rate. We estimate the 

annualized cost savings for applicants 

who pay in-person at RECs by credit 

card would be approximately $134,735, 

rounded, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. We estimate the annualized cost 

savings for applicants who pay by check 

and money order through standard mail 

would be approximately $6,951 

rounded, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. Finally, we estimate the total 

annualized cost savings of part 

10.219(d) to applicants who pay inperson at RECs and by check and money 

order to be approximately $145,125 

($3,439 + $134,735 + $6,951), rounded. 

We estimate the discounted cost 

savings to the Coast Guard for the 

proposed change to § 10.219(d) would 

be approximately $215,655 over a 10- 

year period of analysis, using a 7- 

percent discount rate. In addition, we 

estimate the annualized cost savings to 

the Coast Guard for this regulatory 

provision would be approximately 

$30,704, rounded, using a 7-percent 

discount rate. 

§ 10.225(c) 

In this regulatory analysis, we make 

two assumptions associated with the 

proposed removal of the requirement to 

take an oath before an authorized 

official in § 10.225(c). These 

assumptions apply to applicants who 

pay the mandatory fees and take an oath 

at a location other than an REC or at 

their place of residence (for the purpose 

of this regulatory analysis, we refer to 

individuals who are affected by the 

proposed changes to § 10.225(c) only as 

‘‘original applicants’’). These two 

assumptions are necessary, because the 

Coast Guard does not have data on 

whether original applicants obtain an 

oath through a notary public service at 

a bank near their place of residence, 

which is (Assumption 1), where an 

individual can obtain an oath for an 

original application along with a notary 

public signature, which we assume to be 

free of charge; or elsewhere, other than 

a bank, which is (Assumption 2), where 

there is a cost for the notary public 

service.10

Therefore, if the reader accepts 

Assumption 1 to be representative of the 

current actions by applicants, then the 

cost savings the Coast Guard estimates 

for this assumption would be the cost 

savings of the proposed rule, in addition 

to the cost savings from the proposed 

change to § 10.219(d). If the reader 

accepts Assumption 2 to be 

representative of the current actions by 

applicants, then the cost savings the 

Coast Guard estimates for this 

assumption would be the cost savings of 

the proposed rule, in addition to the 

cost savings from the proposed change 

to § 10.219(d). 

Other assumptions may be made 

about the locations or establishments 

where original applicants obtained an 

oath through a notary public service, 

such as through legal services, at a title 

application company, or other such 

local business services, but we believe 

these assumptions capture the actions 

that applicants take when they apply for 

MMCs. The Coast Guard requests 

comments from the public on these two 

assumptions, and whether a third 

assumption should be considered along 

with or instead of these two 

assumptions. Lastly, for the purpose of 

this analysis, the Coast Guard assumes 

applicants have bank accounts. We 

request comments from the public on 

the validity of this assumption. 

Assumption 1 for § 10.225(c): Our first 

assumption is that original applicants, 

who are affected by this part of the 

proposed rule, can obtain an oath 

through a notary public service at a or 

bank branch (which we assume to be 

free of charge) near where they reside.11

Under this assumption, we estimate this 

proposed rule would save original 

applicants (an estimated 13,951 

annually, rounded) a discounted 

amount of approximately $1.5 million 

over a 10-year period of analysis, using 

a 7-percent discount rate. The cost 

savings include the cost of the travel 

time for an applicant who would have 

traveled to obtain a notary public, the 

mileage cost, and the time an applicant 

would have waited at a bank to obtain 

a notary public. We estimate the 

annualized cost savings for original 

applicants would be approximately 

$219,820, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. These figures do not include the 

cost savings for the proposed change to 

§ 10.219(d). 

Assumption 2 for § 10.225(c): Our 

second assumption is that half of the 

original applicants can obtain an oath 

through a notary public service at a 

bank or bank branch near where they 

reside, which we assume to be free of 

charge. The other half of original 

applicants (an estimated 6,976 annually, 

rounded) can obtain this service at a 

state office, an establishment that 

provides notary public services, or a 

similar entity which charges for notary 

public service. Assumption 2 considers 

the cost savings associated with the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18712 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

proposed removal of the oath and the 

notary public service for the affected 

population of all original applicants, or 

13,951. Under this assumption, we 

assumed half of the applicants would 

obtain a notary public at a bank, where 

it is free of charge, and half at an 

establishment other than a bank, where 

there would be a cost for a notary 

public. The cost savings for half of the 

original applicants who obtain a notary 

public at a bank would be from the time 

it would take to travel to a bank, the 

mileage cost, and the time to wait at a 

bank for a notary public. The cost 

savings for the other half of original 

applicants who obtain a notary 

elsewhere would be the same as 

applicants that go to a bank with the 

addition of the cost savings from not 

having to pay for a notary public. 

With this assumption, the Coast 

Guard estimates the proposed rule 

would save original applicants a 

discounted amount of approximately 

$2.0 million over a 10-year period of 

analysis, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. The Coast Guard estimates the 

annualized cost savings for original 

applicants would be approximately 

$288,255, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. These figures do not include the 

cost savings for the proposed change to 

§ 10.219(d). 

For each assumption, the Coast Guard 

adds the same cost savings estimate for 

original applicants who would be 

required to pay the fees electronically 

under the proposed changes to 

§ 10.219(d), or $145,125 annualized, 

rounded. Specifically, for Assumption 

1, the Coast Guard estimates the total 

discounted cost savings of the proposed 

rule to applicants would be 

approximately $2.6 million over a 10- 

year period of analysis, using a 7- 

percent discount rate. The Coast Guard 

estimates the total annualized cost 

savings of the proposed rule under this 

assumption would be approximately 

$364,945. 

For Assumption 2, the Coast Guard 

estimates the total discounted cost 

savings of the proposed rule to 

applicants would be approximately $3.0 

million over a 10-year period of 

analysis, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. The Coast Guard estimates the total 

annualized cost savings of the proposed 

rule under this assumption would be 

approximately $433,379. 

In addition, the Coast Guard expects 

this proposed rule to generate benefits 

in the form of cost savings to MMC 

applicants. These benefits would 

include: 

• A simplified payment transaction 

through electronic means (Pay.gov), 

saving applicants time and money; and 

• Reduced time burden for original 

applicants who would no longer need to 

obtain an oath before an authorized 

official, which saves time and money. 

This proposed rule would also 

generate unquantifiable benefits, which 

would include: 

• Flexibility for applicants by 

providing the option to electronically 

submit documents including the no-fee 

determination of eligibility request and 

the certificate of discharge; 

unquantifiable cost savings for 

applicants who would choose the 

option to electronically submit certain 

documents; 

• Removal, addition, and clarification 

of regulatory text for Form CG–718A 

and other non-substantive regulatory 

text changes. 

Table 2 presents a summary of the 

estimated impacts of the proposed rule. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE NPRM BY AFFECTED CFR PART, SUBPART, AND SECTION

46 CFR section(s) affected Description of proposed rule change Economic impact Estimated cost or cost savings 

Part 1—Organization, General Course 

and Methods Governing Marine Safety Functions, Subpart 1.01—Organization and General Flow of Functions: 1.01–15(e).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes, which includes updated website for merchant mariner 

credentialing.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart 1.03—Rights of Appeal: 1.03– 

15(h)(2)(i).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes. Adds option of electronic submission for appeals for 

course approvals.

No estimated impact. Manner of submission would include option of electronic submission of appeals. 

Unquantifiable benefit of option for 

electronic submission of appeal, current paper-based appeal process 

would still be accepted.

None. 

Part 10—Merchant Mariner Credential, 

Subpart A—General: 10.107.

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact. Clarifies the definition of ‘‘regional examination center 

or REC’’; adds definitions for ‘‘written,’’ ‘‘writing,’’ and ‘‘in writing.’’.

None. 

Subpart B—General Requirements for 

All Merchant Mariner Credentials: 

10.203(b); 10.203(c); 10.205(g); 

10.209(a); 10.209(d).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

10.209(d)(1); 10.209((d)(2); 

10.209(d)(3).

Editorial: removes regulatory text for 

applicant to retain photocopy of credential and submission of certain 

documents in paragraph (d)(2). Other 

non-substantive regulatory text 

changes in paragraphs (d)(1) and 

(d)(3).

No estimated cost impact for removal 

of photocopy of credential and submission of certain documents because requirement is still retained in 

§§ 10.227 and 10.231.

None. 

10.209(i) ................................................. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

10.211(f), (i), (j), (k), and (l) ................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

10.213(f) ................................................. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18713 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE NPRM BY AFFECTED CFR PART, SUBPART, AND SECTION—Continued 

46 CFR section(s) affected Description of proposed rule change Economic impact Estimated cost or cost savings 

10.219(d) ................................................ Condenses paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(5) into one paragraph; requires payments to be made electronically.

Cost savings in time saved for payment 

transaction for applicants who chose 

to pay in person at an REC and 

would now be required to submit 

payment electronically. Cost savings 

from mail-in checks. This would remove the in-person option for applicants who chose to pay in person at 

an REC.

Estimated annualized cost savings of 

approximately $145,125 to applicants; 10-year discounted cost savings of approximately $1.0 million at 

7-percent discount rate. Federal 

Government annualized cost savings 

of approximately $30,704; 10-year 

discounted cost savings of approximately $215,655 at 7-percent discount rate. 

10.219(i)(1) ............................................. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes. Adds option of electronic submission of request for determination of a request for a fee 

waiver.

No estimated impact; manner of submission would include option for 

electronic submission. Unquantifiable 

benefit of option for electronic submission of request for determination 

of eligibility, current paper-based request would still be accepted.

Unquantifiable cost savings. 

10.223(c)(iv)(5) ....................................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

10.225(c) [Please note, the cost savings estimates the Coast Guard presents for each assumption in this 

subpart do not include the estimates 

in § 10.219(d)].

Removes the requirement for an oath 

to be administered by any Coast 

Guard designated individual or any 

person legally permitted to administer oath in jurisdiction of individual’s 

place of residence. Other minor nonsubstantive regulatory text changes.

Cost savings for original applicants 

who obtain an oath other than 

through a designated Coast Guard 

individual because it is free of charge 

at an REC. Cost savings is from 

original applicants who do not need 

notary public signature on Form CG– 

719B.

Assumption 1: Estimated annualized 

cost savings is approximately 

$219,820; 10-year discounted cost 

savings approximately $1.5 million at 

7-percent discount rate. Assumption 

2: Estimated annualized cost savings 

is between $288,255; 10-year discounted cost savings approximately 

$2.0 million at 7-percent discount 

rate. 

10.227(d)(4); 10.227(e)(1)(i); 

10.227(e)(1)(iv); 10.227(e)(4) and (5); 

10.227(e)(6)(ii); 10.227(g)(2)(ii); 

10.227(h) and (i).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

10.231(c)(5); 10.231(d)(2) ...................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

10.232(a); 10.232(a)(4); 10.223(d); 

10.223(d)(3); 10.223(d)(6).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

10.233(a), (b), and (c) ............................ Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

10.235(c), (d), (h), and (i) ...................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

10.239, table 1 ....................................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart C—Medical Certification: 

10.302(a).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

10.305(c), (d), and (e); 10.306(e) .......... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart D—Training Courses and Programs: 10.404(b)(1)(iv), (v), and (vii); 

(c)(1) and (c)(6).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

10.405(a)(3); (b)(3) and (d); 10.409(e) .. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Part 11—Requirements for Officer Endorsements, Subpart A—General: 

11.101(b); 11.102(a).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart B—General Requirements for 

Officer Endorsements: 11.201(a), 

(c)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (h), (i) and (k); 

11.211(c); 11.217(a).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart C—STCW Officer Endorsements: 11.301(g); 11.337(a).Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart D—Professional Requirements 

for National Deck Officer Endorsements: 11.401(a), (b), and (d).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.402(c)(2) and (3), and (d) ................. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.404(a)(2) and (b); 11.405(a); 

11.406(a)(1) and (2), and (c); 

11.407(c) and (d).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.412(a)(1) and (2), and (b) ................. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.414(a)(1)(iii) ....................................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.418(a)(1) and (2), and (b) ................. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.420(a) ................................................ Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.422(b)(4) and (c); 11.424(a)(1) and 

(b).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.425(a)(2), (b), and (d) ....................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18714 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE NPRM BY AFFECTED CFR PART, SUBPART, AND SECTION—Continued 

46 CFR section(s) affected Description of proposed rule change Economic impact Estimated cost or cost savings 

11.426(a)(1) ........................................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.427(a)(2), (b), and (d) ....................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.428(b); 11.429(c) .............................. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.433(a)(1) and (3); 11.435(a)(1) and 

(2); 11.437(a)(3).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.442(a)(1) and (2); 11.444(a)(2); 

11.446(a)(1) and (b).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.450(c) and (d); 11.452(a) and (b); 

11.454(c) and (d); 11.457(a) and (b).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.462(c) and (c)(4)(v) and (vi), and 

(d)(4)(iv), (v), and (vi).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.464(d), (g), and (h) ........................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.465(a), (d), and (e); 11.466(b) .......... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.470(b)(1) and (2), (c), (d)(1) and 

(d)(2), and (d)(2)(i), (e), (f)(2), (g), 

(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(2)(i), (i), (j)(2), and 

(j)(2)(i), and (k).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.472(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) ................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.474(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2), 

and (b).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.480(b), (d), (f), and (h) ...................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.482(b), (c), and (d) ............................ Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.491(a) ................................................ Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart E—Professional Requirements 

for National Engineer Officer Endorsements: 11.501(c), (d), and (e).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.502(b) ................................................ Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.503(a), (c)(2), (3), and (4), and (d) ... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.510(a)(2); 11.512(a)(1) ..................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.514(a)(1) and (2) ............................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.542(a)(1) and (2), and (b) ................. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.544(a)(1) and (2), and (b) ................. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart F—Credentialing of Radio Officers: 11.603; 11.604.Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart G—Professional Requirements 

for Pilots: 11.701(d); 11.703(d); 

11.705(c); 11.707(b); 11.709(b); 

11.713(a) and (b).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart H—Registration of Staff Officers and Miscellaneous Endorsements: 11.805(a) and (b); 11.807(d); 

11.821(b)(2).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart I—Subjects of Examinations: 

11.903(c)(1).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

11.920 table 2 title ................................. Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Part 12—Requirements for Rating Endorsements—Subpart A—General: 

12.103(a).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart B—General Requirements for 

Rating Endorsements: 12.201(a)(2).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart C—Requirements for National 

Deck Rating Endorsements: 

12.401(a) and (c)(3); 12.405(a) and 

(b)(2); 12.407(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(3); 

12.409(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(3).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart E—General Requirements for a 

Qualified Member of the Engine Department (QMED): 12.501(b)(2) and 

(c)(3); 12.505(a); 12.625(a)(1); 

12.627(a)(1).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart G—Entry-Level National Ratings and Miscellaneous Ratings: 

12.707; 12.709(a); 12.711(a).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18715 

12Based on NMC data, most applicants paid fees 

by cash or check at RECs; however, a small, 

unknown number of applicants paid by check or 

money order. The Coast Guard does not maintain 

data on applicants who paid by check or money 

order at RECs, which may result in an 

underestimation of applicants who paid fees in 

person by these two methods. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE NPRM BY AFFECTED CFR PART, SUBPART, AND SECTION—Continued 

46 CFR section(s) affected Description of proposed rule change Economic impact Estimated cost or cost savings 

Subpart H—Non-Resident Alien Members of the Steward’s Department on 

U.S. Flag Large Passenger Vessels: 

12.809(a) and (b); 12.811(b)(5)(iii) 

and (e).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Part 13—Certification of Tankerman, 

Subpart A—General: 13.103(a) and 

13.107(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

13.111(d)(3) and (4); 13.119; 13.120(a), 

(b), (c), and (d); 13.127(a)(4) and (5).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart B—Requirements for 

Tankerman-PIC Endorsement: 

13.201(c) and (c)(3).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

13.203(a), (b), and (c)(2); 13.205 .......... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart C—Requirements for 

Tankerman-PIC (Barge) Endorsement: 13.301(c) and (c)(3); 13.303(a) 

and (c)(2); 13.305.

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart D—Requirements for 

Tankerman-Assistant Endorsement: 

13.401(c), (d), and (e).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

13.405(a), (b), and (b)(2) ....................... Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart E—Requirements for 

Tankerman-Engineer Endorsement: 

13.501(c) and (c)(3); 13.503(a); 

13.505(a).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Part 14—Shipment and Discharge of 

Merchant Mariners, Subpart A—General: 14.205; 14.207(a).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart C—Discharge of Merchant 

Mariners: 14.307(a), (b), and (c).

Removes regulatory text in paragraph 

(a), which includes the number of 

copies of Form CG–718A and other 

mariner information. Removes paragraphs (d) and (e) and consolidates 

regulatory text changes into paragraphs (b) and (c).

No estimated impact. Removal and 

consolidation of information in current paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) into 

proposed paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) 

is currently required on Form CG– 

718A.

None. 

Subpart D—Oceanographic Research 

Vessels: 14.403(a)(1) and (2); 

14.405(c) and (d).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Part 16—Chemical Testing, Subpart 

B—General: 16.201(c) and (f).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

16.210(b); 16.220(a)(1), (3), and (5), 

and (c); 16.230(b)(1) and (c).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Subpart E—Management Information 

System: 16.500(b).

Editorial; non-substantive regulatory 

text changes.

No estimated impact ............................. None. 

Affected Population 

The affected population of this 

proposed rule are applicants for an 

MMC (includes original applications) 

who pay MMC fees in person at an REC 

or outside of an REC through standard 

mail. Based on historical data from the 

NMC, the Coast Guard analyzed 

information on applicants who paid 

mandatory fees electronically through 

Pay.gov over a 7-year period from 2015 

to 2021. Based on payment data from 

the NMC, one payment transaction 

represents one applicant for all 

transactions. The Coast Guard did not 

include 2022 in the dataset because at 

the time of the writing of this analysis 

it was not a complete data year. Under 

this assumption, we assumed an 

applicant makes one trip to an REC and 

pays for all transactions at that time 

instead of taking time to make multiple 

trips and paying separately for 

transactions. For applicants who paid 

fees in person at RECs, the Coast Guard 

used a 5-year data period from 2015– 

2019 because after 2019, in-person 

transactions became very sporadic at 

RECs due to COVID–19 pandemic 

protocols and the data are not 

representative of the transactions over 

this period of time. The Coast Guard 

then established two population groups. 

For § 10.225(c) of this proposed rule, the 

Coast Guard defined the population as 

original applicants who paid mandatory 

fees by money order, check, and through 

Pay.gov, which gave us the number of 

applicants who took the oath outside of 

an REC and obtained a notary public 

service near where they reside. This is 

for individuals who applied for an 

original MMC only. As an annual 

average, the NMC recorded 

approximately 13,951 payment 

transactions for original applications 

between 2015 and 2021. 

For § 10.219(d) of this proposed rule, 

the Coast Guard defined part of the 

population as applicants who paid the 

fees by cash or credit card in person at 

RECs for original applications, which 

gave us an estimated the number of 

individuals who likely took the oath at 

RECs, where it is free of charge.12 As an 

annual average, the NMC recorded 

approximately 1,206 in-person payment 

transactions for original applications 

between 2015 and 2019. For all other 

fees paid by applicants other than 

original applicants, the NMC recorded 

an annual average of 9,043 in-person 

payment transactions between 2015 and 

2019. The Coast Guard estimates the 

total average annual population of 

applicants, who paid fees in person at 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18716 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

13This form is part of a currently OMB-approved 

Coast Guard ICR with a control number of 1625– 

0012. Readers can access NMC’s website at https:// 

www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_center/ to 

view this form and obtain information about the 

application process. The Coast Guard accessed this 

web page in the summer of 2022. 

14Pay.gov accepts three payment types: credit 

card, prepaid card, and ACH payments. The Coast 

Guard does not collect data on the usage of prepaid 

cards for applicants who use Pay.gov. The Coast 

Guard also did not estimate a cost (and subsequent 

cost savings) to obtain these cards in this analysis 

because applicants can obtain these cards when 

they are at grocery stores or other locations without 

making a separate trip to specifically obtain the 

cards. In this analysis, we assume for the unknown 

number of applicants who choose to use a prepaid 

card to pay fees, already possess the card. We 

request comments from the public on the use of 

prepaid cards with Pay.gov. 

an REC during this period, to be 

approximately 10,249 applicants. 

Between 2015 and 2021, the Coast 

Guard also recorded an annual average 

of approximately 12,638 payments made 

by applicants who paid by check or 

money order outside of an REC through 

standard mail. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard estimates the total average annual 

population affected by this proposed 

rule would be approximately 36,838 

(13,951 + 10,249 + 12,638) applicants 

(see table 3). 

TABLE 3—AFFECTED POPULATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Affected group Affected CFR 

section Population 

Original applicants who paid fees electronically and took oath outside of an REC 

for original applications (relatively near place of residence).

10.225(c) 13,951. 

All applicants including a subset of original applicants who paid fees in person at 

RECs.

10.219(d) 10,249 (9,958 by credit card and 291 by 

cash; 1,206 from original applicants 

and 9,043 from other applicants). 

All applicants who paid by check or money order through standard mail .................. 10.219(d) 12,638. 

Total ...................................................................................................................... ........................ 36,838. 

Note: The populations that the Coast Guard presents in this table are annual averages. 

Cost Savings Analysis 

Two proposed changes in this rule (in 

46 CFR 10.219(d) and 10.225(c)) would 

result in quantifiable cost savings for 

MMC applicants. The other proposed 

changes would have no quantifiable 

economic impact on individuals, 

companies, or businesses, and would 

not result in costs or cost savings to 

them. 

The proposed option in 46 CFR 1.03– 

15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i)(1) for electronic 

submission of certain documents that 

currently must be submitted by paper 

copy (see table 2) would likely have cost 

savings associated with it, but we are 

not able to quantify these savings in this 

analysis because the Coast Guard does 

not have data to show how many 

electronic submissions we would 

receive in the future. Additionally, 

because of the COVID–19 pandemic, the 

Coast Guard is not able to accurately 

determine a future trend of the number 

of documents that applicants would 

choose to submit to the Coast Guard 

electronically. 

In table 2, we presented a summary of 

the estimated impacts of the proposed 

rule and provided a description of the 

change for each affected CFR section. 

Where the description reads ‘‘Editorial; 

non-substantive regulatory text 

changes,’’ we propose to make changes 

that include the addition, deletion, 

consolidation, and clarification of 

regulatory text and would not have cost 

or cost savings associated with them. 

These proposed changes include minor 

grammatical revisions, such as changes 

to punctuation and pronoun changes; 

the clarification of regulatory text by 

removal, deletion, or consolidation of 

terms; definitional changes; and changes 

that update Coast Guard website 

addresses. This includes changes in 

§ 10.209(d)(2), ‘‘General Application 

Procedures,’’ where the Coast Guard 

proposes to remove the regulatory text 

governing the submission of certain 

documents by applicants. There would 

be no costs or cost savings to 

individuals that would be associated 

with this proposed change because the 

Coast Guard would still retain this 

requirement in §§ 10.227 and 10.231. 

For § 1.03–15(h)(2)(i), ‘‘General,’’ the 

Coast Guard proposes to add the option 

of electronic submission of an appeal for 

course approvals and merchant mariner 

personnel to the Coast Guard. There are 

no quantifiable cost or cost savings 

associated with this proposed change 

because the Coast Guard does not have 

data on the future use of electronic 

submission for appeals. The Coast 

Guard would still accept the current 

paper-copy submission method for 

appeals. 

For § 10.219(i)(1), ‘‘Determination of 

Eligibility,’’ the Coast Guard proposes to 

add the option of electronic submission 

of an eligibility request to the Coast 

Guard for the items listed in 10.219(h). 

There are no quantifiable cost or cost 

savings associated with this proposed 

change because the Coast Guard does 

not have data on the future use of 

electronic submission with this item. 

The Coast Guard would still accept the 

current paper-copy submission method 

for these requests. 

For § 14.307, ‘‘Entries on certificate of 

discharge,’’ the information the Coast 

Guard proposes to remove in current 

paragraphs (d) and (e) is currently 

contained in form CG–718A, 

‘‘Certificate of Discharge to Merchant 

Mariner;’’ therefore, there is no cost or 

cost savings associated with this 

proposed change.13 The Coast Guard 

proposes to remove, consolidate, and 

condense the existing regulatory text 

into paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this 

section. The proposed changes to this 

section do not change the current OMBapproved ICR or alter its burden 

estimates because the Coast Guard is not 

making any changes to the reporting 

requirements in form CG–718A. 

Cost Savings Analysis for Proposed 

Changes to § 10.219(d)/Electronic 

Payment of Fees 

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 

§ 10.219(d) to remove the option for 

applicants to pay merchant mariner 

credentialing fees in person at an REC 

by cash or credit card (applicants who 

pay in person may also pay by check or 

money order; because the Coast Guard 

does not collect data on where these 

payments were made and based on 

payment data from the NMC and subject 

matter experts who work at the NMC, 

most applicants pay by cash or with a 

credit card in person) since credit card 

transactions are processed by individual 

RECs and cash payments are not 

accepted through standard mail. The 

Coast Guard would instead require all 

payments to be made electronically 

through the Government’s payment 

system at Pay.gov.14 For payments made 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18717 

15U.S. Census Bureau, American Community 

Survey 2021, S2801 Types of Computers and 

internet Subscriptions: ACS 1-year Estimates 

Subject Tables, Types of Computers, https://

data.census.gov/table?q=Computer+

and+internet+Use&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S2801. 

16U.S. Census Bureau, American Community 

Survey 2021, S2801 Types of Computers and 

internet Subscriptions: ACS 1-year Estimates 

Subject Tables, Types of internet Subscriptions, 

https://data.census.gov/table?q=Computer+and+

internet+Use&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S2801. 

17The Coast Guard acknowledges that there may 

be a small portion of applicants in the affected 

population who may not own a computer or have 

access to the internet to submit a MMC payment. 

Readers can access these websites for further 

information on access to the internet and the 

ownership of mobile phones in the United States: 

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/ 

internet-broadband/ and https://

wwww.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/. 

by check outside of an REC, applicants 

mailed the checks to the Coast Guard by 

standard mail. With the proposed rule, 

the Coast Guard would still accept 

payment by check, but applicants would 

be required to use a bank ACH payment 

through Pay.gov. Applicants who 

mailed checks to the Coast Guard would 

save the postage cost with this proposed 

rule. The Coast Guard expects that 

applicants have access to the requisite 

technology to pay credentialing fees 

through Pay.gov. According to the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s 2021 American 

Community Survey, approximately 95 

percent of American households have 

one or more electronic devices such as 

a desktop or laptop computer, a 

smartphone, or tablet.15 This included 

over 90 percent of households that have 

an internet subscription that would 

facilitate access to Pay.gov.16 Even if an 

applicant or household does not have 

access to a computer at home or the 

internet individually, in this case, the 

Coast Guard assumes for the purpose of 

this analysis, that an applicant may 

access a smartphone, cellphone, or 

computer to submit an application to 

the Coast Guard without incurring a 

cost.17 The Coast Guard requests 

comments from the public on the 

requirement for applicants to pay MMC 

fees solely using Pay.gov, to register 

with Pay.gov, and their ability to access 

the internet for this purpose. 

Additionally, with this proposed rule, 

we assume that a small population of 

applicants affected by part 10.219(d) of 

this proposed rule, who submit 

applications at RECs currently, would 

choose to continue to visit RECs and 

would continue to print receipts as 

proof of payment. However, the Coast 

Guard is not able to determine the 

number of applicants who would 

continue to visit RECs for this purpose. 

Therefore, there is an unquantifiable 

cost of printing the receipts for a small 

number of applicants who visit RECs to 

submit their applications. This would 

result in a small, unknown reduction in 

the total estimated cost savings of this 

proposed rule. The Coast Guard requests 

comments from the public on the 

number of applicants who choose to 

visit RECs with this proposed rule and 

their ability to print receipts at home 

when they make fee payments using 

Pay.gov. 

Applicants may visit an REC for many 

reasons; for example, to take an 

examination, to ask questions about the 

application process, submit an 

application, pay the mandatory fees, 

obtain an oath from an authorized 

individual, or for other reasons. This is 

notable in the following cost savings 

analysis, because the Coast Guard does 

not include travel cost savings estimates 

for the affected applicants in our 

analysis of the impact of the proposed 

change to § 10.219(d). The Coast Guard 

reasons that, although it is possible for 

applicants to visit RECs exclusively to 

pay MMC fees, the Coast Guard does not 

retain data on the number of applicants 

who do so. In practice, the Coast Guard 

assumes applicants do not visit an REC 

to solely pay the fees. Therefore, the 

Coast Guard cannot attribute travel costs 

to applicants who pay the mandatory 

fees in person at an REC. For example, 

applicants may visit RECs to ask 

questions about the application process 

and may decide to pay the fees during 

the same visit. Or applicants may visit 

RECs to obtain an oath, not realizing 

that RECs accept in-person payment, 

and may decide to pay the fees during 

this visit. The Coast Guard also assumes 

that applicants pay the mandatory fees 

at one time. 

The proposed requirement for 

applicants to pay MMC fees 

electronically through Pay.gov would 

eliminate the flexibility to pay these fees 

by cash, and money order, by standard 

mail, and directly at an REC (see 

footnote number 13). However, with 

Pay.gov, the Coast Guard believes 

applicants would find this payment 

method to be more convenient and 

secure because applicants would be able 

to pay MMCs fees from their home 

instead of traveling to an REC and 

expending the time and money by 

making a payment in person, as we 

discuss later in this analysis. The Coast 

Guard acknowledges that there may be 

a small subset of the applicant 

population that would still prefer to pay 

MMC fees in person instead of through 

Pay.gov after an effective final rule. The 

Coast Guard requests comments from 

the public on how the proposed removal 

of the payment options (cash and money 

orders) and in-person payments at RECs 

affects applicants who currently use 

these payment methods to pay MMC 

fees. 

The Coast Guard collects data for all 

payment transactions including 

transactions for original MMC 

applications. Between 2015 and 2019, 

the Coast Guard recorded an annual 

average of 1,167 credit card transactions 

for original applications made in person 

by applicants at an REC. It also recorded 

an average annual of 8,791 credit card 

transactions for other fees for a total 

average annual of 9,958 credit card 

transactions over these 5 years. During 

the same period, the Coast Guard 

recorded an average annual of 39 cash 

payment transactions for original 

applications made in person by 

applicants at an REC. It also recorded an 

average annual of 252 cash transactions 

for other fees for a total average annual 

of 291 cash transactions for these 5 

years. Therefore, the total average 

annual number of transactions made in 

person was approximately 10,249 over 

the 5-year time period. 

The NMC estimates it takes applicants 

approximately 5 minutes, or 0.083 hours 

(rounded), to complete a payment 

through Pay.gov. The NMC estimates it 

takes a certain amount of time for 

applicants to make in-person 

application payments at an REC. For 

applicants who pay by credit card, the 

NMC estimates it takes approximately: 

• 8 minutes, or approximately 0.13 

hours (rounded), to enter RECs due to 

security checks; 

• 3.5 minutes, or approximately 0.06 

hours (rounded) to wait in line for a 

clerk; and 

• 7.5 minutes, or approximately 0.13 

hours (rounded) to make the payment 

and complete the transaction, for a total 

of approximately 0.32 hours. 

Therefore, the net amount of time 

(time difference) applicants would save 

by making payments electronically 

rather than by credit card in person is 

approximately 0.237 hours (0.32 ¥ 

0.083 hours). 

For applicants who pay by cash, the 

NMC estimates it takes approximately: 

• 8 minutes, or approximately 0.13 

hours (rounded) to enter RECs due to 

security checks; 

• 3.5 minutes, or approximately 0.06 

hours (rounded) to wait in line for a 

clerk; and 

• 6.0 minutes, or approximately 0.10 

hours to make the payment and 

complete the transaction, for a total of 

approximately 0.29 hours. 

Therefore, the net amount of time 

applicants would save from making 

payments electronically rather than 

making cash payments in person is 

approximately 0.207 hours (0.29 ¥ 

0.083 hours). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18718 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

18The BLS defines civilian workers to be ‘‘private 

industry workers and State and local government 

workers.’’ This includes individuals in the private 

nonfarm economy excluding households and the 

public sector excluding the Federal Government. 

Readers can view BLS’ glossary of terms at https:// 

www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm. Readers can access 

BLS’ website at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/ 

oes_nat.htm#00-0000 to obtain information about 

the wages used in this analysis. The Coast Guard 

accessed BLS’ web page in the summer of 2022. 

19A loaded mean hourly wage rate is what a 

company pays per hour to employ a person, not the 

hourly wage an employee receives. The loaded 

mean hourly wage rate includes the cost of nonwage benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). The 

Coast Guard calculated the load factor by accessing 

BLS’ website at https://www.bls.gov/ and selecting 

the topic ‘‘Subjects’’ from the menu on this web 

page. From the categories listed on this page, under 

the category titled ‘‘Data Tools,’’ the Coast Guard 

selected the category ‘‘Top Picks, One Screen, 

Multi-Screen, and Maps.’’ On the next page titled, 

‘‘Databases, Tables, and Calculators by Subject,’’ the 

Coast Guard selected used the category ‘‘Pay and 

Benefits’’. Under the category, ’’Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation’’, we selected the ’’MultiScreen’’ feature. This took us to https://

www.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cm. At this page, titled, 

‘‘Create Customized Tables’’, or screen 1, the Coast 

Guard then selected the category of ‘‘Civilian 

Workers’’. At screen 2, the Coast Guard first 

selected the category ‘‘Total Compensation,’’ then 

we continued to select ‘‘All Workers’’ at screens 3, 

4, and 5. At screen 6, for ‘‘Area’’ the Coast Guard 

selected ‘‘United States.’’ At screen 7, the Coast 

Guard selected the category ‘‘Cost of 

Compensation.’’ At screen 8, the Coast Guard 

selected the category ‘‘not seasonally adjusted.’’ At 

screen 9, the Coast Guard selected the series ID, 

CMU1010000000000D. The Coast Guard used the 

‘‘Cost of Compensation’’ for quarter 4 of 2021, or 

$40.35. The Coast Guard performed this process 

again to obtain the value for ‘‘Wages and Salaries,’’ 

which we selected on screen 2. On screen 9, the 

Coast Guard selected the series ID 

CMU1020000000000D and obtained a value of 

$27.83. The Coast Guard divided $40.35 by $27.83 

and obtained a load factor of 1.45, rounded. The 

Coast Guard used the same methodology to obtain 

the load factor for the 5 occupational categories for 

applicants other than original applicants. However, 

instead of using the category of ‘‘Civilian Workers’’, 

the Coast Guard selected ‘‘Private Industry 

Workers’’ at screen 1, ‘‘Transportation and Material 

Moving Occupations’’ at screen 3, ‘‘All Workers’’ at 

screens 4 and 5, ‘‘United States’’ at screen 6, ‘‘Cost 

of Compensation’’ at screen 7, ‘‘not seasonally 

adjusted’’ at screen 8, and the series ID at screen 

9, CMU 2010000520000D. The Coast Guard again 

used the ‘‘Cost of Compensation’’ for quarter 4 of 

2021, or $33.57. The Coast Guard then selected 

‘‘Wages and Salaries,’’ at screen 2. On screen 9, the 

Coast Guard selected the series ID 

CMU2020000520000D and obtained a value of 

$22.75. The Coast Guard divided $33.57 by $22.75 

and obtained a load factor of 1.48, rounded. The 

Coast Guard then used the average of these two load 

factors, which is 1.47, rounded. The Coast Guard 

accessed this BLS’ website in June 2023. 

The payment time for Pay.gov does 

not account for the time to create a 

personal account on Pay.gov. Individual 

payments may be made without creating 

an account. Pay.gov provides the same 

capabilities to pay credentialing and 

other fees and obtain a receipt without 

creating an account. For this analysis, 

the Coast Guard assumes individuals 

will not create an account since 

credentialing fees are typically only 

paid once every five years aligning with 

the validity of a mariner credential. 

Using Pay.gov infrequently does not 

necessitate the need to create an 

account. The Coast Guard requests 

comment on this assumption and 

whether Pay.gov users would create an 

account to pay credentialing fees. 

Anyone meeting the citizenship 

requirement under 46 CFR 10.221 and 

of an eligible age can apply for an MMC, 

regardless of their current employment 

status. For this regulatory analysis, the 

Coast Guard assumed applicants for an 

original MMC are currently employed 

(this would be for original applications 

where an oath is currently required); 

this allows the Coast Guard to construct 

a cost savings analysis, because we can 

then obtain applicants’ wage rates, the 

labor time, and the cost savings 

associated with the removal of the inperson payment option. 

Additionally, because the Coast Guard 

does not know the current occupations 

of individuals who apply for an original 

MMC and pay fees in person at an REC, 

the Coast Guard used the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics’ (BLS) ‘‘Occupational 

and Employment Statistics’’ database 

and May 2021 wage estimates to obtain 

the general occupational code (BLS code 

00–0000) for all civilian workers in the 

U.S., which is the largest occupational 

category of workers the Coast Guard 

found at BLS’ website.18 The unloaded 

mean hourly wage rate for this labor 

category is $28.01. The Coast Guard 

does not collect employment data on 

applicants; nevertheless, the Coast 

Guard acknowledges that the 

assumption of employment may lead to 

an overestimation of cost savings for the 

proposed rule. 

Because fees are also paid in person 

at an REC mostly by applicants other 

than original applicants, the Coast 

Guard used the BLS occupational 

category, Water Transportation Workers 

(BLS code 53–5000) to obtain the 

unloaded mean hourly wage rate for all 

applicants who pay fees in person at 

RECs. The unloaded mean hourly wage 

rate in 2021 for this occupational 

category is $38.84. 

Because the Coast Guard used 

different occupational categories, this 

required us to use two load factors to 

obtain an average load factor. 

To obtain a loaded mean hourly wage 

rate for civilian workers, the Coast 

Guard used BLS’ ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation’’ database to 

calculate the load factor for this group 

of workers in the U.S. The Coast Guard 

used the same database to obtain a load 

factor for the occupational category of 

Water Transportation Workers. The 

Coast Guard then used the average load 

factor for these two groups of workers in 

the U.S. The Coast Guard applied the 

load factor to the average unloaded 

mean hourly wage rate using fourth 

quarter data from 2021 for all 

applicants. The Coast Guard determined 

the average load factor for the two 

occupational categories to be about 1.47, 

rounded.19 The Coast Guard then 

multiplied this average load factor by 

the unloaded mean hourly wage rate for 

applicants, who pay fees in person at 

RECs, and obtained a loaded mean 

hourly wage rate of approximately 

$57.09, rounded ($38.84 × 1.47). 

Applicants (including original 

applicants) who currently pay the fees 

by credit card at an REC would be 

required to pay them electronically 

using Pay.gov under this proposed rule. 

This would affect approximately 9,958 

applicants annually. The Coast Guard 

estimates the undiscounted cost for 

these applicants to be approximately 

$47,186 annually (9,958 × $57.09 × 

0.083 hours). The Coast Guard estimates 

the undiscounted baseline cost for 

applicants who currently pay the fees by 

credit card in person at an REC to be 

approximately $181,921 annually (9,958 

× $57.09 × 0.32 hours), rounded. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the 

undiscounted net cost savings to 

applicants who currently pay the fees 

in-person by credit card and would be 

required to pay them electronically 

through Pay.gov to be approximately 

$134,735 annually ($181,921 ¥ 

$47,186), rounded. 

Similarly, applicants (including 

original applicants) who currently pay 

the mandatory fees by cash at an REC 

would be required to pay them 

electronically using Pay.gov under this 

proposed rule. This would affect 

approximately 291 applicants annually. 

The Coast Guard estimates the 

undiscounted cost for these applicants 

to be approximately $1,379 annually 

(291 × $57.09 × 0.083 hours). The Coast 

Guard estimates the undiscounted 

baseline cost for applicants who 

currently pay the fees by cash in person 

at an REC to be approximately $4,818 

annually (291 × $57.09 × 0.29 hours), 

rounded. Therefore, the Coast Guard 

estimates the undiscounted net cost 

savings to applicants who currently pay 

the fees by cash and would need to pay 

them electronically through Pay.gov to 

be approximately $3,439 annually 

($4,818 ¥ $1,379), rounded. The Coast 

Guard estimates the total undiscounted 

net cost savings to 10,249 (9,958 by 

credit card + 291 by cash) applicants 

who currently pay the mandatory fees 

in-person by credit card and cash and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18719 

20Readers can access USPS’ website at https://

www.usps.com to find past postal rates or search 

online for USPS’ ‘‘Postal News’’. 

would need to pay them electronically 

through Pay.gov to be approximately 

$138,174 annually ($134,735 by credit 

card + $3,439 by cash), rounded. See 

table 4. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF UNDISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS FOR APPLICANTS WHO CURRENTLY PAY IN PERSON AT AN REC 

AND WOULD USE PAY.GOV WITH PROPOSED RULE

Item Credit card 

users Cash users 

Current In-Person Transactions 

Loaded Wage Rate .................................................................................................................................................. $57.09 $57.09 

Population ................................................................................................................................................................ 9,958 291 

Time Estimate .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.32 0.29 

Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................................................................... 181,921 4,818 

If In-Person Transactions Made Through Pay.gov 

Wage Rate ............................................................................................................................................................... 57.09 57.09 

Population ................................................................................................................................................................ 9,958 291 

Time Estimate .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.083 0.083 

Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................................................................... 43,805 1,280 

Net Cost Savings .............................................................................................................................................. 134,735 3,438 

Total Cost Annual Savings ........................................................................................................................ $138,174 

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

Lastly, the proposed rule would create 

cost savings for applicants, other than 

original applicants, who paid 

mandatory fees by check or money order 

in the past and mailed the payment to 

the Coast Guard through standard mail, 

or USPS. Over the 7-year period from 

2015 to 2021, the Coast Guard recorded 

an annual average of 12,638 payments 

(10,146 by check and 2,492 by money 

order) where an applicant used a check 

or money order. Because this regulatory 

analysis is in 2021 dollars, the cost of 

a forever stamp from the USPS in 2021 

was $0.55.20 With this proposed rule, 

applicants would still be able to use a 

check or money order to make 

mandatory fee payments with Pay.gov; 

however, payments made by check must 

be made with an ACH payment and for 

money orders, a prepaid card (see 

footnote number 15). The Coast Guard 

did not estimate cost savings for 

applicants who currently mail checks or 

money orders to the Coast Guard and 

would be required to use Pay.gov 

because we do not estimate that there 

would be a time difference between 

these two payment methods and 

Pay.gov. The total undiscounted cost for 

these payment types is approximately 

$6,951 annually, rounded. The 

proposed rule would create cost savings 

in the same amount annually. The Coast 

Guard estimates the total 10-year 

discounted cost savings for applicants 

who would no longer be able to mail a 

check or money order (cost savings 

would be from the cost of a forever 

stamp) to pay for mandatory fees would 

be approximately $48,820, rounded, 

using a 7 percent discount rate. The 

Coast Guard estimates the annualized 

cost savings would be approximately 

$6,951, rounded, using a 7-percent 

discount rate. 

In table 5, the Coast Guard presents 

the 10-year discounted cost savings to 

applicants who currently paid the fees 

in person and would be required to pay 

them electronically under this proposed 

rule and applicants who paid the fees by 

check or money order and sent their 

payments by standard mail to the Coast 

Guard. The Coast Guard estimates the 

total undiscounted cost savings for the 

electronic payment of fees by applicants 

would be approximately $145,125 

annually, rounded ($138,174 from inperson payments + $6,951 from mailed 

checks and money orders). The Coast 

Guard estimates the total discounted 10- 

year cost savings for these applicants 

would be approximately $1.0 million, 

rounded, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. The Coast Guard estimates the 

annualized cost savings would be 

approximately $145,125, rounded, using 

a 7-percent discount rate. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED RULE TO APPLICANTS WHO WOULD USE PAY.GOV (2021 DOLLARS, 

10-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS, 7- AND 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES) 

Year 

Net cost 

savings from 

cash and 

credit card 

payments 

Cost savings 

from check 

and money 

order 

Total cost 

savings to use 

Pay.gov 

7 Percent 3 Percent 

1 ........................................................................................... $138,174 $6,951 $145,125 $135,631 $140,898 

2 ........................................................................................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 126,758 136,794 

3 ........................................................................................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 118,465 132,810 

4 ........................................................................................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 110,715 128,942 

5 ........................................................................................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 103,472 125,186 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18720 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

21Readers can view the General Schedule of 

salaries for Federal Government employees at 

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/payleave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/21Tables/html/ 

RUS_h.aspx. The Coast Guard accessed this web 

page in the fall of 2022. 

22Readers can view the report at, https://

www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017- 

2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf. The 

Coast Guard accessed this report in the fall of 2022. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED RULE TO APPLICANTS WHO WOULD USE PAY.GOV (2021 DOLLARS, 

10-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS, 7- AND 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES)—Continued 

Year 

Net cost 

savings from 

cash and 

credit card 

payments 

Cost savings 

from check 

and money 

order 

Total cost 

savings to use 

Pay.gov 

7 Percent 3 Percent 

6 ........................................................................................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 96,703 121,540 

7 ........................................................................................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 90,376 118,000 

8 ........................................................................................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 84,464 114,563 

9 ........................................................................................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 78,938 111,226 

10 ......................................................................................... 138,174 6,951 145,125 73,774 107,987

Total .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,019,296 1,237,944 

Annualized .................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 145,125 145,125 

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

Federal Government Cost Savings for 

Proposed Change to § 10.219(d) 

This proposed rule would create cost 

savings for the Coast Guard in the 

amount of time that would be saved by 

REC personnel who would no longer 

process in-person payment transactions. 

The NMC estimates it takes fee clerks at 

an REC approximately 5 minutes, or 

0.083 hours (rounded), to process credit 

card payments. Similarly, the NMC 

estimates it takes mandatory fee clerks 

approximately 25 minutes, or 0.42 hours 

(rounded), to process cash payments. 

This includes the processing time the 

fee clerk takes to go to a bank and obtain 

a money order in order to complete the 

payment transaction. There is no 

difference in the time it takes for a fee 

clerk at an REC to process a check 

mailed to the Coast Guard and the time 

it would take with this proposed rule to 

process an ACH payment. There is also 

no difference in the time it takes for a 

fee clerk to process a money mailed to 

the Coast Guard and the time it would 

take with this proposed rule to process 

a prepaid card used from a money order. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard does not 

estimate cost savings for the Federal 

Government from not processing checks 

and money orders mailed to the Coast 

Guard by applicants. 

A fee clerk at an REC has a Federal 

Government General Schedule (GS) 

grade level of GS–5. The Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) lists the 

hourly pay for Federal Government 

employees who work in the United 

States.21 Because RECs are 

geographically dispersed across the 

U.S., the Coast Guard used the hourly 

wage rate for the category ‘‘Rest of the 

United States’’ from OPM’s pay tables. 

OPM reports the hourly pay for a person 

with the grade level of a GS–5, step 5 

(the midpoint of the pay grade) as 

$19.15 in 2021. The Coast Guard 

calculated the share of total 

compensation of Federal Government 

employees to account for the non-wage 

benefits to determine the load factor that 

the Coast Guard applied to the hourly 

wage rate of employees. In a 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 

report titled ‘‘Comparing the 

Compensation of Federal and PrivateSector Employees, 2011 to 2015,’’ the 

CBO reports total compensation of 

Federal Government employees to be 

approximately $64.80, and wages and 

salaries to be approximately $38.30.22

From these values, the Coast Guard 

determined the load factor to be about 

1.69, rounded ($64.80 ÷ $38.30). The 

Coast Guard then multiplied this value 

by the hourly wage rate of $19.15 to 

obtain a loaded hourly wage rate of 

$32.36, rounded, for a GS–5, step 5 fee 

clerk at an REC. 

The Coast Guard estimates the 

baseline undiscounted cost for REC fee 

clerks to process credit card transactions 

to be approximately $26,749 annually, 

rounded ($32.36 × 9,958 credit card 

transactions annually × 0.083 hours). 

The Coast Guard estimates the baseline 

undiscounted cost for REC payment 

clerks to process cash transactions to be 

approximately $3,955 annually, 

rounded ($32.36 × 291 cash transactions 

annually × 0.42 hours). RECs would no 

longer accept in-person payments with 

this proposed rule, these costs 

combined would become cost savings to 

the Coast Guard of approximately 

$30,704 annually, rounded ($26,749 + 

$3,955). See table 6. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL UNDISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS TO THE COAST GUARD FROM PROPOSED

CHANGE TO § 10.219(d) 

Applicants’ payment type 

Estimate of 

time saved 

(hours) 

Wage rate Cost savings 

estimate 

Credit Card Payment ................................................................................................................... 0.083 $32.36 $26,749 

Cash Payment ............................................................................................................................. 0.42 32.36 3,955 

Total Annual Cost Savings ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 30,704 

In table 7, the Coast Guard estimates 

the total discounted 10-year cost savings 

of this proposed rule to the Coast Guard 

to be approximately $215,655, rounded, 

using a 7-percent discount rate. The 

Coast Guard estimates the annualized 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18721 

23An oath an original applicant must take is a 

pronouncement that an original applicant will 

abide by the rules and regulations aboard a vessel, 

faithfully execute his or her duties, and obey the 

superior officers of the vessel. 

24This form is part of a currently-approved OMB 

ICR with a control number 1625–0040 and a title 

of ‘‘Applications for Merchant Mariners Credentials 

and Medical Certificates.’’ Readers can access 

NMC’s website at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/ 

national_maritime_center/ to view this form and 

obtain information about the application process. 

The Coast Guard accessed this web page in the 

summer of 2022. 

25The Coast Guard acknowledges that Credit 

Unions, similar to banks in the U.S., may also offer 

notary public services, free of charge, for its 

members. 

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

discount rate. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS TO THE COAST GUARD FROM PROPOSED CHANGE TO § 10.219(d) (2021 DOLLARS, 

10-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS, 7- AND 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES) 

Year Cost savings 7 Percent 3 Percent 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... $30,704 $28,696 $29,810 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 30,704 26,818 28,942 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 30,704 25,064 28,099 

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 30,704 23,424 27,280 

5 ................................................................................................................................................... 30,704 21,892 26,486 

6 ................................................................................................................................................... 30,704 20,460 25,714 

7 ................................................................................................................................................... 30,704 19,121 24,965 

8 ................................................................................................................................................... 30,704 17,870 24,238 

9 ................................................................................................................................................... 30,704 16,701 23,532 

10 ................................................................................................................................................. 30,704 15,609 22,847 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ 215,655 261,914 

Annualized ............................................................................................................................ ........................ 30,704 30,704 

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

Cost Savings Analysis for Proposed 

Change to § 10.225(c), Removal of the 

Oath Requirement 

The Coast Guard proposes to remove 

the current requirement in § 10.225(c) 

for applicants for an original MMC to 

take an oath administered by any Coast 

Guard-designated individual or any 

person legally permitted to administer 

oaths in the jurisdiction where the 

person taking the oath resides. 

Typically, if an oath is not administered 

by a designated Coast Guard official, it 

is administered by a notary public.23

When an individual applies for an 

MMC, the individual must complete 

Form CG–719B. They must either 

submit this form by email, in person, or 

send it by standard mail to an REC.24

Currently, if applicants use a notary 

public to administer their oath, the 

notary must sign the form along with 

the applicant. The signature of the 

applicant is a testament to the validity 

and accuracy of the information the 

individual is providing to the Coast 

Guard and is an attestation to the 

statements in Section 4, ‘‘Mariner’s 

Consent/Certification,’’ of the form. 

With this proposed rule, original 

applicants would no longer need the 

signature of the notary public on Form 

CG–719B. This would not change the 

current OMB-approved ICR (OMB 

control number 1625–0040) or alter its 

burden estimates, because the signature 

of the notary public on the form is a 

burden that amounts to a few seconds 

of time. With the proposed rule, an 

applicant’s signature alone would be 

sufficient for Form CG–719B. 

Currently, applicants for an original 

MMC who submit their application in 

person at an REC can also take the oath 

there. There is no cost to original 

applicants who take the oath before a 

designated official at an REC and 

therefore, no cost savings. However, 

original applicants, who do not visit an 

REC to submit their application, would 

need to seek the service of a notary 

public elsewhere. 

Original applicants can obtain notary 

public service at a bank or another 

location where there are notary public 

services. The Coast Guard assumes there 

is no cost for a notary public service at 

a bank if an individual has a bank 

account there. Other establishments that 

provide legal services may also provide 

notary public services, in addition to 

State and local Government offices, 

including shipping companies.25

However, these offices and 

establishments usually charge for the 

public notary service. 

Therefore, as mentioned previously in 

this RA, the Coast Guard presents two 

assumptions that will each generate 

different cost savings estimates for the 

proposed change to § 10.225(c). With 

each assumption, the Coast Guard 

assumes all applicants who apply for an 

original MMC are currently employed: 

• Assumption 1—Approximately 

13,951 individuals who applied for an 

original MMC and took an oath before 

a designated official who administers 

the oath, or a notary public at a bank 

where they have an account free of 

charge. Assumption 2—Half the 

individuals, or approximately 6,976, 

who applied for an original MMC took 

an oath along with a notary public 

service at a bank, and half obtained an 

oath elsewhere (perhaps at a state office 

or an establishment that provides legal 

services including notary public 

services), where a cost would be 

associated with the notary public 

service. 

Earlier in this analysis, the Coast 

Guard established that one payment 

transaction represents one original 

application with one oath. Presumably, 

original applicants seek a notary public 

service at a bank, where it is free of 

charge; this is our basis for Assumption 

1. However, because the Coast Guard 

does not have data on where original 

applicants obtained an oath along with 

a notary public service, it is possible 

that a certain number of original 

applicants obtained an oath along with 

a notary public service outside of a 

bank; this is our basis for Assumption 

2. As such, the Coast Guard divided the 

population evenly in Assumption 2. 

With the Coast Guard’s assumption 

that original applicants who apply for 

MMCs are employed, this allows us to 

estimate the cost savings associated 

with the proposed change to § 10.225(c) 

as we did for the proposed change to 

§ 10.219(d). Because original applicants 

who apply for MMCs are members of 

the general public and not yet mariners, 

the Coast Guard does not collect data on 

where these original applicants reside. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard does not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18722 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

26Readers can access the St. Louis Federal 

Reserve’s ‘‘FRED’’ website at https://

fred.stlouisfed.org/#. At this page, readers should 

use the search feature and type the words ‘‘bank 

branches’’ in the search field. The resulting web 

page will show a graph of the data and the value 

that the Coast Guard used for this analysis. The 

Coast Guard accessed this web page in the summer 

of 2022. With the acknowledgement that Credit 

Unions also offer notary public services (see 

footnote number 15), the Coast Guard did not 

include them in this analysis because the National 

Credit Union Administration (NCUA) reports the 

total number of Federally-insured Credit Unions in 

its ‘‘Quarterly Credit Union Data Summary 2002 

Q2’’ in the United States (4,853 as of June 30, 2022) 

and not per a certain population or certain group 

of individuals as FRED reports it. Therefore, the 

Coast Guard cannot simply add the NCUA’s number 

to FRED’s number because we would be combining 

incongruent data. Readers can view this report at 

https://www.ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/ 

quarterly-data-summary-2022-Q2.pdf. The Coast 

Guard accessed this website in the summer of 2022. 

Readers should also note that the number of bank 

branches has been in decline since 2000. See the 

first link to the report by the Federal Reserve Bank 

of Cleveland in footnote number 29. 

27For more information U.S. census statistics, 

readers can access the U.S. Census Bureau’s website 

at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ 

US/PST045221. The Coast Guard accessed this web 

page in the summer of 2022. 

28 ibid. 

29 ibid. 

30The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland reports 

the average distance to a bank branch in urban and 

rural areas of the United States to be about 1.5 miles 

and 4.3 miles, respectively, in 2020 (an average of 

about 2.9 miles combined), which is significantly 

less than the distance we calculated in this analysis. 

Readers can view the Cleveland Federal Reserve’s 

report at this link, ‘‘Has Bank Consolidation 

Changed People’s Access to a Full-Service Bank 

Branch?’’ (clevelandfed.org). In a working paper by 

the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, it reports the 

median distance traveled to a bank branch to be 5 

miles on page 16 of the paper. Readers can view 

this paper at https://www.chicagofed.org/-/media/ 

publications/working-papers/2023/wp2023- 

15.pdf?sc_lang=en. The Coast Guard accessed these 

links in July 2023. 

know where original applicants reside 

relative to the location of banks or bank 

branches, or other establishments that 

offer notary public services. This 

required the Coast Guard to estimate the 

approximate distance original 

applicants would need to travel to get to 

a bank for Assumption 1, so the Coast 

Guard then would be able to estimate 

the cost savings for them, because they 

no longer would need to travel to a bank 

to obtain a notary public service. To 

perform this analysis, the Coast Guard 

required several pieces of information to 

determine the distance original 

applicants must travel to a bank or bank 

branch (and a notary public service in 

Assumption 2): 

1. The number of bank branches in 

the United States; 

2. The total U.S. population and the 

U.S. adult population; and 

3. The number of square miles of the 

United States. 

The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank 

compiles and reports U.S. economic 

data (Federal Reserve Economic Data, or 

‘‘FRED’’). One of the data items it 

reports is the number of bank branches 

in the United States. FRED shows that 

there are 30.46 bank branches per 

100,000 adults in the United States.26

The U.S. Census Bureau in the U.S. 

Department of Commerce reports 

population data for the United States. 

As of July 1, 2021, the U.S. Census 

Bureau reports the U.S. population to be 

331,893,745.27 The U.S. Census Bureau 

reports the number of individuals below 

the age of 18 to be 22.2 percent of the 

total U.S. population.28 Therefore, the 

number of adults in the United States 

(individuals who are 18 years of age or 

older) is approximately 258,213,334, 

rounded ((1¥0.222) × 331,893,745). The 

Coast Guard divided this population by 

100,000 to normalize the value to 

100,000 (so it can be scaled to and 

combined with FRED’s data) and 

obtained the value of approximately 

2,582 (rounded). 

To determine the number of bank 

branches for every adult in the U.S., the 

Coast Guard multiplied 30.46 (number 

of bank branches) by 2,582 to obtain 

approximately 78,648 (rounded) bank 

branches. 

Finally, as of 2020, the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Quick Facts shows the number 

of square miles in the United States to 

be 3,533,038, rounded.29 The Coast 

Guard then divided this value by 78,648 

bank branches to obtain the number of 

bank branches per square mile in the 

United States, or approximately one 

bank branch for every 45 square miles, 

or an area of 6.7 by 6.7 miles. This is 

equivalent to approximately one bank 

branch every 6.7 miles.30 The Coast 

Guard acknowledges that this 

methodology may not be completely 

representative of the geographic 

distribution of bank branches in the 

United States (the distribution of bank 

branches may change in the future 

considering the steady decline in its 

numbers, particularly since 2010); the 

distance we estimated is an 

approximation based on the known 

statistics we present in this analysis 

from different sources. The Coast Guard 

requests comments from the public on 

this methodology. Table 8 outlines the 

inputs used in these calculations. 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF INPUTS FOR

THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO

§ 10.225(c) 

Inputs Values 

Number of bank branches in 

the United States.

30.46 (per 

100,000 

adults). 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF INPUTS FOR

THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO

§ 10.225(c)—Continued 

Inputs Values 

U.S. population ...................... 331,893,745. 

U.S. adult population (18 or 

older).

258,213,334. 

Number of square miles in 

the United States (land 

area).

3,533,038. 

Number of bank branches in 

the United States.

78,648. 

Number of square miles per 

bank branch (and notary 

public service).

45. 

For this analysis, the Coast Guard 

assumed that 13,951 original applicants 

would travel the same distance of 6.7 

miles to obtain a notary public service 

at a bank or bank branch. Using these 

data and assumptions, it is possible to 

construct a cost savings analysis based 

on the original applicants’ travel time to 

a bank branch to obtain the service of 

a notary public. 

The population of original applicants 

applying for an MMC who seek notary 

public services outside of an REC is 

approximately 13,951 annually (see 

Table 3). The Coast Guard does not 

collect data on how original applicants 

travel to a bank or a notary public 

service and acknowledges that original 

applicants can choose among different 

modes of transportation, including 

walking or taking public transportation, 

to do so. However, for the purpose of 

this analysis, the Coast Guard assumed 

original applicants use their personal 

vehicles to accomplish this task, which 

allows the Coast Guard to estimate the 

travel cost for original applicants. 

To construct this analysis for 

Assumptions 1 and 2, the Coast Guard 

assumed that 13,951 original applicants 

would travel approximately 6.7 miles 

one way or about 13.4 miles round-trip 

to an establishment that has a notary 

public service. See table 9. 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF TRAVEL DISTANCE FOR ORIGINAL APPLICANTS

WHO OBTAIN THE SERVICE OF A

NOTARY PUBLIC AT A LOCATION

OTHER THAN AN REC (e.g., A

BANK) 

Number of 

original 

applicants 

Distance 

traveled 

one way 

(miles) 

Distance 

traveled 

round trip 

(miles) 

13,951 ....... 6.7 13.4 

The Coast Guard shows the costsaving elements for Assumption 1 and 

2 in table 10. The Coast Guard estimated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18723 

31The Department of Transportation (DOT) has 

guidance on VTTS for individuals who use different 

modes of travel in the United States. The VTTS is 

divided into two categories, local and intercity 

travel. See table 1 on page 13 of the memorandum. 

Within these two categories, there are two 

subcategories, personal and business travel, in the 

first column of the table. Based on SME input from 

the NMC, applicants would most likely obtain an 

oath on their personal time. Therefore, we used the 

category, local personal travel. In the second 

column of the table, the Coast Guard used the 

category ‘‘surface modes (except high-speed rail)’’. 

Therefore, we used the value of 50 percent of the 

mean hourly wage rate for the VTTS. Readers can 

access DOT’s memorandum at https://

www.transportation.gov/office-policy/ 

transportation-policy/revised-departmentalguidance-valuation-travel-time-economic. At this 

link, to access the memorandum, readers should 

select the pdf document titled, ‘‘2016 Revised Value 

of Travel Time Guidance.pdf’’. The Coast Guard 

accessed this link in July 2023. 

32For this analysis, the Coast Guard did not 

account for the time it would take an applicant to 

park at a bank branch or notary public service. The 

Coast Guard requests comments from the public on 

whether we should account for this time in the 

regulatory analysis, in addition to the travel time. 

33At DOT’s homepage, under the heading 

‘‘Explore DOT,’’ the Coast Guard selected the topic 

‘‘Roadways and Bridges.’’ At this page, under the 

heading ‘‘Other Associated Agencies,’’ the Coast 

Guard selected the NHTSA link. There is no direct 

link, so in the search feature, the Coast Guard typed 

the words ‘‘traffic survey.’’ The Coast Guard then 

selected the link titled ‘‘National Traffic Speeds 

Survey III: 2015 Traffic Tech.’’ One result will 

appear, or a pdf version of the report that the Coast 

Guard used in this analysis. Readers can access the 

report at, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/ 

files/traffic_tech/812489_tt-national-traffic-speedssurvey-iii-2015.pdf. The Coast Guard accessed this 

web page in the summer of 2022. 

34Readers should view the classification of 

roadways by DOT’s Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) to understand the types of 

roadways used in DOT’s survey found in footnote 

number 34. The 2013 document describes the 

classification of roadways by the FHWA and is 

titled, ‘‘Highway Functional Classification 

Concepts, Criteria and Procedures’’, which readers 

can find at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/ 

processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_

classifications/fcauab.pdf. The Coast Guard 

accessed this link in July 2023. 

that the 13,951 original applicants 

affected by the proposed change to 

§ 10.225(c) would save the travel time or 

labor cost for travel (the value of travel 

time savings or VTTS), the mileage cost, 

and the cost of time waiting at a bank 

or a notary public service.31 The Coast 

Guard included these cost savings in 

both Assumption 1 and 2. 

Under Assumption 2, half of these 

original applicants, or about 6,976, 

would also save the cost of the time it 

takes to complete a payment 

transaction, either by credit card or by 

cash, at a notary public service. The 

Coast Guard assumed half of these 

original applicants currently pay by 

credit card and half by cash, for about 

3,488 original applicants choosing each 

payment method. 

The Coast Guard acknowledges that 

there is a greater concentration of banks 

and establishments with notary public 

services in urban and metropolitan areas 

of the United States. Additionally, 

considering that the population density 

of urban areas is greater than in rural 

areas, it is likely that the population of 

original applicants is higher in urban 

areas than in rural areas of the United 

States. Therefore, it is likely that a 

greater proportion of original applicants 

who apply for MMCs reside in urban 

and metropolitan areas and may travel 

shorter distances to reach these places, 

which would result in lower cost 

savings than the Coast Guard estimated 

in this analysis. Nevertheless, this 

analysis represents an analysis of 

averages because the Coast Guard does 

not know where original applicants who 

apply for MMCs reside. The Coast 

Guard acknowledges that bank branches 

(and notary public services) are not 

equally distributed in the United States; 

the travel distance of 6.7 miles we 

estimated in this analysis is an 

approximate distance to a bank branch 

or notary public service; the travel 

distance may vary for some applicants 

who reside in suburban and rural areas 

of the United States. 

TABLE 10—APPLICABLE COST-SAVING

ELEMENTS FOR ASSUMPTIONS 1 AND

2 FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO

§ 10.225(c) 

Cost savings 

element 

§ 10.225(c) 

Assumption 

1 

§ 10.225(c) 

Assumption 

2 

Travel time ........ Yes ............ Yes. 

Mileage cost 

savings.

Yes ............ Yes. 

Waiting time at 

bank branch.

Yes ............ Yes. 

Waiting time at 

notary public 

service.

No .............. Yes. 

Time for payment transaction at notary public 

service.

No .............. Yes. 

Cost of notary 

public service.

No .............. Yes. 

In addition to the two main 

assumptions for the proposed change to 

§ 10.225(c) that the Coast Guard 

presented earlier, we present a summary 

of the other assumptions (some of which 

we may have presented earlier in the 

analysis), that we included in the 

analysis for Assumptions 1 and 2: 

1. Original applicants for an MMC are 

currently employed in another 

occupation; 

2. Affected original applicants live 

approximately 6.7 miles from a bank 

branch or notary public; 

3. Affected original applicants travel 

an equal distance of 6.7 miles to a bank 

branch or a notary public service; 

4. The wait times and payment 

transaction times at bank branches and 

notary public are the same as wait times 

at an REC; and 

5. Original applicants use their 

privately-owned vehicle to travel to a 

bank branch or a notary public service. 

Cost Savings Analysis for Assumption 1 

for the Proposed Change to § 10.225(c) 

With Assumption 1, the Coast Guard 

assumed 13,951 original applicants 

currently obtain a notary public service 

for the purpose of the oath at a bank, 

where there is no charge for the service 

if original applicants have an account at 

the bank. Because the Coast Guard does 

not know where original applicants live 

in proximity to the location of bank 

branches, the Coast Guard assumed all 

13,951 original applicants travel about 

6.7 miles one-way or about 13.4 miles 

round-trip to a bank branch. Under this 

assumption, 13,951 original applicants 

would save the labor travel time or 

VTTS, the mileage cost, and the time 

waiting at a bank branch to obtain a 

notary public signature on Form CG– 

719B under this proposed rule.32

To obtain the time it takes to travel 

this distance, the Coast Guard first 

accessed the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) website to 

access the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) web 

page to obtain the mean road speeds on 

all roads.33 The 2015 report shows the 

free-flow speed estimates (mph) for 

three road classes: limited access, major 

arterial, and minor arterial roads/ 

collector roads. The Coast Guard used 

the mean speed for the minor arterial/ 

collector road class, which may be more 

representative of roads used by 

applicants. NHTSA estimates the mean 

speed for minor arterial/collector roads 

to be about 49.73 miles per hour 

(mph).34 The Coast Guard then divided 

the distance of about 6.7 miles (one 

way) by 49.73 mph to obtain the time 

it takes to travel this distance, or 

approximately 0.13 hours, rounded. The 

Coast Guard then divided the round-trip 

distance of about 13.4 miles by 49.73 

mph to obtain the time it takes to travel 

this distance, or approximately 0.27 

hours, rounded. The Coast Guard 

recognizes that an unknown portion of 

applicants, who live in urban areas, may 

travel at lower speeds than applicants in 

suburban and rural areas of the United 

States to get to a bank branch or notary 

public service. As a result, travel speeds 

may be lower than the 49.73 mph speed 

we estimated in this regulatory analysis. 

The Coast Guard requests comments 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18724 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

35At GSA’s home web page, the Coast Guard used 

the menu feature and selected the category titled, 

‘‘Travel.’’ At this page, the Coast Guard selected the 

topic titled ‘‘POV Mileage.’’ The next page shows 

the results for ‘‘Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) 

Mileage Reimbursement Rates.’’ The Coast Guard 

used the category ‘‘If use of privately owned 

automobile is authorized or no Governmentfurnished automobile is available.’’ Readers can 

access this information at https://www.gsa.gov/ 

travel-resources. The Coast Guard accessed this web 

page in the summer of 2022. 

from the public on the travel speed, the 

roads, and travel distance we used in 

this analysis. 

With this information, the Coast 

Guard then calculated the labor cost for 

all original applicants who currently 

expend the time to travel this distance 

to obtain a notary public service. Earlier, 

the Coast Guard established the loaded 

mean hourly wage rate for original 

applicants who apply for an MMCs to be 

approximately $40.61 (recall that this 

labor rate is for original applicants who 

need to take an oath; it is different than 

the labor rate for the mandatory fee 

portion of this analysis). Using the value 

of 50 percent for the VTTS for personal 

time (see footnote number 32), the Coast 

Guard calculated the labor cost for the 

time to travel the 13.4-mile round-trip 

distance for one original applicant to be 

approximately $5.48 ($40.61 × 0.50 × 

0.27 hours). Therefore, the Coast Guard 

estimates the total undiscounted labor 

travel time cost or VTTS, for 13,951 

original applicants would be 

approximately $76,452 annually, 

rounded (13,951 original applicants × 

$5.48). Next, the Coast Guard calculated 

the mileage cost for these original 

applicants to travel the round-trip 

distance. The Coast Guard used the 

General Services Administration’s 

(GSA) reimbursement rates for original 

applicants who use their privatelyowned vehicles.35 The GSA reports the 

rate per mile to be $0.585. Using the 

round-trip distance of 13.4 miles, the 

Coast Guard estimates the cost for one 

individual to make this trip to be 

approximately $7.84, rounded (13.4 

miles × $0.585). The Coast Guard 

estimates the total undiscounted travel 

or mileage cost for 13,951 original 

applicants would be approximately 

$109,376 annually, rounded (13,951 

original applicants × $7.84). 

Lastly, the Coast Guard calculated the 

waiting time at a bank branch for 13,951 

original applicants to obtain a notary 

public signature on Form CG–719B. 

Because the Coast Guard assumed that 

waiting times at RECs would be similar 

to waiting times at bank branches, we 

used the same waiting time that we used 

for original applicants who wait to pay 

the fees at an REC, or approximately 3.5 

minutes (readers should refer to the 

earlier discussion of this estimate), or 

0.06 hours, rounded. The Coast Guard 

estimates the total undiscounted cost for 

13,951 original applicants who 

currently wait at bank branches for a 

notary public service to be 

approximately $33,993 annually, 

rounded (13,951 × $40.61 × 0.06 hours). 

The Coast Guard estimates the total 

undiscounted cost for 13,951 original 

applicants affected by the proposed 

changes to § 10.225(c) and who 

currently travel to bank branches to 

obtain a free notary public service to be 

approximately $219,820 annually, 

rounded ($76,452 + $109,376 + 

$33,993). This estimate is for 

Assumption 1 of the analysis. Therefore, 

in this proposed rule, the Coast Guard 

estimates the total undiscounted cost 

savings to these original applicants, who 

would no longer need to obtain notary 

public service at bank branches, would 

be approximately $219,820 annually, 

rounded. See table 11. 

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF UNDISCOUNTED COST-SAVING ELEMENTS FOR ASSUMPTION 1 FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO

§ 10.225(c), 2021 DOLLARS

Cost savings element Cost savings 

estimate 

Population 

affected 

Labor Travel Time Cost Savings (VTTS) ................................................................................................................ $76,452 13,951 

Mileage .................................................................................................................................................................... 109,376 13,951 

Waiting Time at Bank Branch .................................................................................................................................. 33,993 13,951 

Total Annual Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................... 219,820 ........................

Note: Readers should not add together the populations in the third column. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

The Coast Guard estimates the total 

discounted cost savings, under 

Assumption 1, over a 10-year period of 

analysis would be approximately $1.5 

million, rounded, using a 7-percent 

discount rate. The Coast Guard 

estimates the annualized cost savings 

would be approximately $219,820, 

rounded, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. See table 12. 

TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 1 FOR § 10.225(c) 

ONLY

[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] 

Year VTTS Mileage Waiting time at 

bank branch 

Total cost 

savings 7 Percent 3 Percent 

1 ............................................................... $76,452 $109,376 $33,993 $219,820 $205,440 $213,418 

2 ............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 192,000 207,202 

3 ............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 179,439 201,167 

4 ............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 167,700 195,308 

5 ............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 156,729 189,619 

6 ............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 146,476 184,097 

7 ............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 136,893 178,734 

8 ............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 127,937 173,528 

9 ............................................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 119,568 168,474 

10 ............................................................. 76,452 109,376 33,993 219,820 111,746 163,567 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18725 

36National Notary also includes fees for U.S. 

territories, with the highest amount being $20. The 

Coast Guard did not include the fees for U.S. territories in this analysis, because we have 

sufficient national data for this analysis. 

TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 1 FOR § 10.225(c) 

ONLY—Continued 

[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] 

Year VTTS Mileage Waiting time at 

bank branch 

Total cost 

savings 7 Percent 3 Percent 

Total .................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,543,926 1,875,112 

Annualized ........................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 219,820 219,820 

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

Cost Savings Analysis for Assumption 2 

for the Proposed Change to § 10.225(c) 

Because the Coast Guard does not 

collect data on where original 

applicants obtain a notary public 

service, with Assumption 2, the Coast 

Guard assumed half of the original 

applicants who currently apply for an 

MMC obtain a notary public service at 

a bank branch free of charge and half at 

a notary public, where there is a fee for 

the service. The half of the affected 

population who currently obtain a 

notary public service at a location other 

than a bank branch under this 

assumption consists of approximately 

6,976 original applicants. As in 

Assumption 1, 13,951 original 

applicants travel the same distance of 

about 6.7 miles one-way or about 13.4 

miles round-trip to a bank branch or a 

notary public service. For the time and 

the associated labor cost, it does not 

make a difference if these original 

applicants travel to a notary public 

service rather than a bank branch; they 

still incur the same labor cost for the 

travel time as in Assumption 1. The 

Coast Guard estimated earlier this total 

undiscounted labor cost, or labor travel 

time cost (VTTS), for 13,951 original 

applicants to be approximately $65,151 

annually, rounded. 

Similarly, these original applicants 

incur a mileage cost. As in Assumption 

1, it does not make a difference if they 

travel to a notary public service rather 

than a bank branch; they still incur a 

mileage cost. The Coast Guard estimated 

earlier the total undiscounted travel or 

mileage cost, for 13,951 original 

applicants, to be approximately 

$109,376 annually, rounded. 

Again, as in Assumption 1, 13,951 

original applicants incur the cost to wait 

at a bank branch or a notary public 

service. The Coast Guard estimates the 

total undiscounted cost for 13,951 

original applicants who currently wait 

at bank branches or at a notary public 

service to be approximately $33,993 

annually, rounded. 

With Assumption 2, the Coast Guard 

added the cost for half of the original 

applicants, or about 6,976, who pay for 

the notary public service outside of a 

bank branch. Similar to the payment of 

mandatory fees presented earlier, the 

Coast Guard assumed original 

applicants pay for a notary public with 

either a credit card or cash. For this 

analysis, the Coast Guard assumed half 

of the original applicants who currently 

pay for a notary public pay by credit 

card and half by cash. For the 

approximately 3,488 original applicants 

who currently pay by credit card, the 

Coast Guard used the same time 

estimate for this method of payment as 

we did for the payment of fees earlier, 

or approximately 0.13 hours (7.5 

minutes each). The Coast Guard 

estimated the total undiscounted cost 

for these original applicants who 

currently pay by credit card would be 

approximately $18,414 annually, 

rounded (3,488 × $40.61 × 0.13). 

The Coast Guard estimated the time 

for original applicants who currently 

pay by cash to be approximately 0.10 

hours (6.0 minutes each). For the 

approximately 3,488 original applicants 

who currently pay by cash, the Coast 

Guard estimated the total undiscounted 

cost would be approximately $14,165 

annually, rounded (3,488 × $40.61 × 

0.10). 

The last of the five cost elements for 

Assumption 2 (which would become 

cost-saving elements with this proposed 

rule) is the cost for the notary public 

service itself. The Coast Guard obtained 

the cost for notary public services in the 

U.S. from the organization National 

Notary (NationalNotary.org). Readers 

should refer to footnote 11 for more 

information. This organization provides 

cost data for 2022 for notary public 

services throughout the United States, 

including Washington, DC and U.S. 

territories. 

The Coast Guard included fees from 

all 50 states and Washington, DC in this 

analysis.36 Because the organization 

provides a fee schedule for verbal oaths, 

the Coast Guard used these fees as a 

proxy for the signature of the notary 

public on Form CG–719B. The fee varies 

from state to state with the lowest 

amount being $1 and the highest $15. 

Ten states do not have a fee schedule or 

do not charge a fee altogether; 

nevertheless, the Coast Guard took the 

statistical average of the fees for all 50 

states and Washington, DC, for an 

amount of approximately $5.14, 

rounded. The Coast Guard estimates the 

total undiscounted cost for original 

applicants in this assumption who pay 

for a notary public service to be 

approximately $35,855 annually, 

rounded (6,976 × $5.14). 

The Coast Guard estimates the total 

undiscounted cost for original 

applicants in Assumption 2 for the 

proposed changes to § 10.225(c) in this 

proposed rule to be approximately 

$288,255 annually, rounded ($76,452 + 

$109,376 + $33,993 + $18,414 + $14,165 

+ $35,855). Therefore, the Coast Guard 

estimates the total undiscounted cost 

savings to original applicants who 

would no longer need to obtain a notary 

public service at bank branches or 

notary public services to be 

approximately $288,255 annually, 

rounded. See table 13. 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF UNDISCOUNTED COST-SAVING ELEMENTS FOR ASSUMPTION 2 FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO

§ 10.225(c), 2021 DOLLARS

Cost-savings element Unit inputs Population 

affected 

Cost-savings 

estimate 

Labor Rate of Applicants .......................................................... $40.61 ..................................... 13,951 ..................................... ........................


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18726 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF UNDISCOUNTED COST-SAVING ELEMENTS FOR ASSUMPTION 2 FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO

§ 10.225(c), 2021 DOLLARS—Continued 

Cost-savings element Unit inputs Population 

affected 

Cost-savings 

estimate 

Labor Travel Time (VTTS) ........................................................ 0.27 hours ............................... 13,951 ..................................... $76,452 

Mileage Rate ............................................................................. $0.58 per mile ......................... 13,951 ..................................... 109,376 

Waiting Time at Bank Branch and Notary Service ................... 0.06 hours ............................... 13,951 ..................................... 33,993 

Payment by Credit Card ........................................................... 0.13 hours ............................... 3,488 of 6,976 ......................... 18,414 

Payment by Cash ..................................................................... 0.10 hours ............................... 3,488 of 6,976 ......................... 14,165 

Avg. Notary Fee ........................................................................ $5.14 ....................................... 6,976 of 13,951 ....................... 35,855 

Total Annual Cost Savings ................................................ ................................................. ................................................. 288,255 

Note: Readers should not add together the populations in the third column of the table. The individual population for each item less than 

13,951 is a subset of the total affected population of 13,951. Readers should use the estimated loaded labor rate of $40.61 to obtain the cost 

savings estimate in the last column of the table, except for the notary fee. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

The Coast Guard estimates the total 

discounted cost savings under 

Assumption 2 over a 10-year period of 

analysis to be approximately $2.02 

million, rounded, using a 7-percent 

discount rate. The Coast Guard 

estimated the annualized cost savings to 

be approximately $288,255, rounded, 

using a 7-percent discount rate. See 

table 14. 

TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 2 FOR § 10.225(c) 

ONLY

[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] 

Year VTTS Mileage 

Waiting time at 

bank branch 

or notary 

service 

Time to pay 

notary by cash 

or credit card 

Notary cost Cost savings 7 Percent 3 Percent 

1 ........................................ $76,452 $109,376 $33,993 $32,579 $35,855 $288,255 $269,397 $279,859 

2 ........................................ 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 251,773 271,707 

3 ........................................ 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 235,302 263,794 

4 ........................................ 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 219,908 256,110 

5 ........................................ 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 205,521 248,651 

6 ........................................ 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 192,076 241,409 

7 ........................................ 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 179,510 234,377 

8 ........................................ 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 167,767 227,551 

9 ........................................ 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 156,791 220,923 

10 ...................................... 76,452 109,376 33,993 32,579 35,855 288,255 146,534 214,488 

Total ........................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,024,579 2,458,869 

Annualized ................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 288,255 288,255 

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

As noted earlier, the cost savings that 

the Coast Guard estimated for 

Assumptions 1 and 2 for the proposed 

change to § 10.225(c) do not include the 

cost savings from the proposed change 

to § 10.219(d). However, in table 1 of 

this RA, where we present the total cost 

savings estimates of the proposed rule, 

the Coast Guard included the cost 

savings estimates for the proposed 

change to § 10.219(d), because the Coast 

Guard must add the cost savings from 

§ 10.225(c) to the cost savings estimate 

for § 10.219(d). Also recall that only one 

of the two main assumptions of this 

analysis would hold. The Coast Guard 

presented two different scenarios, 

because we do not know where affected 

original applicants currently obtain a 

notary public service. 

For Assumption 1 and including the 

cost savings estimates from the 

proposed change to § 10.219(d), the 

Coast Guard estimates the total 

undiscounted cost savings of the 

proposed rule to be approximately 

$364,945 annually, rounded ($219,820 

from Assumption 1 and § 10.225(c) + 

$145,125 from § 10.219(d)). The Coast 

Guard estimated the 10-year total 

discounted cost savings of the proposed 

rule to be approximately $2.6 million, 

rounded, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. The Coast Guard estimated the 

annualized cost savings to be 

approximately $364,945, rounded, using 

a 7-percent discount rate. See table 15. 

TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF TOTAL DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 1 (INCLUDES

COST SAVINGS FROM §§ 10.225(c) AND 10.219(d) 

[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] 

Year § 10.225(c) 

Cost savings 

§ 10.219(d) 

Cost savings 

Total cost 

savings— 

Assumption 1 

7 Percent 3 Percent 

1 ........................................................................................... $219,820 $145,125 $364,945 $341,070 $354,316 

2 ........................................................................................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 318,757 343,996 

3 ........................................................................................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 297,904 333,977 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18727 

TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF TOTAL DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 1 (INCLUDES

COST SAVINGS FROM §§ 10.225(c) AND 10.219(d)—Continued 

[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] 

Year § 10.225(c) 

Cost savings 

§ 10.219(d) 

Cost savings 

Total cost 

savings— 

Assumption 1 

7 Percent 3 Percent 

4 ........................................................................................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 278,415 324,249 

5 ........................................................................................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 260,201 314,805 

6 ........................................................................................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 243,178 305,636 

7 ........................................................................................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 227,270 296,734 

8 ........................................................................................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 212,401 288,091 

9 ........................................................................................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 198,506 279,700 

10 ......................................................................................... 219,820 145,125 364,945 185,520 271,553 

Total .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,563,222 3,113,056 

Annualized .................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 364,945 364,945 

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

Readers should compare the total cost 

savings estimate and annualized cost 

savings estimate for the proposed rule in 

table 15 with the total cost savings 

estimate of the proposed rule for 

Assumption 1 in table 1. 

For Assumption 2 and including the 

cost savings estimates from the 

proposed change to § 10.219(d), the 

Coast Guard estimates the total 

undiscounted cost savings of the 

proposed rule to be approximately 

$433,379 annually, rounded ($288,255 

from Assumption 2 and § 10.225(c) + 

$145,125 from § 10.219(d)). The Coast 

Guard estimates the 10-year total 

discounted cost savings of the proposed 

rule for Assumption 2 to be 

approximately $3.0 million, rounded, 

using a 7-percent discount rate. The 

Coast Guard estimates the annualized 

cost savings to be approximately 

$433,379, rounded, using a 7-percent 

discount rate. See table 16. 

TABLE 16—SUMMARY OF TOTAL DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER ASSUMPTION 2 (INCLUDES

COST SAVINGS FROM §§ 10.225(c) AND 10.219(d) 

[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7- and 3-percent discount rates] 

Year § 10.225(c) 

Cost savings 

§ 10.219(d) 

Cost savings 

Total cost 

savings— 

Assumption 2 

7 Percent 3 Percent 

1 ........................................................................................... $288,255 $145,125 $433,379 $405,027 $420,757 

2 ........................................................................................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 378,530 408,502 

3 ........................................................................................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 353,767 396,603 

4 ........................................................................................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 330,623 385,052 

5 ........................................................................................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 308,993 373,837 

6 ........................................................................................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 288,779 362,948 

7 ........................................................................................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 269,887 352,377 

8 ........................................................................................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 252,231 342,114 

9 ........................................................................................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 235,730 332,149 

10 ......................................................................................... 288,255 145,125 433,379 220,308 322,475 

Total .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,043,875 3,696,814 

Annualized .................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 433,379 433,379 

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

Readers should compare the total cost 

savings estimate and annualized cost 

savings estimate for the proposed rule in 

table 16 with the total cost savings 

estimate of the proposed rule for 

Assumption 2 in table 1. 

Including Federal Government cost 

savings, the Coast Guard estimates the 

10-year total discounted cost savings of 

the proposed rule under Assumption 1 

to be about $2.8 million ($2,563,222 

from table 15 and $215,564 from table 

7), rounded, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. We estimate the annualized cost 

savings to be approximately $395,650, 

rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate 

($364,945 from table 15 + $30,704 from 

table 7). See table 17. 

Including Federal Government cost 

savings, the Coast Guard estimates the 

10-year total discounted cost savings of 

the proposed rule under Assumption 2 

to be about $3.3 million ($3,043,875 

from table 16 and $215,564 from table 

7), rounded, using a 7-percent discount 

rate. We estimate the annualized cost 

savings to be approximately $464,084, 

rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate 

($433,379 from table 16 + $30,704 from 

table 7). See table 17. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18728 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 17—TOTAL DISCOUNTED ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

[2021 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis, 7-percent discount rate] 

§ 10.225(c) Cost Savings 

Assumption 1 Assumption 2 

§ 10.219(d) Cost Savings ........................................................................................................................................ $219,820 $288,255 

§ 10.219(d)—Applicants ........................................................................................................................................... 145,125 145,125 

§ 10.219(d)—Federal Government .......................................................................................................................... 30,704 30,704 

Total cost savings under each Assumption (annualized) ................................................................................ 395,650 464,084 

Note: Readers should add together the cost savings in each of the two columns separately under the individual Assumptions to obtain the 

total cost savings. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

Unquantifiable Benefits of the Proposed 

Rule 

This proposed rule would create 

unquantifiable benefits for MMC 

applicants. This includes the flexibility 

to submit documents electronically 

contained in the proposed changes to 

§§ 1.03–15(h)(2)(i) and 10.219(i)(1). 

Because this would be an option in the 

future, the Coast Guard does not have 

data at this point to estimate the cost 

savings that would be associated with 

the electronic submission of documents, 

if applicants were to choose this option. 

The use of Pay.gov would provide a 

benefit to applicants because it is a free 

and secure service that allows 

applicants to make payments to most 

Federal Government agencies. Pay.gov 

uses the latest industry-standard 

payment methods and encryption 

technology to safely collect, store, 

transmit, and protect applicants’ 

personal information throughout the 

payment process. Applicants can access 

and make payments through Pay.gov 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, and every 

day of the year, including holidays. 

In table 2 the Coast Guard lists the 

unquantifiable benefit where the 

proposed regulatory text changes would 

be more than minor grammatical 

changes. 

Analysis of Alternatives 

(1). Industry would continue to meet 

the current requirements in subchapter 

A, part 1 and subchapter B, parts 10– 

16 of title 46 of the CFR (current 

baseline without regulatory action). 

This alternative represents the current 

state of the MCP with no updates to 46 

CFR subchapter A, part 1 and 

subchapter B, parts 10–16. The Coast 

Guard rejected this alternative, because 

it would not require that applicants pay 

mandatory fees electronically through 

Pay.gov. This alternative would 

maintain all the current, estimated, 

undiscounted costs between $219,820 

and $288,255 annually, rounded (see 

the estimated costs under Assumptions 

1 and 2, respectively, in the preferred 

alternative). The Coast Guard would 

also continue to request applicants 

provide receipt of payment when using 

Pay.gov (e.g., attach receipt to 

applications and provide receipt for 

MCP services) although this is not 

required. Applicants would still have 

the option of paying mandatory fees in 

person at an REC through cash, check, 

credit card and money order. Although 

in-person payments would remain an 

option, these applicants would not 

realize potential cost savings by using 

Pay.gov. In-person and standard mail 

payments made by applicants maintains 

the options that currently exist, which 

some applicants may find more 

convenient (for in-person payments, 

perhaps as a customer service benefit) 

over payments by electronic means. We 

request comments from the public on 

the benefit of the Coast Guard 

maintaining these payment options for 

applicants. This alternative would also 

not result in time and cost savings to 

original applicants, who would still be 

required to take an oath before an 

authorized individual. Additionally, 

this alternative would not clarify 

existing regulatory text. 

(2) The Coast Guard would update 

regulatory requirements to align with a 

new MCP IT system and update 

mandatory fees with an incentive for 

electronic payment. 

With this alternative, the Coast Guard 

would replace the current MMLD 

database and would propose changes to 

46 CFR parts 10 through 14 and 16 to 

increase electronic submission of 

documents to support the credentialing 

process. With this alternative, the Coast 

Guard would provide an incentive to 

applicants to electronically pay 

mandatory fees through Pay.gov. It 

would be beneficial to applicants, who 

would save time and money; however, 

the Coast Guard is unable to estimate a 

cost savings for this item under this 

alternative, because it would require a 

lengthy analysis of the Coast Guard’s 

mandatory fee program. 

The Coast Guard rejected this 

alternative, because the update would 

require additional regulatory action to 

allow for future changes in the system, 

and any changes to mandatory fees 

would require further study and 

analysis by the Coast Guard and would 

require the use of limited additional 

time and resources. 

(3) The Coast Guard would update 

regulatory requirements to align with a 

new MCP IT system and require 

electronic payment, but would not 

address mandatory fees. 

With this alternative, the Coast Guard 

would not propose to update the 

mandatory fees together with the 

requirement for the electronic payment 

of fees by individuals through a new 

MCP IT system. However, the Coast 

Guard kept the proposed requirement 

under the preferred alternative 

(proposed rule) for the electronic 

payment of fees by applicants saving 

them approximately $145,125 annually, 

rounded (see the analysis for the 

preferred alternative for the derivation 

of this estimate), because it would not 

be connected to a new MCP IT system. 

The Coast Guard rejected this 

alternative, because the new system is at 

the beginning stages of development, 

and, as a result, the Coast Guard is 

unable to estimate the economic impact 

of this new system on applicants and 

companies. Therefore, the Coast Guard 

cannot accurately determine any 

adjustments to mandatory fees based on 

the new system capabilities, potential 

costs to support the system, or cost 

savings generated from the system. 

(4) Preferred Alternative—Update 46 

CFR subchapter A, part 1 and 

subchapter B, parts 10–16 to update 

regulatory requirements to align with a 

new MCP IT system, require the 

electronic payment of fees and the 

option of electronic submission of 

supporting documents for an MMC 

application, remove the requirement for 

an oath to be administered by an 

authorized individual, and make 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18729 

editorial and non-substantive changes 

that clarify existing regulatory text. 

This is the preferred alternative 

because applicants would be required to 

pay mandatory fees electronically using 

Pay.gov, and the Coast Guard would 

create an option for electronic 

submission of documents to the Coast 

Guard. This would save MMC 

applicants time and money because they 

would no longer be paying these 

mandatory fees in person at an REC. 

However, this preferred option would 

remove the flexibility for applicants 

who wish to continue to pay the 

mandatory fees in person. We analyzed 

the time and cost difference between the 

different payment methods and the 

proposed requirement to use Pay.gov 

previously in this regulatory analysis. 

This alternative also aligns with 

Department of the Treasury regulations 

for promoting efficient, effective cash 

management through improved billing, 

collection, deposit, and payment of 

funds. The Coast Guard also proposes to 

remove the requirement for an oath to 

be taken by original applicants when 

they submit their MMC application. 

This would also save time and money 

for original applicants who would no 

longer need to travel to a bank or a bank 

branch or a notary public service to 

have the oath administered. Lastly, the 

Coast Guard proposes to make 

numerous editorial changes to the 

affected CFR subchapters that would 

clarify existing regulatory text. The 

Coast Guard analyzed and presented the 

cost savings and other unquantifiable 

benefits associated with this alternative 

earlier in this RA. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have 

considered whether this proposed rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ 

comprises small businesses, not-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

Based on the analysis in section A, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, we 

found this proposed rule, if adopted, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Most provisions of this 

proposed rule would affect individuals 

who apply for an MMC and would not 

directly regulate small entities. These 

include provisions that would require 

electronic payment of merchant mariner 

credentialing fees in § 10.219(d), remove 

the requirement for an oath to be 

administered by an authorized official 

on Form CG–719B in § 10.225(c), and 

allow for the electronic submission of 

certain documents in § 1.03–15(h)(2)(i) 

for appeals involving course approvals 

and merchant mariner personnel issues 

and in § 10.219(i) for requests involving 

no-fee MMCs. Since individual 

members of the public that are applying 

for MMCs are not considered to be small 

entities under the RFA, we have found 

that no small entities are impacted by 

these provisions of the proposed rule. 

One substantive change of this 

proposed rule would allow for 

electronic signature on Form CG–718A 

in §§ 14.307(a), (b), and (c) when a 

mariner completes a voyage. However, 

the Coast Guard is not changing the 

previously accepted method of a 

standard signature by pen and ink. 

Therefore, the owner or operator of a 

vessel and mariner may continue to 

choose this signature method, but a part 

of the population may also choose the 

option of an electronic signature. The 

Coast Guard estimates that these two 

methods take nearly the same amount of 

time and would not result in measurable 

cost savings either to the owner or 

operator of a vessel, who may be a small 

entity, or to the mariner if they choose 

the electronic signature method. The 

Coast Guard requests comments from 

the public on this assumption and if 

there is a time difference between a 

standard signature and an electronic 

signature. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because based 

on our analysis, most of provisions of 

the proposed rule would affect 

applicants and not directly regulate or 

affect small entities. We determined that 

the time difference between the 

standard signature method and the 

option of the electronic signature 

method in §§ 14.307(a), (b), and (c), for 

those who choose this method, to be 

nearly the same and would not result in 

any measurable cost savings to vessel 

owners or operators, who may be small 

entities, and mariners. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 

121, we offer to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

The Coast Guard will not retaliate 

against small entities that question or 

complain about this proposed rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

D. Collection of Information 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the U.S. 

Coast Guard to consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public. According to the 1995 

amendments to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

The Coast Guard has determined that 

the proposed rule would not result in a 

new collection nor modify an existing 

collection of information. Thus, this 

proposed rule would not change the 

burden in the collections currently 

approved by OMB under OMB Control 

Numbers 1625–0012 with a title of 

‘‘Certificate of Discharge to Merchant 

Mariners’’ and 1625–0040 with a title of 

‘‘Applications for Merchant Mariners 

Credentials and Medical Certificates.’’ 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct 

effect on States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under 

Executive Order 13132 and have 

determined that it is consistent with the 

fundamental federalism principles and 

preemption requirements described in 

Executive Order 13132. Our analysis 

follows. 

It is well settled that States may not 

regulate in categories reserved for 

regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also 

well settled that all of the categories 

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

and 8101 (design, construction, 

alteration, repair, maintenance, 

operation, equipping, personnel 

qualification, and manning of vessels), 

as well as the reporting of casualties and 

any other category in which Congress 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18730 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

intended the Coast Guard to be the sole 

source of a vessel’s obligations, are 

within the field foreclosed from 

regulation by the States. See the 

Supreme Court’s decision in United 

States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 

529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). 

Because this proposed rule involves the 

credentialing of merchant marine 

officers under 46 U.S.C. 7101, it relates 

to personnel qualifications for vessels 

subject to a pervasive scheme of federal 

regulation, and is therefore foreclosed 

from regulation by the States. Therefore, 

because the States may not regulate 

within these categories, this rule is 

consistent with the fundamental 

federalism principles and preemption 

requirements described in Executive 

Order 13132. 

While it is well settled that States may 

not regulate in categories in which 

Congress intended the Coast Guard to be 

the sole source of a vessel’s obligations, 

the Coast Guard recognizes the key role 

that State and local governments may 

have in making regulatory 

determinations. Additionally, for rules 

with federalism implications and 

preemptive effect, Executive Order 

13132 specifically directs agencies to 

consult with State and local 

governments during the rulemaking 

process. If you believe this proposed 

rule would have implications for 

federalism under Executive Order 

13132, please call or email the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble. 

F. Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Although this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this proposed rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630 (Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights). 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

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

Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice 

Reform), to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045 

(Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks). This proposed rule is not an 

economically significant rule and would 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), because it would not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use). We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094, and 

is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act, codified as a 

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

to use voluntary consensus standards in 

their regulatory activities unless the 

agency provides Congress, through 

OMB, with an explanation of why using 

these standards would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

specifications of materials, performance, 

design, or operation; test methods; 

sampling procedures; and related 

management systems practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

If you are aware of voluntary 

consensus standards that might apply, 

please identify them by sending a 

comment to the docket using one of the 

methods listed in the ADDRESSES section 

of this preamble. In your comment, 

please explain why you think the 

standards might apply. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

Rev. 1, associated implementing 

instructions, and Environmental 

Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. A preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. For instructions 

on locating the docket, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

This proposed rule would be 

categorically excluded under paragraphs 

L54 and L56 of Appendix A, Table 1 of 

DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–001– 

01, Rev. 1. Paragraph L54 pertains to 

regulations that are editorial or 

procedural. Paragraph L56 pertains to 

regulations concerning the training, 

qualifying, licensing, and disciplining of 

maritime personnel. 

This proposed rule involves 

regulatory changes that are needed for 

implementation of a new information 

technology system that would replace 

the current MMLD database used by the 

Coast Guard to process mariner 

credentials. This new system features an 

electronic platform for activities such as 

mariners providing documents for 

applying for or maintaining mariner 

credentials, or submitting associated 

fees. In addition, the rule includes 

technical amendments, such as updates, 

to addresses and websites necessary for 

accessing or using MMLD. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

46 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Organization and functions 

(Government agencies), Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

46 CFR Part 10 

Penalties, Personally identifiable 

information, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18731 

46 CFR Part 11 

Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Schools, 

Seamen. 

46 CFR Part 12 

Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 

46 CFR Part 13 

Cargo vessels, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 

46 CFR Part 14 

Oceanographic research vessels, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seamen. 

46 CFR Part 15 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seamen, Vessels. 

46 CFR Part 16 

Drug testing, Marine safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Transportation. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 46 CFR parts 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 

14, 15, and 16 as follows: 

Title 46—Shipping 

PART 1—ORGANIZATION, GENERAL 

COURSE AND METHODS GOVERNING 

MARINE SAFETY FUNCTION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 14 U.S.C. 503; 46 

U.S.C. 7701; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93; Secs. 101, 

888, and 1512, Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 

2135; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision 

No. 01.3; § 1.01–35 also issued under the 

authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507; and § 1.03–55 

also issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 

3306(j). 

■ 2. Amend § 1.01–15 by revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1.01–15 Organization; Districts; National 

Maritime Center. 

* * * * * 

(e) Applicants for merchant mariner 

credentials may apply to the Coast 

Guard National Maritime Center or any 

of the NMC detachments. Applicants 

may contact the National Maritime 

Center at 100 Forbes Drive, Martinsburg, 

West Virginia 25404, by telephone at 1– 

888–I–ASK–NMC (1–888–427–5662), by 

email at IASKNMC@uscg.mil, or online 

chat at website https://

www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_

center/. A list of NMC detachment 

locations is available through the 

website. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 1.03–15 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(i); and 

■ b. In paragraph (h)(2)(ii), removing the 

period after the words ‘‘2703 Martin 

Luther King Jr. Avenue SE’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 1.03–15 General. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Appeals involving course 

approvals and merchant mariner 

personnel issues must be in writing and 

mailed or electronically submitted to 

the Office of Merchant Mariner 

Credentialing (CG–MMC), U.S. Coast 

Guard, Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther 

King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20593–7509, by email to MMCPolicy@

uscg.mil, or as prescribed by the Coast 

Guard. 

* * * * * 

PART 10—MERCHANT MARINER 

CREDENTIAL 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 10 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

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

71; 46 U.S.C. chapter 73; 46 U.S.C. chapter 

75; 46 U.S.C. 2104; 46 U.S.C. 7701, 8903, 

8904, and 70105; Executive Order 10173; 

DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 

01.3. 

■ 5. In part 10, revise the following 

references wherever they appear: 

■ a. ‘‘his or her’’ to read ‘‘their’’; and 

■ b. ‘‘he or she’’ to read ‘‘they’’. 

■ 6. Amend § 10.107 by: 

■ a. Revising the definition of ‘‘Regional 

examination center or REC’’; and 

■ b. Adding a definition of ‘‘Written, 

writing, or in writing’’. 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 10.107 Definitions in subchapter B. 

* * * * * 

Regional examination center or REC 

means a field office of the National 

Maritime Center that performs activities 

as required by this subchapter on behalf 

of the National Maritime Center. 

* * * * * 

Written, writing, or in writing means 

handwritten in ink, mechanically or 

electronically printed, or any form of 

expression that can be read, reproduced, 

or later communicated including 

electronically submitted and stored 

information. 

* * * * * 

§ 10.203 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend § 10.203 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b), remove the text, ‘‘, 

license, MMD, COR, or STCW 

endorsement’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the text, 

‘‘an MMD and an MMC serve’’ and 

replace it with the text, ‘‘an MMC 

serves’’. 

■ 8. Amend § 10.209 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), removing the word 

‘‘satisfies’’ and adding, in its place, the 

word ‘‘satisfy’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (d) 

introductory text, (d)(1) through (d)(3); 

and 

■ c. In paragraph (e)(3), removing the 

words ‘‘the applicant’s fingerprints,’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 10.209 General application procedures. 

* * * * * 

(d) The application may be submitted 

in a manner prescribed by the Coast 

Guard that may include in person, by 

mail, or other electronic means. A 

complete MMC application, which is 

described in §§ 10.223, 10.225, 10.227, 

10.229, and 10.231 may include— 

(1) The application, consent for 

National Driver Register (NDR) check, 

and oath, and the evaluation fee 

required by § 10.219 of this part; 

(2) The applicant’s continuous 

discharge book, certificate of 

identification, and MMC if expired; 

(3) Proof, in a manner prescribed by 

the Coast Guard, which may include 

forms or other means, that the applicant 

passed the applicable vision, hearing, 

medical, or physical exam as required 

by subpart C of this part, or an 

unexpired medical certificate issued by 

the Coast Guard; 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 10.211 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (c); 

■ b. In paragraph (f), removing the word 

‘‘furnish’’ and adding, in its place, the 

word ‘‘furnishes’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (i), removing the 

words ‘‘has applied’’ and adding, in 

their place, the words ‘‘have applied’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 10.211 Criminal record review. 

* * * * * 

(c) Criminal Convictions. The 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) will provide to the Coast Guard 

the applicant’s FBI number and criminal 

record generated in the TWIC review 

process. This information will be used 

by the Coast Guard to determine 

whether the applicant has a record of 

any criminal convictions. 

* * * * * 

§ 10.217 [Amended] 

■ 10. In § 10.217(a), remove the text 

‘‘http://www.uscg.mil/nmc’’, and add, in 

its place, the text ‘‘https://

www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_

center/’’. 

■ 11. Amend § 10.219 by revising 

paragraphs (d) and (i)(1) to read as 

follows: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18732 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

§ 10.219 Fees. 

* * * * * 

(d) Unless the Coast Guard provides 

additional payment options, fee 

payment must be for the exact amount 

and must be made by electronic 

payment in a manner specified by the 

Coast Guard. For information regarding 

current forms of electronic payment, go 

to the National Maritime Center’s (NMC) 

website, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/ 

national_maritime_center/. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) An organization may submit a 

written request in a manner prescribed 

by the Coast Guard that may include 

mail, email, or electronic means to U.S. 

Coast Guard National Maritime Center, 

100 Forbes Drive, Martinsburg, WV 

25404, at email IASKNMC@uscg.mil, in 

order to be considered an eligible 

organization under the criteria set forth 

in paragraph (h) of this section. With the 

written request, the organization must 

provide evidence of its status as a 

youth-oriented, not-for-profit, charitable 

organization. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Revise § 10.223(c)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 10.223 Modification or removal of 

limitations or scope. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) Any expired MMC held by the 

applicant. If still valid at the time of 

application, the applicant must 

surrender the old, original credential to 

the Coast Guard within 30 days of 

issuance of the new credential. If 

requested at the time of submission, the 

old MMC may be returned to the 

applicant after cancellation. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Revise § 10.225(c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 10.225 Requirements for original 

merchant mariner credentials. 

* * * * * 

(c) Oath. Every person who receives 

an original MMC must first solemnly 

swear or affirm, that they will faithfully 

and honestly, according to their best 

skill and judgment, without 

concealment or reservation, perform all 

the duties required by law and obey all 

lawful orders of superior officers. This 

affirmation remains binding for any 

subsequently issued MMC and 

endorsements added to the MMC, 

unless specifically renounced in 

writing. 

§ 10.227 [Amended] 

■ 14. Amend § 10.227 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the word ‘‘present’’ and 

add, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’ 

wherever it appears; 

■ b. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and 

add, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’ 

wherever it appears; 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(4): 

■ i. Remove the word ‘‘uncanceled’’ and 

add, in its place, the words ‘‘expired or 

uncanceled’’; and 

■ ii. Remove the word ‘‘photocopy’’ and 

add, in its place, the word ‘‘copy’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (e)(1)(iv), remove the 

words ‘‘license or’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (e)(5), remove the 

words ‘‘holds a currently valid’’ and 

add, in their place, the words ‘‘hold a 

currently valid’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (e)(6)(ii), remove the 

words ‘‘license or’’; 

■ g. In paragraph (h), remove the words 

‘‘A license, MMD, COR, STCW 

endorsement, MMC, and any 

endorsements thereon, are’’ and add, in 

their place, the words ‘‘An MMC, and 

any endorsements thereon, is’’; and 

■ h. In paragraph (i)(1), remove the 

words ‘‘presentation of’’ and add, in 

their place, the words ‘‘providing 

evidence of’’. 

§ 10.231 [Amended] 

■ 15. Amend § 10.231 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (c)(5): 

■ i. Remove the word ‘‘uncanceled’’ and 

add, in its place, the words ‘‘expired or 

uncanceled’’; and 

■ ii. Remove the word ‘‘photocopy’’ and 

add, in its place, the word ‘‘copy’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the 

word ‘‘was’’, and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘were’’. 

§ 10.232 [Amended] 

■ 16. Amend § 10.232 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the 

word ‘‘presented’’ and add, in its place, 

the word ‘‘provided’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(4), remove the 

word ‘‘licensed’’ and add, in its place, 

the word ‘‘credentialed’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(6), remove the 

word ‘‘license’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘credential’’. 

§ 10.233 [Amended] 

■ 17. Amend § 10.233 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the text 

‘‘license, MMD, COR, or’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b), after the words 

‘‘made in writing’’ add the words ‘‘and 

provided in a manner specified by the 

Coast Guard’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (c), after the word 

‘‘Invalid’’, add the words ‘‘or expired’’. 

§ 10.235 [Amended] 

■ 18. Amend § 10.235 by removing the 

text ‘‘, license, MMD, and COR’’ 

wherever it appears. 

■ 19. Amend Table 1 to § 10.239 by 

revising the row ‘‘MODU licenses’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 10.239 Quick reference table for MMC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

Table 1 to § 10.239: Quick Reference 

Table for MMC Requirements 

* * * * * 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18733 

Endorsement 

category Minimum age Citizenship 

Medical and 

physical 

exam 

Experience 

Recommendations 

and character 

check 

Firefighting Professional exam Demonstration of professional ability Recency of Service First aid and CPR 

*******

MODU ......... § 11.201(e) Note: 

exceptions.

U.S., § 10.221(a)(1) 

§ 11.201(d).

§ 10.302(a) .. OIM: § 11.470 B.S.: 

§ 11.472 BCO: § 11.474 ChEng: § 11.542 Asst. Eng: § 11.544.

N/A: Note exceptions in 

§ 11.201(g) for original national or STCW endorsements.

§ 11.201(h): note 

exceptions.

§ 11.201(j); 

§ 11.903; § 11.920.

N/A original § 11.201 

(c)(2) renewal § 10.227(e).

§ 11.201(i). 

* * * * * * * 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18734 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

§ 10.302 [Amended] 

■ 20. In § 10.302(a), remove the words 

‘‘as appropriate’’ and add, in their place, 

the words ‘‘or as directed by the Coast 

Guard’’. 

§ 10.305 [Amended] 

■ 21. In § 10.305(c), remove the word 

‘‘a’’ before the words ‘‘medical 

certificate’’. 

§ 10.404 [Amended] 

■ 22. Amend § 10.404 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the text ‘‘, license, or 

document’’ wherever it appears; and 

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘has witnessed’’ 

wherever they appear and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘have witnessed’’. 

§ 10.405 [Amended] 

■ 23. In § 10.405, remove the words 

‘‘has attained’’ wherever they appear 

and add, in their place, the words ‘‘have 

attained’’. 

§ 10.407 [Amended] 

■ 24. In § 10.407(g)(3), remove the text 

‘‘paragraph (d)’’ and add, in its place, 

the text ‘‘paragraph (e)’’. 

§ 10.409 [Amended] 

■ 25. In § 10.409(e), remove the word 

‘‘present’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘provide’’. 

PART 11—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

OFFICER ENDORSEMENTS 

■ 26. The authority citation for part 11 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

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

chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, 8906, 

and 70105; Executive Order 10173; DHS 

Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 

Section 11.107 is also issued under the 

authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

■ 27. In part 11, revise the following 

references wherever they appear: 

■ a. ‘‘his or her’’ to read ‘‘their’’; and 

■ b. ‘‘he or she’’ to read ‘‘they’’. 

§ 11.102 [Amended] 

■ 28. In § 11.102(a), remove the period 

after the text ‘‘2703 Martin Luther King 

Jr. Avenue SE’’. 

§ 11.201 [Amended] 

■ 29. Amend § 11.201 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a): 

■ i. Remove the word ‘‘possesses’’ and 

add, in its place, the words ‘‘possess’’; 

and 

■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘him or her’’ 

and add, in their place, the word 

‘‘them’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(4), remove the 

word ‘‘has’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘have’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (g)(1), remove the text 

‘‘license, merchant mariner document 

(MMD), or MMC’’ and add, in its place, 

the text ‘‘merchant mariner credential 

(MMC)’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (g)(2) remove the 

words ‘‘license, certificate of registry,’’ 

wherever it appears, and add, in their 

place, the text ‘‘MMC’’; and 

■ e. In paragraphs (h)(1), (i), and (k) 

remove the word ‘‘present’’ wherever it 

appears and add, in its place, the word 

‘‘provide’’. 

§ 11.211 [Amended] 

■ 30. Amend § 11.211(c)(1) as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘or license’’ 

wherever they appear; and 

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘licenses or’’. 

§ 11.217 [Amended] 

■ 31. Amend § 11.217(a) by removing 

the word ‘‘presents’’ and adding, in its 

place, the word ‘‘provides’’. 

§ 11.301 [Amended] 

■ 32. Amend § 11.301(g) by removing 

the words ‘‘of the license’’. 

§ 11.337 [Amended] 

■ 33. Amend § 11.337(a) by removing 

the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its 

place, the word ‘‘provide’’. 

§ 11.401 [Amended] 

■ 34. Amend § 11.401 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘license or’’ 

wherever they appear; and 

■ b. in paragraph (d), remove the word 

‘‘present’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘provide’’. 

§ 11.402 [Amended] 

■ 35. Amend § 11.402 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (c)(2), remove the 

words ‘‘is endorsed’’ and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘are endorsed’’; and 

remove the words ‘‘license or’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(3): 

■ i. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

and add, in their place, the text ‘‘an 

MMC’’; and 

■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘mate’s license 

or’’ and add, in their place, the word 

‘‘mate’s’’. 

§ 11.404 [Amended] 

■ 36. Amend § 11.404 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

remove the words ‘‘or license’’. 

§ 11.405 [Amended] 

■ 37. Amend § 11.405(a) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.406 [Amended] 

■ 37. Amend § 11.406 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

wherever they appear and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘or license’’. 

§ 11.407 [Amended] 

■ 38. Amend § 11.407 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, 

the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (d), remove the words 

‘‘or license’’. 

§ 11.412 [Amended] 

■ 39. Amend § 11.412 by removing the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they 

appear and adding, in their place, the 

word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.414 [Amended] 

■ 40. Amend § 11.414(a)(1)(iii) by 

removing the words ‘‘a license or’’ and 

adding, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.418 [Amended] 

■ 41. Amend § 11.418 by removing the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they 

appear and adding, in their place, the 

word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.420 [Amended] 

■ 42. Amend § 11.420(a) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.422 [Amended] 

■ 43. Amend § 11.422 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(4), remove the 

words ‘‘license or’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘or license’’. 

§ 11.424 [Amended] 

■ 44. Amend § 11.424 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words 

‘‘license or’’. 

§ 11.425 [Amended] 

■ 45. Amend § 11.425 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

wherever they appear and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (d), remove the word 

‘‘presentation’’ and add, in its place, the 

words ‘‘providing evidence’’. 

§ 11.426 [Amended] 

■ 46. Amend § 11.426(a)(1) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.427 [Amended] 

■ 47. Amend § 11.427 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

wherever they appear and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (d), remove the word 

‘‘presentation’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘providing evidence’’. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18735 

§ 11.428 [Amended] 

■ 48. Amend § 11.428(b) by removing 

the words ‘‘license or’’. 

§ 11.429 [Amended] 

■ 49. Amend § 11.429(c) by removing 

the words ‘‘license or’’. 

§ 11.433 [Amended] 

■ 50. Amend § 11.433(a) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they 

appear and adding, in their place, the 

word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.435 [Amended] 

■ 51. Amend § 11.435 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the 

words ‘‘license or’’. 

§ 11.437 [Amended] 

■ 52. In § 11.437(a)(3): 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘holding a 

license or’’ and add, in their place, the 

words ‘‘holding an’’; and 

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘this license’’ 

and add, in their place, the words ‘‘this 

MMC endorsement’’. 

§ 11.442 [Amended] 

■ 53. Amend § 11.442(a) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they 

appear and adding, in their place, the 

word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.444 [Amended] 

■ 54. Amend § 11.444(a)(2) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.446 [Amended] 

■ 55. Amend § 11.446 by removing the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they 

appear and adding, in their place, the 

word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.450 [Amended] 

■ 56. Amend § 11.450 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘licenses or’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (d), remove the word 

‘‘license’’ and add, in its place, the word 

‘‘endorsement’’. 

§ 11.452 [Amended] 

■ 57. Amend § 11.452 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a): 

■ i. Remove the words ‘‘license or’’; and 

■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; 

and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words 

‘‘license or’’. 

§ 11.454 [Amended] 

■ 58. Amend § 11.454 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), remove the word 

‘‘presentation’’ and add, in its place, the 

words ‘‘providing evidence’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (d), remove the words 

‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, 

the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.457 [Amended] 

■ 59. Amend § 11.457 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the word 

‘‘present’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘provide’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words 

‘‘license or’’. 

§ 11.462 [Amended] 

■ 60. Amend § 11.462 by removing the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they 

appear and adding, in their place, the 

word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.464 [Amended] 

■ 61. Amend § 11.464 by removing the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they 

appear and adding, in their place, the 

word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.465 [Amended] 

■ 62. Amend § 11.465 by removing the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they 

appear and adding, in their place, the 

word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.466 [Amended] 

■ 63. Amend § 11.466(b) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.470 [Amended] 

■ 64. Amend § 11.470 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ 

wherever it appears and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(2)(i), remove the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; 

■ c. In paragraphs (e), (g), (i), and (k), 

remove the words ‘‘license or’’; and 

■ d. In paragraph (j)(2)(i), remove the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.472 [Amended] 

■ 65. Amend § 11.472 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ 

wherever it appears and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words 

‘‘license or’’. 

§ 11.474 [Amended] 

■ 66. Amend § 11.474 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ 

wherever it appears and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; 

■ b. In paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii), 

remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ and 

add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (b), remove the words 

‘‘license or’’. 

§ 11.480 [Amended] 

■ 67. In § 11.480(d), remove the word 

‘‘present’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘provide’’; and remove the text 

‘‘fax,’’. 

§ 11.482 [Amended] 

■ 68. Amend § 11.482 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘license or’’ 

wherever they appear; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their place, 

the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.491 [Amended] 

■ 69. Amend § 11.491(a) by removing 

the words ‘‘license or’’. 

§ 11.501 [Amended] 

■ 70. Amend § 11.501 as follows: 

■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘licenses or’’; and 

■ a. In paragraphs (d) and (e), remove 

the words ‘‘license or’’ wherever they 

appear. 

§ 11.502 [Amended] 

■ 71. Amend § 11.502(b) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.503 [Amended] 

■ 72. Amend § 11.503 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

wherever they appear, and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(2), remove the 

words ‘‘licensed or’’. 

§ 11.510 [Amended] 

■ 73. Amend § 11.510(a)(2) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.512 [Amended] 

■ 74. Amend § 11.512(a)(1) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.514 [Amended] 

■ 75. Amend § 11.514(a) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they 

appear and adding, in their place, the 

word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.542 [Amended] 

■ 76. Amend § 11.542 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ 

wherever it appears, and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words 

‘‘presentation of’’ and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘providing’’. 

§ 11.544 [Amended] 

■ 77. Amend § 11.544 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ 

wherever it appears, and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words 

‘‘presentation of the’’ and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘providing’’. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18736 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

§ 11.603 [Amended] 

■ 78. Amend § 11.603 by removing the 

words ‘‘license must present’’ and 

adding, in their place, the text ‘‘an MMC 

must provide evidence of’’. 

§ 11.604 [Amended] 

■ 79. Amend § 11.604 by removing the 

word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its place, 

the word ‘‘provide’’. 

§ 11.701 [Amended] 

■ 80. Amend § 11.701(d) by removing 

the words ‘‘A license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘An’’. 

§ 11.703 [Amended] 

■ 81. Amend § 11.703(d) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.705 [Amended] 

■ 82. Amend § 11.705(c) by removing 

the words ‘‘license or’’ wherever they 

appear. 

§ 11.707 [Amended] 

■ 83. Amend § 11.707(b) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 11.713 [Amended] 

■ 84. Amend § 11.713 by removing the 

words ‘‘license or’’ wherever they 

appear. 

§ 11.805 [Amended] 

■ 85. Amend § 11.805 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the word 

‘‘present’’, and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘provide’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the word 

‘‘is’’ and add, in their place, the word 

‘‘are’’. 

§ 11.807 [Amended] 

■ 86. Amend § 11.807(d) by removing 

the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its 

place, the word ‘‘provides’’. 

§ 11.821 [Amended] 

■ 87. Amend § 11.821(a)(2) by removing 

the word ‘‘Present’’ and adding, in its 

place, the word ‘‘Provide’’. 

§ 11.903 [Amended] 

■ 88. Amend § 11.903(c)(1) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license’’ and adding, in 

their place, the words ‘‘an 

endorsement’’. 

§ 11.920 [Amended] 

■ 89. In the heading ‘‘Table 2 to 

§ 11.920’’, remove the word ‘‘Licenses’’ 

and add, in its place, the word 

‘‘Endorsements’’. 

PART 12—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

RATING ENDORSEMENTS 

■ 90. The authority citation for part 12 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 

2103, 2110, 7301, 7302, 7503, 7505, 7701, 

and 70105; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, 

Revision No. 01.3. 

§ 12.103 [Amended] 

■ 91. Amend § 12.103(a) by removing 

the period after the text ‘‘2703 Martin 

Luther King Jr. Avenue SE’’. 

§ 12.201 [Amended] 

■ 92. Amend § 12.201(a)(2) by removing 

the words ‘‘his or her’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘their’’. 

§ 12.401 [Amended] 

■ 93. Amend § 12.401 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the text ‘‘or 

merchant mariner document (MMD)’’; 

and 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the 

word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, 

the word ‘‘Provide’’. 

§ 12.405 [Amended] 

■ 94. Amend § 12.405 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a): 

■ i. Remove the words ‘‘he or she’’ and 

add, in their place, the word ‘‘they’’; 

and 

■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘his or her’’ and 

add, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’; 

and 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the 

words ‘‘him or her’’ and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘them’’. 

§ 12.407 [Amended] 

■ 95. Amend § 12.407 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), remove the 

word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, 

the word ‘‘Provide’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(3): 

■ i. Remove the words ‘‘he or she’’ and 

add, in their place, the word ‘‘they’’; 

and 

■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘his or her’’ and 

add, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’. 

§ 12.409 [Amended] 

■ 96. Amend § 12.409 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), remove the 

word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, 

the word ‘‘Provide’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(3): 

■ i. Remove the words ‘‘he or she’’ and 

add, in their place, the word ‘‘they’’; 

and 

■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘his or her’’ and 

add, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’. 

§ 12.501 [Amended] 

■ 97. Amend § 12.501 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the 

words ‘‘he or she is’’ and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘they are’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the 

word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, 

the word ‘‘Provide’’. 

§ 12.505 [Amended] 

■ 98. Amend § 12.505(a) as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘he or she’’ and 

add, in their place, the word ‘‘they’’; 

and 

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘his or her’’ and 

add, in their place, the word ‘‘their’’. 

§ 12.625 [Amended] 

■ 99. Amend § 12.625(a)(1) by removing 

the word ‘‘Present’’ and adding, in its 

place, the word ‘‘Provide’’. 

§ 12.627 [Amended] 

■ 100. Amend § 12.627(a)(1) by 

removing the word ‘‘Present’’ and 

adding, in its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’. 

§ 12.707 [Amended] 

■ 101. Amend § 12.707 by removing the 

word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its place, 

the word ‘‘provide’’. 

§ 12.709 [Amended] 

■ 102. Amend § 12.709(a) by removing 

the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its 

place, the word ‘‘provide’’. 

§ 12.711 [Amended] 

■ 103. Amend § 12.711(a) as follows: 

■ a. Remove the word ‘‘presents’’ and 

add, in its place, the word ‘‘provides’’; 

and 

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘he or she is’’ 

and add, in their place, the words ‘‘they 

are’’. 

§ 12.809 [Amended] 

■ 104. Amend § 12.809 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the words 

‘‘he or she is’’ and add, in their place, 

the words ‘‘they are’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the word 

‘‘present’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘provide’’. 

§ 12.811 [Amended] 

■ 105. Amend § 12.811 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(5)(iii), remove the 

words ‘‘he or she has’’ and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘they have’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (e), remove the words 

‘‘his or her’’ and add, in their place, the 

word ‘‘their’’. 

PART 13—CERTIFICATION OF 

TANKERMEN 

■ 106. The authority citation for part 13 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3703, 7317, 8105, 

8703, 9102; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, 

Revision No. 01.3. 

■ 107. In part 13, revise the following 

references wherever they appear: 

■ a. ‘‘his or her’’ to read ‘‘their’’; and 

■ b. ‘‘he or she’’ to read ‘‘they’’. 

§ 13.103 [Amended] 

■ 108. Amend § 13.103(a) by removing 

the period after the text ‘‘2703 Martin 

Luther King Jr. Avenue SE’’. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18737 

§ 13.107 [Amended] 

■ 109. Amend § 13.107 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the word ‘‘holds’’ wherever 

it appears, and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘hold’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a), remove the words 

‘‘engineer license or engineer’’ and add, 

in their place, the words ‘‘engineer 

officer’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (d), remove the words 

‘‘licensed or’’. 

§ 13.111 [Amended] 

■ 110. Amend § 13.111 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (d)(3), remove the 

word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, 

the word ‘‘Provide’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(4): 

■ i. Remove the words ‘‘Present 

evidence in the form of a letter’’ and 

add, in their place, the words ‘‘Provide 

evidence in a method prescribed by the 

Coast Guard’’; and 

■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘on company 

letterhead’’. 

§ 13.119 [Amended] 

■ 111. In § 13.119, remove the words 

‘‘merchant mariner’s document or’’. 

§ 13.120 [Amended] 

■ 112. Amend § 13.120 by removing the 

word ‘‘present’’ wherever it appears and 

adding, in its place, the word ‘‘provide’’. 

§ 13.127 [Amended] 

■ 113. Amend § 13.127(a)(4) and (5) by 

removing the word ‘‘is’’ and adding, in 

its place, the word ‘‘are’’. 

§ 13.201 [Amended] 

■ 114. Amend § 13.201 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (c) introductory text, 

remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(3): 

■ i. Remove the word ‘‘has’’ and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘have’’; 

■ ii. Remove the text ‘‘license,’’; and 

■ iii. Remove the comma after the words 

‘‘tankerman endorsement’’. 

§ 13.203 [Amended] 

■ 115. Amend § 13.203 by removing the 

word ‘‘present’’ wherever it appears, 

and adding, in its place, the word 

‘‘provide’’. 

■ 116. Revise and republish § 13.205 to 

read as follows: 

§ 13.205 Proof of service for tankermanPIC endorsement. 

Provide evidence in a method 

prescribed by the Coast Guard of proof 

of service from the owner, operator, or 

master of the vessel on which the 

applicant obtained the service. The 

evidence must contain the information 

described in § 13.127(a). 

§ 13.301 [Amended] 

■ 117. Amend § 13.301 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), remove the word 

‘‘Present’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘Provide’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(3): 

■ i. Remove the word ‘‘has’’ and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘have’’; and 

■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘license, 

tankerman endorsement,’’ and add, in 

their place, the words ‘‘tankerman 

endorsement’’. 

§ 13.303 [Amended] 

■ 118. Amend § 13.303(a) by removing 

the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its 

place, the word ‘‘provide’’. 

■ 119. Revise and republish § 13.305 to 

read as follows: 

§ 13.305 Proof of service for tankermanPIC (barge). 

Provide evidence in a method 

prescribed by the Coast Guard of proof 

of service from the owner or operator of 

a terminal; the owner or operator of a 

tank barge; the owner, operator, or 

master of a tank vessel; or the employer 

of shore-based tankermen. The evidence 

must contain the information required 

by § 13.127(a), excluding paragraph 

(a)(4)(vii). 

§ 13.401 [Amended] 

■ 120. Amend § 13.401 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the word ‘‘Present’’ 

wherever it appears, and add, in its 

place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (d): 

■ i. Remove the word ‘‘has’’ and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘have’’; 

■ ii. Remove the word ‘‘license,’’; and 

■ iii. Remove the comma after the words 

‘‘tankerman endorsement’’. 

§ 13.405 [Amended] 

■ 121. Amend § 13.405 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

removing the word ‘‘has’’ and adding, in 

its place, the word ‘‘have’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the 

words ‘‘him or her’’ and adding, in their 

place, the word ‘‘them’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 13.405 Proof of service for tankermanassistant endorsement. 

(a) Evidence in a method prescribed 

by the Coast Guard from the owner, 

operator, or master of a tankship or selfpropelled tank vessel. The evidence 

must specify— 

* * * * * 

§ 13.501 [Amended] 

■ 122. Amend § 13.501 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (c) introductory text, 

remove the word ‘‘Present’’ and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘Provide’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(3): 

■ i. Remove the word ‘‘has’’ and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘have’’; and 

■ ii. Remove the words ‘‘license, 

tankerman endorsement,’’ and add, in 

their place, the words ‘‘tankerman 

endorsement’’. 

§ 13.503 [Amended] 

■ 123. Amend § 13.503(a) by removing 

the word ‘‘present’’ and adding, in its 

place, the word ‘‘provide’’. 

§ 13.505 [Amended] 

■ 124. Revise § 13.505(a) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 13.505 Proof of service for tankermanengineer endorsement. 

(a) Provide evidence in a method 

prescribed by the Coast Guard of proof 

of service from the owner, operator, 

master, or chief engineer of a tankship 

or self-propelled tank vessel. The 

evidence must specify— 

* * * * * 

PART 14—SHIPMENT AND 

DISCHARGE OF MERCHANT 

MARINERS 

■ 126. The authority citation for part 14 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 

103 and 104; 46 U.S.C. 70105. 

■ 127. In part 14, revise all references to 

‘‘his or her’’ to read ‘‘their’’. 

§ 14.103 [Amended] 

■ 127. In § 14.103(c), remove the text 

‘‘http://www.uscg.mil/nmc’’ and add, in 

its place, the text ‘‘https://

www.dco.uscg.mil/national_maritime_

center/’’. 

■ 128. Revise and republish § 14.205 to 

read as follows: 

§ 14.205 Production of credentials by 

merchant mariner signing shipping articles. 

On engagement for a voyage upon 

which shipping articles are required, 

each merchant mariner must provide to 

the master or individual in charge of the 

vessel a merchant mariner credential 

with endorsements required by law for 

the service the mariner would perform. 

§ 14.207 [Amended] 

■ 129. In § 14.207(a)(1), remove the text 

‘‘license, MMD or’’. 

■ 130. Revise § 14.307 to read as 

follows: 

§ 14.307 Entries on certificate of 

discharge. 

(a) Each master or individual in 

charge of a vessel must, for each 

merchant mariner being discharged 

from the vessel, prepare a certificate of 

discharge in accordance with the 

procedure prescribed by the Coast 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18738 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Guard. The prescribed format may 

include the current form CG–718A or 

other means provided by the Coast 

Guard. If not using the Coast Guard 

prescribed format, the mariner must be 

provided with all the same information 

included on the certificate of discharge. 

(b) Each mariner being discharged 

must validate the information on the 

certificate of discharge by signing it. 

(c) When the mariner leaves the 

vessel, the master or individual in 

charge must give the certificate of 

discharge to the mariner. 

§ 14.403 [Amended] 

■ 131. Amend § 14.403(a)(2) by 

removing the word ‘‘presented’’ and 

adding, in its place, the word 

‘‘provided’’. 

■ 132. Amend § 14.405 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), before the words 

‘‘will forward the request’’, adding the 

text ‘‘OCMI’’; and 

■ b. Revising paragraph (d). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 14.405 Procedures. 

* * * * * 

(d) If operating conditions change, the 

owner, charterer, managing operator, 

master, or individual in charge of the 

vessel must so advise the Coast Guard 

OCMI in whose zone the vessel is 

located. The Coast Guard OCMI will 

forward pertinent information on how 

the conditions have changed, along with 

his or her recommendation, to the 

Commandant, who will determine 

whether any exemption should remain 

granted. 

§ 14.407 [Amended] 

■ 133. In § 14.407(a), remove the words 

‘‘to the address provided’’ and add, in 

their place, the words ‘‘in a manner 

specified’’. 

PART 15—MANNING REQUIREMENTS 

■ 134. The authority citation for part 15 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 3306, 

3703, 8101, 8102, 8103, 8104, 8105, 8301, 

8304, 8502, 8503, 8701, 8702, 8901, 8902, 

8903, 8904, 8905(b), 8906 and 9102; sec. 617, 

Pub. L. 111–281, 124 Stat. 2905; and DHS 

Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 

■ 135. In part 15, revise the following 

references wherever they appear: 

■ a. ‘‘his or her’’ to read ‘‘their’’; 

■ b. ‘‘he or she’’ to read ‘‘they’’; and 

■ c. ‘‘him or her’’ to read ‘‘them’’. 

§ 15.103 [Amended] 

■ 136. Amend § 15.103(a) by removing 

the period after the text ‘‘2703 Martin 

Luther King Jr. Avenue SE’’. 

§ 15.105 [Amended] 

■ 137. Amend § 15.105 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b), remove the words 

‘‘licenses and’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (h), remove the words 

‘‘license or’’. 

§ 15.403 [Amended] 

■ 138. Amend § 15.403 by removing the 

text ‘‘or MMD’’ wherever it appears. 

§ 15.404 [Amended] 

■ 139. Amend § 15.404 by removing the 

text ‘‘or MMD’’ wherever it appears. 

[Amended] 

■ 140. Revise and republish § 15.410 by 

to read as follows: 

§ 15.410 Credentialed individuals for 

assistance towing vessels. 

Every assistance towing vessel must 

be under the direction and control of an 

individual holding an MMC authorizing 

him or her to engage in assistance 

towing under the provisions of § 11.482 

of this subchapter. 

§ 15.515 [Amended] 

■ 141. In § 15.515(c), remove the words 

‘‘license or’’. 

§ 15.520 [Amended] 

■ 142. Amend § 15.520 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

wherever they appear, and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘A license or’’ wherever it appears, and 

add, in their place, the word ‘‘An’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (d), remove the text ‘‘a 

license as master endorsed as OIM, or’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (e), remove the text ‘‘a 

license as master endorsed as OIM or’’; 

and 

■ e. In paragraph (g), remove the words 

‘‘license, or an’’. 

§ 15.605 [Amended] 

■ 143. Amend § 15.605 by removing the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ wherever they 

appear and adding, in their place, the 

word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 15.610 [Amended] 

■ 144. Amend § 15.610(b) as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

and add, in their place, the word ‘‘an’’; 

and 

■ b. Before the text ‘‘MMC for towing 

vessels’’, remove the words ‘‘license or’’. 

§ 15.701 [Amended] 

■ 145. Amend § 15.701(b) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 15.730 [Amended] 

■ 146. In § 15.730(d), remove the word 

‘‘presented’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘provided’’. 

§ 15.805 [Amended] 

■ 147. Amend § 15.805 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

wherever they appear, and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a), remove the words 

‘‘license as or a’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (b), remove the word 

‘‘is’’ and add, in their place, the word 

‘‘are’’. 

§ 15.810 [Amended] 

■ 148. Amend § 15.810 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

wherever they appear and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; 

■ b. In paragraphs (c) and (d)(2), remove 

the words ‘‘license or’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(2)(ii), remove the 

words ‘‘A license or’’ and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘An’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (e), remove the word 

‘‘determines’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘determine’’; and 

■ e. In paragraph (g), remove the word 

‘‘is’’ and add, in its place, the word 

‘‘are’’. 

■ 149. Amend § 15.812 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (b) and (c), table 

1 to § 15.812(e)(1), and table 1 to 

§ 15.812(e)(2); 

■ b. In paragraph (f), remove the words 

‘‘valid license or’’ wherever they appear 

and add, in their place, the word ‘‘or’’; 

and 

■ c. In paragraph (f)(1)(i), remove the 

words ‘‘a license or’’ and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 15.812 Pilots 

* * * * * 

(b) The following individuals may 

serve as a pilot on a vessel subject to 

paragraph (a) of this section, when 

underway on the navigable waters of the 

United States that are designated areas: 

(1) An individual holding a valid 

MMC officer endorsement as first-class 

pilot, operating within the restrictions 

of their credential, may serve as pilot on 

any vessel to which this section applies. 

(2) An individual holding a valid 

MMC officer endorsement as master or 

mate, employed aboard a vessel within 

the restrictions of their credential, may 

serve as pilot on a vessel of not more 

than 1,600 GRT propelled by 

machinery, described in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (a)(3) of this section, provided 

they— 

(i) Are at least 21 years old; 

(ii) Are able to show current 

knowledge of the waters to be navigated, 

as required in § 11.713 of this 

subchapter; and 

(iii) Provide evidence of completing a 

minimum of four roundtrips over the 

route to be traversed while in the 

wheelhouse as watchstander or 

observer. At least one of the roundtrips 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18739 

must be made during the hours of 

darkness if the route is to be traversed 

during darkness. 

(3) An individual holding a valid 

MMC officer endorsement as master, 

mate, or operator employed aboard a 

vessel within the restrictions of their 

credential, may serve as pilot on a tank 

barge or tank barges totaling not more 

than 10,000 GRT/GT, described in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) of this 

section, provided they— 

(i) Are at least 21 years old; 

(ii) Are able to show current 

knowledge of the waters to be navigated, 

as required in § 11.713 of this 

subchapter; 

(iii) Have a current physical 

examination in accordance with the 

provisions of § 11.709 of this 

subchapter; 

(iv) Have at least 6 months of service 

in the deck department on towing 

vessels engaged in towing operations; 

and 

(v) Provide evidence of completing a 

minimum of 12 roundtrips over the 

route to be traversed, as an observer or 

under instruction in the wheelhouse. At 

least three of the roundtrips must be 

made during the hours of darkness if the 

route is to be traversed during darkness. 

(c) An individual holding a valid 

MMC officer endorsement as master, 

mate, or operator, employed aboard a 

vessel within the restrictions of their 

credential, may serve as a pilot for a 

vessel subject to paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2) of this section, when underway on 

the navigable waters of the United 

States that are not designated areas of 

pilotage waters, provided they— 

(1) Are at least 21 years old; 

(2) Are able to show current 

knowledge of the waters to be navigated, 

as required in § 11.713 of this 

subchapter; and 

(3) Have a current physical 

examination in accordance with the 

provisions of § 11.709 of this 

subchapter. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 15.812(e)(1)—QUICK REFERENCE TABLE FOR FEDERAL PILOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S.-INSPECTED, 

SELF-PROPELLED VESSELS, NOT SAILING ON REGISTER

Designated areas of pilotage waters (routes 

for which First-Class Pilot’s MMC officer 

endorsements are issued) 

Non-designated areas of pilotage waters 

(between the 3-mile line and the start of 

traditional pilotage routes) 

Inspected self-propelled vessels greater than 

1,600 GRT, authorized by their COI to proceed beyond the Boundary Line, or operating 

on the Great Lakes.

First-Class Pilot ................................................ Master or Mate may 

serve as pilot if they— 

1. Are at least 21 years old; 

2. Have an annual physical exam; and 

3. Maintain current knowledge of the waters to 

be navigated.1

Inspected self-propelled vessels not more than 

1,600 GRT, authorized by their COI to proceed beyond the Boundary Line, or operating 

on the Great Lakes.

First-Class Pilot, or Master or Mate may serve 

as pilot if they—.

1. Are at least 21 years old; ............................

2. Maintains current knowledge of the waters 

to be navigated; and 1

3. Have four roundtrips over the route.2

Master or Mate may serve as pilot if they— 

1. Are at least 21 years old; and 

2. Maintain current knowledge of the waters to 

be navigated.1

Inspected self-propelled vessels greater than 

1,600 GRT, not authorized by their COI to 

proceed beyond the Boundary Line (inland 

route vessels); other than vessels operating 

on the Great Lakes.

First-Class Pilot ................................................ Master or Mate may serve as pilot if they— 

1. Are at least 21 years old; 

2. Have an annual physical exam; and 

3. Maintain current knowledge of the waters to 

be navigated.1

Inspected self-propelled vessels not more than 

1,600 GRT, not authorized by their COI to 

proceed beyond the Boundary Line (inland 

route vessels); other than vessels operating 

on the Great Lakes.

No pilotage requirement ................................... No pilotage requirement. 

1One roundtrip within the past 60 months. 

2 If the route is to be traversed during darkness, one of the four roundtrips must be made during darkness. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 2 TO § 15.812(e)(2)—QUICK REFERENCE TABLE FOR FEDERAL PILOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S.-INSPECTED

TANK BARGES, NOT SAILING ON REGISTER

Designated areas of pilotage waters (routes 

for which First-Class Pilot’s MMC officer 

endorsements are issued) 

Non-designated areas of pilotage waters 

(between the 3-mile line and the start of 

traditional pilotage routes) 

Tank Barges greater than 10,000 GRT/GT, authorized by their COI to proceed beyond the 

Boundary Line, or operating on the Great 

Lakes.

First-Class Pilot ................................................ Master, Mate, or Master, Mate (Pilot) of towing vessels may serve as pilot if they: 

1. Are at least 21 years old; 

2. Have an annual physical exam; 2

3. Maintain current knowledge of the waters to 

be navigated; 1 and 

4. Have at least 6 months’ service in the deck 

department on towing vessels engaged in 

towing operations. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
18740 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2 TO § 15.812(e)(2)—QUICK REFERENCE TABLE FOR FEDERAL PILOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S.-INSPECTED

TANK BARGES, NOT SAILING ON REGISTER—Continued 

Designated areas of pilotage waters (routes 

for which First-Class Pilot’s MMC officer 

endorsements are issued) 

Non-designated areas of pilotage waters 

(between the 3-mile line and the start of 

traditional pilotage routes) 

Tank Barges 10,000 GRT/GT or less, authorized by their COI to proceed beyond the 

Boundary Line, or operating on the Great 

Lakes.

First-Class Pilot, or Master, Mate, or Master, 

Mate (Pilot) of towing vessels may serve as 

pilot if they: 

1. Are at least 21 years old; 

2. Have an annual physical exam; 2

3. Maintain current knowledge of the waters to 

be navigated; 1

4. Have at least 6 months’ service in the deck 

department on towing vessels engaged in 

towing operations; and 

5. Have 12 roundtrips over the route.3

Tank Barges authorized by their COI for inland 

routes only (lakes, bays, and sounds/rivers); 

other than vessels operating on the Great 

Lakes.

No pilotage requirement ................................... No pilotage requirement. 

1One roundtrip within the past 60 months. 

2Annual physical exam does not apply to an individual who will serve as a pilot of a tank barge of less than 1,600 GRT. 

3 If the route is to be traversed during darkness, three of the 12 roundtrips must be made during darkness. 

* * * * * 

§ 15.815 [Amended] 

■ 150. Amend § 15.815(c) by removing 

the words ‘‘a license or’’ and adding, in 

their place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 15.818 [Amended] 

■ 151. Amend § 15.818 by removing the 

words ‘‘is competent’’ and adding, in 

their place, the words ‘‘are competent’’. 

§ 15.820 [Amended] 

■ 152. Amend § 15.820 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the words 

‘‘or license’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the 

words ‘‘a license or’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (b), remove the word 

‘‘is’’ and add, in its place, the word 

‘‘are’’; and 

■ d. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘license or’’. 

§ 15.825 [Amended] 

■ 153. Amend § 15.825 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the words 

‘‘license or’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the word 

‘‘is’’ and add, in its place, the word 

‘‘are’’. 

§ 15.860 [Amended] 

■ 154. Amend § 15.860 by removing the 

text ‘‘MMDs or’’ wherever it appears. 

§ 15.901 [Amended] 

■ 155. Amend § 15.901 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘individual’s 

license or’’ wherever they appear and 

add, in their place, the word 

‘‘individual’s’’; and 

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

wherever they appear and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’. 

§ 15.905 [Amended] 

■ 156. Amend § 15.905 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘a license or’’ 

wherever they appear and add, in their 

place, the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘individual’s 

license or’’ wherever they appear, and 

add, in their place, the word 

‘‘individual’s’’. 

§ 15.915 [Amended] 

■ 157. Amend § 15.915 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘licenses and’’ 

wherever they appear; and 

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘license or’’ 

wherever they appear. 

§ 15.1001 [Amended] 

■ 158. In § 15.1001, remove the words 

‘‘or license with’’ and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘with an’’. 

§ 15.1103 [Amended] 

■ 159. Amend § 15.1103 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (f), remove the text ‘‘a 

license, MMD, or’’ and add, in its place, 

the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (g), remove the words 

‘‘is competent’’ and add, in their place, 

the words ‘‘are competent’’. 

§ 15.1105 [Amended] 

■ 160. Amend § 15.1105 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), remove the 

word ‘‘Knows’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘Know’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the words 

‘‘is familiar’’ and add, in their place, the 

words ‘‘are familiar’’. 

PART 16—CHEMICAL TESTING 

■ 161. The authority citation for part 16 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 7101, 

7301, and 7701; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, 

Revision No. 01.3. 

■ 162. Amend § 16.105 by revising the 

definition of ‘‘Credential’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 16.105 Definitions of terms used in this 

part. 

* * * * * 

Credential is the same as defined in 

46 CFR 10.107. 

* * * * * 

§ 16.201 [Amended] 

■ 163. Amend § 16.201 by removing the 

words ‘‘his or her’’ wherever they 

appear, and adding, in their place, the 

word ‘‘their’’. 

§ 16.210 [Amended] 

■ 164. Amend § 16.210(b) by removing 

the word ‘‘he or she has’’ and adding, 

in their place, the words ‘‘they have’’. 

■ 165. Amend § 16.220 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the 

text ‘‘a license, COR, MMD, or’’ and 

adding, in its place, the word ‘‘an’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(3) removing the 

text ‘‘a license or COR’’ and adding, in 

its place, the text ‘‘an MMC’’; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(5); and 

■ d. In paragraph (c), removing the 

words ‘‘he or she provides satisfactory 

evidence that he or she has’’ and 

adding, in their place, the words ‘‘they 

provide satisfactory evidence that they 

have’’. 

The revision reads follows: 

§ 16.220 Periodic testing requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(5) A reissuance of a credential with 

a new expiration date. Results of the test 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 18741 

must be provided to the Coast Guard in 

a manner prescribed by the Coast Guard. 

The test results must be completed and 

dated not more than 185 days before 

submission of the application. 

* * * * * 

§ 16.230 [Amended] 

■ 166. Amend § 16.230 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the 

word ‘‘license’’ and add, in its place, the 

word ‘‘credential’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘his or her’’ and add, in their place, the 

word ‘‘their’’. 

§ 16.500 [Amended] 

■ 167. Amend § 16.500 by removing the 

period after the text ‘‘2703 Martin 

Luther King Jr. Avenue SE’’. 

Dated: February 26, 2024. 

W.R. Arguin, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Prevention Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–04351 Filed 3–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2