Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48925 

review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 

3, Table 3–1 of the U.S. Coast Guard 

Environmental Planning 

Implementation Procedures. 

Neither a Record of Environmental 

Consideration nor a Memorandum for 

the Record are required for this rule. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in this docket and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at https://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

website’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise § 117.500 to read as follows: 

§ 117.500 Tchefuncta River 

The draw of the S22 Bridge, mile 2.5, 

at Madisonville, LA shall open on signal 

from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. The draw will 

open on signal on the hour from 6 a.m. 

to 6 p.m. except that on Monday 

through Friday the bridge will not open 

to vessels at 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. The 

bridge shall open anytime at the 

direction of the District Commander. 

Dated: August 19, 2021. 

R.V. Timme, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18640 Filed 8–31–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 11 

[Docket No. USCG–2020–0492] 

RIN 1625–AC64 

Towing Vessel Firefighting Training 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to revise the training requirements for 

national Merchant Mariner Credential 

endorsements as master of towing 

vessels (limited) or mate (pilot) of 

towing vessels on inland waters or 

Western Rivers routes. The proposal 

would provide mariners seeking these 

endorsements the option to take a 

modified basic firefighting course that 

eliminates training on equipment that is 

not required to be carried on towing 

vessels operating on inland waters or 

Western Rivers. Applicants who take 

the modified basic firefighting course 

would reduce their costs due to the 

courses being shorter and less expensive 

than the longer basic firefighting 

courses. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before November 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2020–0492 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

Collection of information. Submit 

comments on the collection of 

information discussed in section VI.D. 

of this preamble both to the Coast 

Guard’s online docket and to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the White House Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) using 

their website www.reginfo.gov/public/ 

do/PRAMain. Comments sent to OIRA 

on the collection of information must 

reach OMB on or before the comment 

due date listed on their website. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document call or 

email Mr. James Cavo, Coast Guard; 

telephone 202–372–1205, email 

James.D.Cavo@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

II. Abbreviations 

III. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48926 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1An endorsement as a master of towing vessels 

(limited) authorizes service as a master (the person 

in command of the vessel) to work on a towing 

vessel in a limited local area within inland waters 

or Western Rivers (e.g., master of towing vessels 

(limited) restricted to the Lower Mississippi River 

mile marker 775.0 to mile marker 850.0). 

2 ‘‘Mate’’ means a qualified deck officer other 

than the master. On towing vessels on inland waters 

or Western Rivers, ‘‘pilot’’ also refers to a qualified 

deck officer other than the master. The terms 

‘‘mate’’ and ‘‘pilot’’ refer to the same position on the 

vessel and usage varies based on company and 

regional preference. 

3Throughout this NPRM, the term modified basic 

firefighting course describes the basic firefighting 

course required by 46 CFR 11.201(h)(3) modified to 

eliminate training on equipment that is not required 

to be carried on towing vessels operating on inland 

waters or Western Rivers routes. 

4For the purposes of this NPRM, we refer to 

‘‘routes other than oceans’’ as near-coastal, Great 

Lakes, inland waters, and Western Rivers. 

5Regulation VI/1 and Regulation VI/3 of the 

STCW Convention provides two levels of 

firefighting training, basic and advanced. The 

competence requirements for basic firefighting are 

contained in Table A–VI/1–2 of the STCW Code 

and the competence requirements for advanced 

firefighting are found in Table A–VI/3 of the STCW 

Code. 

6Completion of an approved basic and advanced 

firefighting course for towing vessel endorsements 

on ocean routes has been a requirement for several 

decades. 

Federal Decision Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2020–0492 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 https://

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 https://

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 https://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 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

GT Gross tonnage 

GRT Gross register tons 

MERPAC Merchant Marine Personnel 

Advisory Committee 

MMC Merchant Mariner Credential 

MMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing and 

Documentation 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NMC National Maritime Center 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection 

Circular 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

§ Section 

SME Subject Matter Expert 

STCW Convention International 

Convention on Standards of Training, 

Certification and Watchkeeping for 

Seafarers, 1978, as Amended 

STCW Code Seafarer’s Training, 

Certification and Watchkeeping Code, as 

Amended 

TSAC Towing Safety Advisory Committee 

U.S.C. United States Code 

III. Basis and Purpose 

The legal basis of this proposed rule 

is title 46 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.) section 7101, which authorizes 

the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) to establish 

the experience and professional 

qualifications required for the issuance 

of merchant mariner credentials with 

officer endorsements. The DHS 

Secretary has delegated the rulemaking 

authority under 46 U.S.C. 7101 to the 

Coast Guard through DHS Delegation 

No. 0170.1(92)(e). Additionally, 14 

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

broad authority to promulgate 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), § 11.201(h)(3) to 

provide mariners seeking a national 

officer endorsement as master of towing 

vessels (limited) 1 or mate (pilot) 2 of 

towing vessels on inland waters or 

Western Rivers routes the option to take 

a modified basic firefighting course 

instead of a basic firefighting course. 

The modified basic firefighting course 

eliminates training on equipment that is 

not required to be carried on towing 

vessels operating on inland waters or 

Western Rivers.3 This proposed change 

would apply to applicants for national 

Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) 

endorsements as master of towing 

vessels (limited) and mate (pilot) of 

towing vessels. Mariners seeking an 

endorsement as master of towing vessels 

would have had to complete firefighting 

training when they obtained one of the 

endorsements that are a prerequisite to 

qualifying for master of towing vessels. 

Mariners who will not be working solely 

on Western Rivers or inland waters 

other than the Great Lakes would need 

to complete a basic firefighting course 

and not the modified basic firefighting 

course. 

IV. Background 

Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR 

part 11, subpart B, contain the general 

merchant mariner credentialing 

requirements for national and 

International Convention on Standards 

of Training, Certification and 

Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as 

Amended (STCW Convention) officer 

endorsements. Currently, 46 CFR 

11.201(h)(3)(ii) requires mariners 

seeking national officer endorsements as 

master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels 

on routes other than oceans 4 to 

complete a Coast Guard-approved 

firefighting course that meets the basic 

firefighting training requirements in 

Regulation VI/1 of the STCW 

Convention and Table A–VI/1–2 5 of the 

Seafarer’s Training, Certification and 

Watchkeeping Code, as Amended 

(STCW Code). This requirement was 

implemented by the Coast Guard 

through the December 24, 2013 final 

rule titled, ‘‘Implementation of the 

Amendments to the International 

Convention on Standards of Training, 

Certification and Watchkeeping for 

Seafarers, 1978, and Changes to 

National Endorsements.’’ (78 FR 77795). 

Prior to the 2013 final rule, there had 

not been a requirement to complete 

firefighting training to obtain a national 

endorsement for master or mate (pilot) 

of towing vessels in services other than 

oceans.6 The Coast Guard included this 

requirement in 2013 to improve overall 

safety by requiring basic firefighting 

training. Basic firefighting training 

ensures that mariners have the skills to 

contain small fires before they can 

spread, leading to injury, death, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48927 

7See ‘‘Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory 

Committee (MERPAC) Task Statement #95, Inland 

Firefighting, Draft Report,’’ September 14, 2016. 

This report is available at: https://

homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/Attachments/709/

Enclosure%207%20Task%20Statement%2095%20

%20Inland%20Firefighting.pdf. 

8See ‘‘Towing Safety Advisory Committee, Task 

16–02, Recommendations Regarding Firefighting 

Training Requirements for Officer Endorsements for 

Master, Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels, Except 

Assistance Towing and Apprentice Mate 

(Steersman) of Towing Vessels, Inland Service Final 

Report,’’ March 21, 2018. This report is available at: 

https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/

Attachments/799/TSAC%20Task%2016-02

%20Inland%20Firefighting%20Final-03212018.pdf. 

9See MERPAC notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting (82 FR 9575). 

10 Id. at 8. 

11See Coast Guard Request for Information 

entitled, ‘‘Evaluation of Existing Coast Guard 

Regulations, Guidance Documents, Interpretative 

Documents, and Collections of Information’’ (82 FR 

26632, June 8, 2017). This document is available at: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCG2017-0480-0001. 

property damage, or becoming a larger 

marine hazard. 

Federal Advisory Committee 

Recommendations 

Following the implementation of the 

2013 final rule, the Coast Guard 

received requests from industry to 

review the appropriateness of the basic 

firefighting training requirement for 

towing vessel endorsements. As a result, 

the Coast Guard tasked two Federal 

Advisory Committees, the Merchant 

Marine Personnel Advisory Committee 

(MERPAC) 7 and the Towing Safety 

Advisory Committee (TSAC) 8 with 

reviewing the basic firefighting training 

requirements while taking into 

consideration the equipment carried on 

towing vessels operating on inland 

waters and Western Rivers routes. Prior 

to the MERPAC meeting held in March 

of 2017, the Coast Guard invited public 

comment on the issues listed in the 

meeting agenda, including Task 

Statement 95, Recommendations 

Regarding Training Requirements for 

Officer Endorsements for Master or Mate 

(Pilot) of Towing Vessels, except 

Assistance Towing and Apprentice Mate 

(Steersman) of Towing Vessels, in 

Inland Service.9 In response, MERPAC 

received input from two mariners 

working on inland waters and Western 

Rivers towing vessels transporting tank 

barges, one as a mate (pilot) and the 

other as a master. Both mariners 

suggested that a lack of firefighting 

skills could directly contribute to the 

escalation of an emergency that could 

ultimately lead to injury or death of 

vessel crewmembers. Both mariners also 

suggested that mariners on inland 

waters and Western Rivers towing 

vessels need to complete approved 

firefighting training in order to be 

prepared to adequately respond to a fire 

on their vessel, and that time and 

money spent on training is an 

investment in safety. Each mariner also 

expressed that onboard training and 

drills were not conducted in a way that 

adequately prepares mariners to handle 

evolving emergency situations on board 

the vessels. They also stated that annual 

inspections were not adequate to ensure 

training and drills were being 

conducted as they only verify the paper 

records and do not verify the conduct of 

practical exercises in handling 

emergency situations. 

In their recommendations to the Coast 

Guard, both MERPAC and TSAC 

commented that the basic firefighting 

requirements in § 11.201(h)(3)(ii) are 

based on equipment found on deep-sea 

vessels and not on vessels operating on 

inland waters or Western Rivers. TSAC 

identified equipment covered in the 

basic firefighting training requirements, 

contained in Table A–VI/1–2 of the 

STCW Code that is not required to be 

carried on towing vessels operating on 

inland waters or Western Rivers.10 They 

noted that nowhere in 46 CFR 

subchapter M, ‘‘Towing Vessels,’’ part 

142, ‘‘Fire Protection,’’ is there a 

requirement for towing vessels 

operating on inland waters or Western 

Rivers to be equipped with firefighters’ 

outfits or self-contained breathing 

apparatus. Because the basic firefighting 

training in § 11.201(h)(3)(ii) requires 

mariners seeking national officer 

endorsements for master or mate (pilot) 

of towing vessels to become proficient 

with equipment that is not required to 

be carried onboard the vessels they 

intend to operate, MERPAC and TSAC 

both recommended that the content of 

firefighting training be modified for 

these mariners. 

Public Input 

In 2017, the Coast Guard sought 

comments on regulations, guidance 

documents, and interpretative 

documents that the public believed 

should be repealed, replaced, or 

modified.11 The Coast Guard received 

public input from a trade association 

representing the towing industry 

regarding the regulations in 

§ 11.201(h)(3)(ii), which requires basic 

firefighting training for endorsements as 

master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels. 

The trade association suggested that the 

training requirement is excessive, 

because the current towing vessel 

regulations in §§ 27.209 and 142.245, 

which require company provided 

firefighting instruction and drills, are 

adequate to address fires onboard 

towing vessels. The commenter 

recommended that the Coast Guard 

eliminate the basic firefighting training 

requirement in § 11.201(h)(3)(ii) for 

national officer endorsements as master 

or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on 

inland waters and Western Rivers. The 

commenter asserted that this would 

alleviate an unnecessary regulatory 

burden by not requiring mariners or 

their employers to pay for inappropriate 

firefighting training that does not 

address a demonstrated safety need. 

As noted in the letter from the trade 

association, current towing vessel 

regulations in §§ 27.209 and 142.245 

require company provided firefighting 

instruction and drills that are adequate 

to address fires onboard towing vessels. 

However, input provided by mariners in 

response to the Coast Guard’s request 

for public input on MERPAC Task 

Statement 95, as previously discussed, 

provides information on their 

experience with company provided 

onboard training and drills. These 

mariners expressed that training and 

drills were not conducted in a way that 

adequately prepares mariners to handle 

evolving emergency situations on board 

the vessels. They also stated that annual 

inspections were not adequate to ensure 

training and drills were being 

conducted, as they only verify the paper 

records and do not verify the conduct of 

practical exercises in handling 

emergency situations. 

After receiving recommendations 

from MERPAC and TSAC and reviewing 

the public comments, the Coast Guard 

determined that the basic firefighting 

training for national officer endorsement 

as master or mate (pilot) of towing 

vessels on inland waters and Western 

Rivers should be retained. Basic 

firefighting training ensures that 

mariners have basic firefighting skills 

and leads to increased maritime safety 

by ensuring mariners will be able to 

contain a small fire before it spreads 

throughout the vessel and becomes a 

threat to life, or a hazard to the 

environment and public safety. 

However, we have determined these 

mariners should not have to train using 

equipment that is not required to be 

carried aboard the towing vessels on 

which they will serve. 

With this proposed rule, applicants 

seeking national officer endorsements as 

master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels 

on inland waters or Western Rivers 

would have the option to take a 

modified basic firefighting course that 

excludes training on equipment that is 

not required to be carried on their 

vessels. 

This proposed change would apply to 

applicants for national MMC 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48928 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

12Approved courses are valid for 5 years from the 

date of Coast Guard approval. Before the course 

approval expires, the course provider must seek a 

course approval renewal if they want to continue 

to offer the course. 

13 Increase in scope means additional authority 

added to an existing credential, such as adding a 

new route or increasing the authorized horsepower 

or tonnage. (46 CFR 10.107). 

endorsements as master of towing 

vessels (limited) and mate (pilot) of 

towing vessels on inland waters or 

Western Rivers routes. The modified 

basic firefighting training required by 

§ 11.201(h)(3) would have to be 

approved by the Coast Guard, and 

training required for MMC 

endorsements would be approved in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§§ 10.402 and 10.403. This proposed 

change would provide an opportunity 

for course providers to develop a Coast 

Guard-approved modified basic 

firefighting course for applicants for 

national MMC endorsements as master 

of towing vessels (limited) and mate 

(pilot) of towing vessels on inland 

waters or Western Rivers routes. 

This proposed rule would result in a 

one-time cost to course providers for 

developing and submitting requests for 

approval of a modified basic firefighting 

course, and a one-time cost to the Coast 

Guard for reviewing and approving 

these courses. Under existing 

§ 10.402(d) and (f), there would be 

ongoing costs to both the course 

providers and the Coast Guard every 5 

years for requests for renewal of the 

course approval.12 Applicants who take 

modified basic firefighting courses 

would receive cost savings due to 

courses being shorter and less expensive 

than the longer basic firefighting 

courses. 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

Proposed Amendments to § 11.201(h) 

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 

§ 11.201(h), which requires mariners 

seeking national officer endorsements to 

present a certificate of completion from 

a Coast Guard-approved firefighting 

course of instruction. 

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 

paragraph (h)(1) by adding language 

stating that the firefighting certificate of 

completion must be ‘‘relevant to the 

endorsement being sought.’’ The Coast 

Guard proposes this change to ensure 

that mariners would be required to 

provide evidence of completing the 

appropriate firefighting training for the 

endorsement they are applying for. 

We also propose to make several 

changes to paragraph (h)(3), which 

contains a list of national officer 

endorsements that require completion of 

basic firefighting training in accordance 

with Regulation VI/1 of the STCW 

Convention and Table A–VI/1–2 of the 

STCW Code. Currently, paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii) requires that ‘‘all officer 

endorsements for master or mate (pilot) 

of towing vessels, except apprentice 

mate (steersman) of towing vessels, in 

all services except oceans’’ must meet 

this requirement. We propose to revise 

paragraph (h)(3)(ii) to specify the 

requirements for officer endorsements 

for master or mate (pilot) of towing 

vessels, except apprentice mate 

(steersman) of towing vessels, for 

service on near-coastal waters. We are 

also proposing to add paragraphs 

(h)(3)(iii) and (h)(3)(iv) to list the 

specific waters covered by the phrase, 

‘‘in all services except oceans.’’ 

Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iii) would 

specify the requirements for officer 

endorsements for master or mate (pilot) 

of towing vessels, except apprentice 

mate (steersman) of towing vessels, for 

service on the Great Lakes. Proposed 

paragraph (h)(3)(iv) would specify the 

requirements for officer endorsements 

for master or mate (pilot) of towing 

vessels, except apprentice mate 

(steersman) of towing vessels, for 

service on inland waters or Western 

Rivers. 

Mariners seeking a national officer 

endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of 

towing vessels authorized for service on 

near-coastal waters or on the Great 

Lakes would still need to complete the 

basic firefighting training referenced in 

paragraph (h)(3). A modified basic 

firefighting course is not appropriate for 

mariners operating on towing vessels on 

near-coastal waters or on the Great 

Lakes for two reasons: (1) Near-coastal 

waters and Great Lakes towing vessels 

may carry the equipment omitted from 

a modified towing vessel firefighting 

course, and (2) near-coastal waters and 

Great Lakes towing vessels operate 

farther from the shore, where 

firefighting assistance is not readily 

available as it is on inland waters or 

Western Rivers. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(A) 

would provide a mariner the option of 

completing a modified basic firefighting 

course for a national officer 

endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of 

towing vessels on inland waters or 

Western Rivers. The course would be a 

Coast Guard-approved modified basic 

firefighting course that would not 

include training on equipment that is 

not required to be carried aboard towing 

vessels for service on inland waters or 

Western Rivers. When approving 

modified courses, the Coast Guard 

intends to consider the requirements of 

46 CFR subchapter M, parts 140 and 

142, in determining the training to 

achieve proficiency in firefighting 

consistent with the equipment available 

onboard towing vessels on inland 

waters or Western Rivers. The Coast 

Guard anticipates this modified basic 

firefighting course would have a total of 

about 12 hours of classroom and 

practical training instead of a total of 16 

hours for the basic firefighting course. 

The Coast Guard is interested in public 

input regarding whether 12 hours of 

classroom and practical training is 

adequate for the course and what 

subject matters could be omitted from 

the basic firefighting course. 

Currently, national officer 

endorsements for towing vessels serving 

on the Great Lakes and inland waters 

are issued as one route. In proposed 

paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(A), language would 

be added to allow separation of these 

routes so that a mariner who completes 

a modified basic firefighting course 

could be issued an endorsement 

restricted to inland waters or Western 

Rivers. 

The Coast Guard proposes paragraph 

(h)(3)(iv)(B) to specify that a mariner 

who qualifies for an endorsement by 

completing a modified basic firefighting 

course would be required to complete 

the basic firefighting course required in 

paragraph (h)(3) for an increase in 

scope 13 of the endorsement to add a 

Great Lakes or near-coastal waters route. 

For an increase in scope to add oceans 

routes, a mariner would need to 

complete both the basic firefighting 

course required in paragraph (h)(3) and 

the advanced firefighting course 

required in paragraph (h)(2). 

Other Proposed Changes 

The proposed rule would revise the 

authority citation in 46 CFR part 11 by 

deleting a reference to ‘‘46 U.S.C. 503’’ 

and inserting a reference to ‘‘46 U.S.C. 

102(3),’’ which grants the Coast Guard 

broad authority to promulgate and 

enforce regulations for the promotion of 

safety of life and property on waters 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States, including establishing the 

experience and professional 

qualifications required for the issuance 

of credentials. 

Lastly, we would revise § 11.201(l) to 

allow the Coast Guard to modify 

training in addition to the service or 

examination requirements for an 

endorsement. The proposed change is 

needed in order to allow for the option 

of the modified basic firefighting course 

for a national officer endorsement as 

master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels 

on inland waters or Western Rivers 

routes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48929 

14Operating on the Great Lakes is treated 

separately from operating on inland waters or 

Western Rivers. Routes on the Great Lakes would 

require the same firefighting training as near-coastal 

routes. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

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’’) 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, harmonizing rules, and 

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. Accordingly, OMB has not 

reviewed it. A summary of the proposed 

rule’s impacts are presented below and 

a more detailed discussion on the 

estimated cost savings of this rule 

follows. 

As discussed earlier in the preamble, 

this proposed rule would provide 

applicants for an MMC endorsement as 

master of towing vessels (limited) or 

mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland 

waters or Western Rivers routes the 

option to take a modified basic 

firefighting course instead of the basic 

firefighting course. Specifically, this 

firefighting course would eliminate 

training on firefighting equipment that 

is not required to be carried on towing 

vessels operating on inland waters or 

Western Rivers routes. Because the 

modified firefighting course is expected 

to be shorter in duration and lower in 

cost than a basic firefighting course, we 

anticipate eligible mariners will take the 

modified course. The Coast Guard 

requests comments on this assumption. 

We estimate that this proposed rule 

would result in a 10-year net cost 

savings of $835,225, or $118,917 

annualized, in 2020 dollars, discounted 

at 7 percent. The annual cost savings for 

mariners is approximately $123,598 (in 

undiscounted 2020 dollars) from the 

second year onward. The savings would 

stem from reduced hours spent in 

training and reduced tuition for 

firefighting training necessary for an 

endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of 

towing vessels on inland waters or 

Western Rivers routes.14

We estimate that this proposed rule 

would result in a one-time cost to 

course providers to develop a modified 

basic firefighting course and submit the 

course to the Coast Guard for approval. 

There would also be a one-time cost to 

the Government resulting from Coast 

Guard employees reviewing and 

approving these new courses. Under 

existing 46 CFR 10.402(d) and (f), there 

will be ongoing costs to both the course 

providers and the government every 5 

years to renew the modified basic 

firefighting course. We anticipate course 

providers that offer the modified basic 

firefighting course to also continue to 

provide a basic firefighting course 

because these courses would serve 

additional markets. We request 

comment on whether course providers 

that plan to offer a modified basic 

firefighting course would continue to 

offer a basic firefighting course. 

In the first year, we estimate the costs 

(in 2020 dollars) to industry would be 

$8,444 and the cost to the Government 

would be $15,988. These costs would 

not recur after the first year, but there 

would be ongoing costs for renewal of 

course approvals every 5 years resulting 

in costs to industry of $1,044 and costs 

to the Government of $14,029. The 10- 

year net cost savings would be 

$835,225, or $118,917 annualized, in 

2020 dollars, discounted at 7 percent. 

We do not estimate that there would be 

any reduction in safety or benefits 

between the current basic firefighting 

training and a modified firefighting 

training, as the modified training would 

be better suited for the equipment 

common to the relevant towing vessels. 

Table 1 summarizes these results. In the 

following subsections, we describe the 

changes, the affected population, the 

potential costs, the potential cost 

savings, and the qualitative benefits in 

further detail. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE NPRM 

Category Summary 

Applicability ......................................................... Update 46 CFR part 11 in order to permit a modified basic firefighting course for national endorsements as master and mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers routes. 

Affected Population ............................................. An estimated 23 course providers and 381 applicants for master or mate (pilot) towing vessels 

would take a modified firefighting course in order to qualify for their endorsement. This is a 

one-time training requirement for mariners. 

Costs to Industry ($, 7% discount rate) .............. One-time Costs: $8,444; Recurring Costs: $1,044 every 5 years. 

Costs to the Government ($, 7% discount rate) One-time Costs: $15,988; Recurring Costs: $14,029 every 5 years. 

Cost Savings ($, 7% discount rate) .................... 10-year: $868,103. 

Annualized: $123,598. 

Qualitative Benefits ............................................. Firefighting courses that are more tailored to the credential endorsement. 

Description of Regulatory Changes 

This proposed rule would result in 

two changes that would have potential 

costs and potential cost savings. First, 

course providers would have the 

opportunity to develop a modified 

firefighting course and submit the 

course to the Coast Guard for approval. 

Consequently, this proposed rule would 

initially result in costs to course 

providers for developing the course, and 

to the government for reviewing and 

approving the modified basic 

firefighting courses. Second, applicants 

would likely experience cost savings by 

taking shorter and less costly modified 

basic firefighting courses rather than the 

longer basic firefighting courses. The 

Coast Guard requests comments on all 

aspects of this analysis and in particular 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48930 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

how much savings this proposed rule 

could generate for mariners. 

Table 2 lists and describes the 

changes we propose to 46 CFR 11.201. 

The proposed changes contain costs and 

cost savings, as described above. Text 

that has been added is underlined, and 

text that has been deleted is stricken 

through. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO 46 CFR 11.201 AND PROPOSED IMPACTS

Section Proposed changes in 

regulatory text Description of change Impact 

11.201(h)(1) .......................... Applicants for an original officer endorsement in the following categories must 

present a certificate of completion from 

a firefighting course of instruction relevant to the endorsement being sought 

that has been approved by the Coast 

Guard. The firefighting course must 

have been completed within the past 5 

years, or if it was completed more than 

5 years before the date of application, 

the applicant must provide evidence of 

maintaining the standard of competence 

in accordance with the firefighting requirements for the credential sought.

This editorial change would make it clear 

that the required firefighting training 

should be based on the operating route 

of the endorsement sought. 

This editorial change would not have any 

substantive impact and therefore would 

not impose any costs or cost savings. 

11.201(h)(2)(i) ....................... All national officer endorsements as master or mate on seagoing vessels of 200 

GRT or more.

This editorial change would make the text 

easier to read and makes it consistent 

with other lines in this section. 

This editorial change would not have any 

substantive impact and therefore would 

not impose any costs or cost savings. 

11.201(h)(3)(i) ....................... All officer endorsements as master on vessels of less than 500 GT in ocean service.This editorial change would make the text 

easier to read and make it consistent 

with other lines in this section. 

This editorial change would not have any 

substantive impact and therefore would 

not impose any costs or cost savings. 

11.201(h)(3)(ii) ...................... All officer endorsements for master or 

mate (pilot) of towing vessels for service 

on near-coastal waters, except apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels.

This editorial change would make it clear 

that applicants for master or mate (pilot) 

of towing vessel endorsements on nearcoastal waters must take a basic firefighting course. 

This editorial change would not have any 

substantive impact because these applicants were already required to take a 

basic firefighting course. 

11.201(h)(3)(iii) ...................... (iii) All officer endorsements for master or 

mate (pilot) of towing vessels for service 

on Great Lakes, except apprentice mate 

(steersman) of towing vessels.

This editorial change would make it clear 

that applicants for master or mate (pilot) 

of towing vessel endorsements on Great 

Lakes must take a basic firefighting 

course. 

This editorial change would not have any 

substantive impact because these applicants were already required to take a 

basic firefighting course. 

11.201(h)(3)(iv) ..................... (iv) All officer endorsements as master or 

mate (pilot) of towing vessels for service 

on inland waters or Western Rivers, except apprentice mate (steersman) of 

towing vessels.

This editorial change would make it clear 

that applicants for master or mate (pilot) 

of towing vessel endorsements on inland 

waters or Western Rivers routes must 

take a basic firefighting course. 

This editorial change would not have any 

substantive impact because these applicants were already required to take a 

basic firefighting course. 

11.201(h)(3)(iv)(A) ................. (A) The Coast Guard will accept a Coast 

Guard approved modified basic firefighting course, which is the basic firefighting training described in paragraph 

(h)(3) of this section modified to only 

cover the equipment, fire prevention procedures, and firefighting operations required on towing vessels on inland 

waters or Western Rivers routes required in 46 CFR parts 140 and 142. A 

mariner who completes this modified 

course will be issued an endorsement 

that is restricted to inland waters or 

Western Rivers.

These changes would permit master or 

mate (pilot) applicants operating exclusively on inland waters or Western Rivers routes, other than the Great Lakes, 

to take a modified basic inland waters 

and Western Rivers towing vessel firefighting course as opposed to basic firefighting course when they apply for endorsements on inland waters or Western 

Rivers. 

This would lead to costs and costs savings. Costs result from course providers 

developing a modified firefighting course 

and submitting the course to the Coast 

Guard for approval, which would cost an 

estimated $8,444 to the industry and an 

estimated $15,988 to the government for 

review and approval of the course in the 

first year. Course providers would need 

to seek a renewal of their course approval in year 6, resulting in $1,044 in 

costs to course providers and $14,029 in 

costs to the Coast Guard. Estimated 

cost savings would come from applicants for towing vessel master or mate 

(pilot) endorsements spending fewer 

hours in training and less money on tuition, resulting in an estimated $123,598 

in annual cost savings discounted at 7% 

in 2020 dollars. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48931 

15https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NMC/pdfs/ 

courses/courses.pdf lists all courses approved by 

the Coast Guard. There are 91 course providers 

approved to offer basic firefighting courses. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO 46 CFR 11.201 AND PROPOSED IMPACTS—Continued 

Section Proposed changes in 

regulatory text Description of change Impact 

11.201(h)(3)(iv)(B) ................. (B) To increase in scope to Great Lakes, 

near-coastal or oceans, the applicant will 

be required to complete the firefighting 

course appropriate to the route sought.

This proposed change is a rewording of 

existing § 11.201(h)(4) to make the text 

of § 11.201(h) easier to read. 

While this new clause is a restatement of 

the requirements currently existing in 

§ 11.201(h)(4), there could be a cost impact because mariners could apply for 

an endorsement for inland waters or 

Western Rivers with a modified basic inland waters and Western Rivers towing 

vessel firefighting course approved 

under § 11.201(h)(3)(iv)(A), and later request an increase in scope requiring the 

mariner to complete an additional basic 

firefighting course. Because the mariner 

would need to take the basic firefighting 

course, they would spend approximately 

$553.38 on the tuition for the course. 

Additionally, they would spend 16 hours 

taking the course, and the travel time to 

get to and from the course. However, 

the Coast Guard cannot forecast who 

would seek an increase in scope or how 

frequently this would occur. 

11.201(l) ................................ (l) Restrictions. The Coast Guard may 

modify the service, training, and examination requirements in this part to satisfy the unique qualification requirements 

of an applicant or distinct group of mariners. The Coast Guard may also lower 

the age requirement for OUPV applicants. The authority granted by an officer endorsement will be restricted to reflect any modifications made under the 

authority of this paragraph.

The addition of the word ‘‘training’’ in this 

paragraph would allow the Coast Guard 

to modify the training requirements 

based on the unique qualification requirements of a group of mariners, 

which we have not previously done. 

Without the addition of the word ‘‘training’’, 

the Coast Guard would not be able to 

modify training requirements for specific 

groups of mariners based on their 

unique qualifications and the cost savings proposed here would not be attainable. The addition also permits the 

Coast Guard, in the future, to modify 

training requirements for other specific 

groups of mariners. We do not intend to 

modify other training requirements at 

this time. As such, we do not estimate 

any costs or cost savings from this proposed change. 

Affected Population 

This proposed rule would have two 

affected populations: (1) Course 

providers who would offer a modified 

basic firefighting course; and (2) 

applicants for MMC endorsements as a 

master of towing vessels (limited) or 

mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland 

waters or Western Rivers routes. We 

first estimated the number of course 

providers who may submit a modified 

basic firefighting course to the Coast 

Guard for approval, and then estimated 

the number of applicants who may 

apply for an endorsement as master of 

towing vessels (limited) or mate (pilot) 

of towing vessels operating on inland 

waters or Western Rivers. 

The Coast Guard does not know how 

many course providers would request 

approval for a modified basic 

firefighting course. However, since this 

course would be a modified form of the 

basic firefighting course, we assume that 

only course providers who already teach 

a firefighting course would take 

advantage of the opportunity provided 

by this proposal. Currently, there are 91 

course providers approved to offer a 

basic firefighting course.15 Historically, 

the number of course providers does not 

significantly change on an annual basis. 

Therefore, we expect that the course 

providers who would offer a modified 

firefighting course would be from these 

91 course providers. 

A subject matter expert (SME) from 

the Coast Guard’s Office of Merchant 

Mariner Credentialing with extensive 

experience involving regular contact 

with maritime course providers and 

towing vessel operating companies 

reviewed publicly available materials 

from these 91 providers and rated each 

on how likely they would be to request 

approval of a modified basic firefighting 

course. Our SME considered the types 

of courses offered by each provider, 

their facilities, geographic location(s), 

and the segment of the industry their 

clientele work in. The SME rated each 

course provider as either 0 percent, 25 

percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, or 100 

percent likely to request approval of a 

modified basic firefighting course. 

Across the 91 course providers with an 

approved basic firefighting course, we 

rated 56 of them as having no likelihood 

of requesting approval to offer a 

modified firefighting course because our 

SME’s review indicated that they are 

unlikely to serve the inland towing 

population. Our SME estimates that 35 

providers would request course 

approval of a modified firefighting 

course. Among these 35 providers, our 

SME estimates that the average 

likelihood to request approval to offer a 

modified basic firefighting course would 

be 65 percent. Multiplying 35 by 65 

percent yields 23, rounded, or our 

estimate for the number of training 

providers likely to offer a modified 

firefighting course. 

The Coast Guard requests comments 

on our estimate of 23 course providers 

who may request Coast Guard approval 

of a modified basic firefighting course or 

any additional data that we could use to 

inform and refine our estimate. 

Applicants for a national officer 

endorsement as master of towing vessels 

(limited) or mate (pilot) of towing 

vessels on inland water or Western 

Rivers who take a modified course 

would realize a cost savings by taking a 

shorter, less expensive firefighting 

course. As discussed in section IV of 

this preamble, the Coast Guard issued a 

final rule in 2013 requiring mariners 

seeking national officer endorsements as 

master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels 

on routes other than oceans to complete 

a Coast Guard-approved basic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48932 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

16See 78 FR 77796. 

17Current Coast Guard NVICs can be found at: 

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/NVIC/ 

Year/2010/. The NVIC was updated in September 

2020 and the discussion about grandfathering was 

removed because the grandfathering period has 

expired. The original NVIC was published June 23, 

2016 and can be found here: https://

beta.regulations.gov/document/USCG-2016-0611- 

0001. 

18Coast Guard SMEs estimate that nearly all 

master or mate (pilot) applicants would have begun 

sea service prior to March 24, 2014. 

19 Data from the Coast Guard’s Marine 

Information for Safety and Law Enforcement 

database from October, 2019. 46 CFR subchapter M 

requires all towing vessels greater than 26 feet and 

those that transport hazardous materials to be 

inspected. The Coast Guard has not fully 

implemented the 46 CFR subchapter M 

requirements, which is why not all affected towing 

vessels have been inspected. 

20 45 divided by 900 equals .05 or 5 percent of 

inspected towing vessels listing an inland waters, 

Western Rivers, or Great Lakes route operate on the 

Great Lakes. 

firefighting course.16 Prior to the 2013 

final rule, only masters and mates 

(pilots) of towing vessels serving on an 

ocean route were required to complete 

firefighting training. 

The 2013 final rule established 

grandfathering provisions for which the 

Coast Guard provided guidance in 

Navigation and Vessel Inspection 

Circular (NVIC) 03–16, titled 

‘‘Guidelines for Credentialing Officers of 

Towing Vessels.’’ 17 As described in 

Enclosure 10 of NVIC 03–16, the Coast 

Guard grandfathered in mariners 

applying for an original MMC endorsed 

as master or mate (pilot) of towing 

vessels on non-oceans routes who began 

sea service prior to March 24, 2014 and 

submitted an application prior to March 

24, 2019. The grandfathering provisions 

established that applicants for original 

master or mate (pilot) endorsements on 

non-oceans routes prior to March 24, 

2019 were not required to take a 

firefighting course.18

Mariners raising the grade of their 

MMC endorsement from mate (pilot) to 

master of towing vessels were also 

grandfathered in under NVIC 03–16, 

and were not required to take a 

firefighting course. As a result of the 

grandfathering provisions, this proposal 

would be applicable to new applicants 

for master of towing vessels (limited) or 

mate (pilot) of towing vessels 

endorsements who choose to take a 

modified basic firefighting course. 

In order to qualify for an MMC 

endorsement as master of towing 

vessels, other than master of towing 

vessels (limited), an applicant must 

have prior sea service experience as 

either a mate (pilot) of towing vessels or 

a master of vessels greater than 200 

gross register tons (GRT). In order to 

hold the endorsement authorizing 

service in either of these capacities 

would have required the applicant to 

either take a firefighting course or be 

grandfathered in under NVIC 03–16. As 

a result, this proposed rule does not 

impact applicants for an endorsement as 

master of towing vessels other than 

master of towing vessels (limited). 

Masters of towing vessels (limited) do 

not require prior sea service as a master 

or mate of vessels greater than 200 GRT. 

Therefore, this proposed rule would 

affect applicants for endorsements of 

inland master of towing vessels 

(limited) if they do not have a prior 

endorsement as a mate (pilot) that 

required a firefighting course. Two 

towing vessel endorsement applicant 

groups are thus affected by this rule: (1) 

Mate (pilot) of towing vessels, and (2) 

master of towing vessels (limited) with 

no prior endorsement as a mate (pilot). 

The Coast Guard’s National Maritime 

Center (NMC) issues MMCs to 

applicants who meet the regulatory 

requirements for endorsements 

described in 46 CFR parts 11, 12, and 

13. Applicants for endorsements as 

master and mate (pilot) of towing 

vessels may be endorsed to operate on 

oceans, near coastal, Great Lakes and 

inland waters, or Western Rivers routes. 

The Merchant Mariner Licensing and 

Documentation (MMLD) database is 

used by the NMC to issue MMCs and 

maintain records of U.S. merchant 

mariners. Data was obtained from the 

MMLD, for the period between 2015– 

2019, on each issuance of an original 

master or mate (pilot) of towing vessel 

endorsement, including when the 

endorsement was issued, and the 

authorized routes of operation. 

We excluded applicants for Great 

Lakes, near-coastal, or oceans routes, 

because applicants for those 

endorsements on those routes are 

required to complete basic firefighting 

and would not be affected by the rule. 

Currently, Great Lakes and inland 

waters are issued as one route for 

towing vessel endorsements. With this 

proposed rule, language would be added 

to allow the separation of these two 

routes so that a mariner who completes 

the modified basic firefighting course 

could be issued an endorsement valid 

for inland waters or Western Rivers. 

Because towing vessel endorsements are 

currently issued for Great Lakes and 

inland routes, the Coast Guard cannot 

directly estimate from the MMLD data 

the number of masters and mate (pilots) 

of towing vessels operating exclusively 

on the inland waters. However, we can 

estimate the number of towing vessels 

that operate on these waters based on 

data from towing vessel inspection 

records. 

As of October 2019, 1,265 towing 

vessels have been inspected, out of an 

estimated 5,770 46 CFR subchapter M 

vessels.19 When vessels are inspected, 

they must declare their operating route, 

which may include the Great Lakes, 

inland waters and Western Rivers. 

In order to isolate the vessels 

operating on the Great Lakes, we first 

reviewed the number of vessels that 

operate on the Great Lakes, inland 

waters or Western Rivers, and then 

examined the number of vessels that list 

the Great Lakes as at least one of their 

routes. Specifically, out of the 1,265 

total towing vessels inspected under 46 

CFR subchapter M, 900 are recorded as 

one or more of the following routes: 

Great Lakes, inland waters, or Western 

Rivers. Five percent, or 45 of the 900 

vessels, include the Great Lakes as one 

of their listed routes and, therefore, 

would require basic firefighting training, 

since they may operate on the Great 

Lakes. The remaining 95 percent, or 855 

vessels, do not include the Great Lakes 

as one of their listed routes and, 

therefore, we assume mariners serving 

on these vessels are eligible to take the 

modified basic firefighting course.20

Table 3 shows the number of 

endorsements issued from 2016–2020 

for master of towing vessels (limited) 

and mate (pilot) of towing vessels, 

respectively, endorsed to operate on the 

Great Lakes, inland waters, or Western 

Rivers routes. While we report the 

number of endorsements issued in 2020 

in the table below, we intentionally 

exclude 2020 when calculating the 

average number of master (limited) and 

mate (pilot) towing vessel endorsements 

each year because of the exceptional 

impact the COVID–19 pandemic on all 

facets of the U.S. economy. We therefore 

do not believe the number of 

endorsements issued in 2020 represents 

a typical year, and that many 

individuals that might ordinarily have 

pursued an endorsement did not 

because of the general slowdown in 

business associated with the pandemic. 

On average between 2016 and 2019, the 

Coast Guard has issued 13 master of 

towing vessels (limited) and 450 mate 

(pilot) of towing vessels endorsements 

per year, for a total of 463 new 

endorsements per year on Great Lakes, 

inland waters, and/or Western Rivers 

routes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48933 

21 463 multiplied by 0.95 equals 440, rounded. 

22 Information provided by an SME from the 

Coast Guard’s NMC. We request comment on how 

long it would take to develop and submit the course 

approvals, and what wages those who develop the 

course approval would be paid. 

23https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/ 

oes131151.htm. 

24 Data on the employer cost of compensation was 

sourced from the ‘‘Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation’’ one screen data search. We 

searched for both the total compensation and the 

wages and salaries of private industry workers in 

the ‘‘Educational Services Industry’’ yielding BLS 

series CMU2016100000000D for total compensation 

and series CMU2026100000000D for wages. To 

derive the cost of compensation per hour worked, 

the Coast Guard first took the average of the four 

quarters of total compensation or $47.34 and the 

average of the four quarters of wages and salaries 

of $33.92, rounded. We then divided the total 

compensation amount of $47.34 by the wage and 

salary amount of $33.92 to obtain the load factor of 

about 1.4 for ‘‘Educational Services’’ occupations, 

rounded (47.34 divided by 33.92 equals 1.4, 

rounded). To load the wage, the Coast Guard 

multiplied the estimated hourly wage of $32.43 by 

the loaded wage factor of 1.4 yielding $45.40, 

rounded, which accounts for the total cost of 

compensation per hour of work (32.43 multiplied 

by 1.4 equals 45.40). 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF NEW GREAT LAKES, WESTERN RIVERS, AND/OR INLAND WATERS MATE (PILOT) AND

MASTERS (LIMITED) ENDORSEMENTS ISSUED PER YEAR * 

Year Mate (pilot) 

applicants 

Masters 

(limited) 

with no mate 

(pilot) 

endorsement 

2016 ................................................................................................................................................................. 615 19 

2017 ................................................................................................................................................................. 512 17 

2018 ................................................................................................................................................................. 372 10 

2019 ................................................................................................................................................................. 300 6 

2020 ................................................................................................................................................................. 128 2 

Average ............................................................................................................................................................ 450 13 

* Numbers may not add due to rounding, and 2020 numbers are not included in the average. 

As seen in Table 3, the number of 

individuals applying for an 

endorsement as mate (pilot) of towing 

vessels has been declining. The Coast 

Guard does not know specifically why 

fewer individuals have applied for an 

endorsement as mate (pilot) of towing 

vessels. It may be associated with 

grandfathering provisions provided in 

the 2013 final rule, which established 

grandfathering provisions for master 

and mate (pilots) of towing vessels. The 

2013 final rule may have caused 

applicants for master of towing vessels 

(limited) and mate (pilot) of towing 

vessels endorsements to seek an MMC 

earlier than they may have otherwise in 

order to be grandfathered under the 

existing regulations. Additionally, the 

introduction of 46 CFR subchapter M in 

2016 may have led to a contraction in 

the industry. In either case, the Coast 

Guard believes carrying forward the 

current decline has been more severe 

than fundamentals would suggest, so we 

expect the number of applicants to level 

off. The Coast Guard therefore utilizes 

the four-year average of the number of 

new towing vessel mate applicants, 450, 

and the four-year average of the number 

of limited masters, 13, to estimate that 

463 mariners that apply to the Coast 

Guard to be endorsed to operate on the 

Great Lakes, Western rivers, or inland 

waters each year. We request comment 

on this methodology and how many 

applicants might seek an inland towing 

mate or limited master endorsement in 

the coming years. 

Applying the percentage of vessels 

that do not operate on the Great Lakes 

(95 percent) to the estimated 463 annual 

new endorsements yields an estimated 

440 new endorsements as mate (pilot) of 

towing vessels or master of towing 

vessels (limited) operating in inland 

waters or Western Rivers per year, 

rounded.21

Costs 

The modified basic firefighting course 

for towing vessels on inland waters and 

Western Rivers would be a modified 

version of the basic firefighting course. 

Mariners are required to take a 

firefighting course, and this proposed 

rule would permit some mariners to 

take the modified basic firefighting 

course in lieu of the longer basic 

firefighting course. As such, this rule 

presents no additional costs to mariners 

who will continue to operate on inland 

waters and Western Rivers. 

Before mariners could save hours 

spent in training and the tuition for a 

basic firefighting course by taking a 

modified basic firefighting course, 

course providers would first need to 

obtain Coast Guard approval for the 

modified basic firefighting course. 

Course providers submit course 

approval requests to the NMC in 

accordance with the requirements of 46 

CFR part 10, subpart D. The NMC would 

then evaluate the course to ensure the 

content demonstrates comprehensive 

coverage of the firefighting knowledge 

and competency requirements of the 

training. If the course submission does 

not require edits or revisions, and is 

approved as submitted, the Coast Guard 

estimates that it would take a training 

specialist at a course provider 6 hours 

to develop and submit a request for 

course approval of a modified basic 

firefighting course.22 We used the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

National-Industry-Specific 

Occupational Employment and Wage 

Estimates for May 2020 ‘‘Training and 

Development Specialists’’ category to 

estimate the wages for the employees 

who would prepare and submit the 

course for Coast Guard approval, as 

these employees ‘‘design and conduct 

training and development programs to 

improve individual and organization 

performance.’’ 23 The BLS estimates a 

training and development specialist’s 

mean hourly wages at $32.43. We then 

applied a load factor to account for nonwage compensation and benefits, 

resulting in a fully loaded hourly wage 

of $45.40.24

If the submission does not require a 

request for additional information to 

supplement the course approval request, 

the Coast Guard estimates that a Federal 

government employee, at a grade level 

of a GS–7, would take 1 hour to process 

the receipt of the course approval 

submission. One Federal employee, at a 

grade level of a GS–13, would spend 4 

hours evaluating the course approval 

request; another Federal employee, at a 

grade level of GS–13, would spend 0.5 

hours reviewing the course; and a fourth 

Federal employee, also at a grade level 

of GS–13, would spend 0.5 hours 

conducting a final review of the course. 

In total, the Coast Guard would spend 

1 hour of GS–7 time and 5 hours of GS– 

13 time per course approval request, if 

the submission does not require a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48934 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

25https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/ 

pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/20Tables/ 

html/DCB_h.aspx. 

26Congressional Budget Office (2017), 

‘‘Comparing the Compensation of Federal and 

Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015,’’ https://

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

2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf. 

27 $64.80 divided by 38.30. 

28 Information provided by an SME from the 

Coast Guard’s NMC. 

29 23 * 37% = 8, rounded. 

request for additional information to 

supplement the course approval request. 

The impacted employees work in the 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DCMD-VA-WV-PA area. The Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) lists the 

hourly pay for Federal employees in the 

Washington, DC area according to the 

Washington, DC General Schedule (GS) 

pay tables.25 We estimate that the 

impacted employees would, on average, 

be at a step 5 pay, because that is the 

midpoint of the pay band. OPM records 

the hourly pay of GS–7, step 5 

employees as $26.43, and records the 

hourly pay of GS–13, step 5 employees 

as $55.75. These wages are not fully 

loaded, meaning they do not account for 

associated benefits. 

To account for the value of benefits to 

government employees, we first 

calculate the share of total 

compensation of Federal employees 

accounted for by wages. The 

Congressional Budget Office (2017) 

reports total compensation to Federal 

employees as $64.80 per hour and 

wages as $38.30.26 This implies that 

total compensation is 1.69 times the 

average wages.27 We can, therefore, 

calculate the fully loaded wage rate for 

the GS–7 and GS–13 hourly wage rates 

by multiplying by 1.69, yielding $44.67 

and $94.22, respectively. 

All 23 course providers that may offer 

a modified basic firefighting course 

must submit a course approval request 

to the Coast Guard for evaluation. We 

estimate the costs of this initial 

submission to industry and the Coast 

Guard in table 4. 

TABLE 4—COSTS DUE TO INITIAL COURSE APPROVAL APPLICATIONS

Employee type 

Fully 

loaded 

wage 

Number of 

course 

providers 

Hours Total cost 

[A] [B] [C] [A * B * C] 

Industry Cost ........................................................ Training Specialist ........ $45.4 23 6 $6,265 

Government Cost ................................................. GS–7 ............................. 44.67 23 1 1,027 

Government Cost ................................................. GS–13 ........................... 94.22 23 5 10,835 

Total Government Cost ................................. ....................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 11,862 

Total Cost ............................................... ....................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ $18,127 

It is common for course providers to 

submit insufficient supporting 

information with a course approval 

request to the Coast Guard. When this 

occurs, the Coast Guard will request 

additional information from the course 

provider. We reviewed new course 

approval submissions over 3 years 

(2018–2020) to determine how likely it 

is for a course provider to submit a 

course approval request without the 

Coast Guard requesting additional 

information. We report the total number 

of course approval applications received 

and the number of course approval 

applications that require additional 

information in table 5. We estimate that 

course providers include insufficient 

information in their application packet 

37 percent of the time. 

TABLE 5—COURSE APPROVAL REQUESTS RECEIVED WITH INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION

Year Course approval 

requests received 

Course approval 

requests received 

with insufficient 

information 

Percent of course 

approval requests 

with insufficient 

information 

2018 ........................................................................................................................... 944 362 38 

2019 ........................................................................................................................... 768 335 44 

2020 ........................................................................................................................... 699 199 28 

Total .................................................................................................................... 2,411 896 37 

When course providers submit a 

course approval request with 

insufficient information, the Coast 

Guard would request that the course 

providers revise their course request 

and resubmit. The Coast Guard 

estimates that both the course provider 

and the Coast Guard would spend an 

equal number of hours on each 

resubmittal as they would on the initial 

submission. In other words, the course 

provider would spend 6 hours on an 

initial approval request and 6 hours on 

the resubmittal, for 12 hours total, and 

the Coast Guard would spend 1 GS–7 

hour and 5 GS–13 hours on the initial 

request, and 1 GS–7 hour and 5 GS–13 

hours on the resubmittal, for 2 GS–7 

hours and 10 GS–13 hours total.28 We 

request comment on how long it would 

take to develop and submit a course 

approval request and the wages that 

would be paid to those who develop the 

course materials and submit the 

approval request to the Coast Guard. 

Thus, the Coast Guard estimates that 

37 percent of the course providers, or 8 

course providers,29 would submit the 

request for course approval with 

insufficient information, requiring a 

second submission taking 6 hours to 

prepare for submission to the Coast 

Guard. Similarly, the Federal 

government would spend an additional 

1 hour at grade level GS–7 and 5 hours 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48935 

30Numbers may not add due to rounding. 31According to SMEs from the Coast Guard’s 

Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing. 

at grade level GS–13 to review the 

information resubmitted for the course 

approval request. We estimate the costs 

of modified firefighting course 

approvals resubmissions in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF RESUBMISSION COSTS FOR MODIFIED FIREFIGHTING TRAINING COURSES

Employee type 

Hourly 

burdened 

wage 

Number of 

course 

providers 

Average hours Total cost 30

[A] [B] [C] [A * B * C] 

Industry Cost ........................................................ Training Specialist ........ $45.40 8 6 $2,179 

Government Cost ................................................. GS–7 ............................. 44.67 8 1 357 

Government Cost ................................................. GS–13 ........................... 94.22 8 5 3,769 

Total Government Cost ................................. ....................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 4,126 

Total Cost ............................................... ....................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ $6,305 

We estimate the total costs to course 

providers from initial applications and 

any resubmissions to be approximately 

$8,444 ($6,265 + $2,179), and the total 

costs to government to be approximately 

$15,988 ($11,862 + $4,126). Together, 

we estimate the costs of evaluating 

approval requests, for the modified 

basic firefighting courses to be $8,444 + 

$15,988, or $24,432. This cost would 

occur during the first year of 

implementation. 

As discussed above, course providers 

would need to seek a renewal every five 

years if they wish to continue to offer 

the course. This course renewal would 

include a submission similar to that 

initially provided to and approved by 

the Coast Guard. Since the Coast Guard 

would have previously reviewed and 

approved the course submission, the 

Coast Guard does not estimate that it 

would take course providers nearly as 

long to prepare all materials for the 

Coast Guard. Specifically, we estimate 

that the same training specialist who 

spent 6 hours on an initial course 

approval request would only spend 1 

hour on a renewal request, and the 

renewal request would be submitted 

without any revisions.31 We further 

estimate that all 23 providers would 

submit a request for renewal of a course 

approval because we do not expect 

turnover in course providers based on a 

review of previous course approval 

renewals. The Coast Guard, however, 

would spend the same amount of time 

reviewing the renewal requests as it 

spent with the initial approval request 

to ensure that the course still meets 

regulatory requirements, or 1 hour of 

GS–7 time and 6 hours of GS–13 time. 

These costs would occur 5 years after 

each approval, or in year 6. We estimate 

the course renewal costs in Table 7. The 

10-year distribution of undiscounted 

and discounted costs from both the 

initial and renewal requests are 

recorded in Table 8. 

TABLE 7—COURSE RENEWAL SUBMISSION COST

Employee type Burdened 

wage 

Number of 

course 

providers 

Hours Total cost 

[A] [B] [C] [A * B * C] 

Industry Cost ........................................................ Training Specialist ........ $45.40 23 1 $1,044 

Government Cost ................................................. GS–7 ............................. 44.67 23 1 $1,027 

Government Cost ................................................. GS–13 ........................... 94.22 23 6 $13,002 

Total Government Cost ................................. ....................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ $14,029 

Total Cost ............................................... ....................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ $15,073 

TABLE 8—DISCOUNTED COSTS OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS IN 2020 DOLLARS DISCOUNTED AT 7% AND 3% 

Year Undiscounted 

costs 

Discounted costs 

7% 3% 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... $24,432 $22,834 $23,721 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 15,073 10,044 12,623 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

9 ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48936 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

32 Data on the price of firefighting training was 

only publicly available for 21 of the 91 approved 

course providers. Some of the course providers are 

private companies that train their own employees, 

some are in schools like the U.S. Naval Academy 

that teach basic firefighting to their own cadets but 

do not separate out the training, and others do not 

appear to offer basic firefighting training despite 

having an approval permitting them to teach it. 

33Master and mates rates were accessed on April 

30, 2021 from: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/ 

oes535021.htm#ind. Sailor and Oiler rates were 

accessed on April 30, 2021 from: https://

www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes535011.htm. For 

both rates the hourly mean wage for the ‘‘Inland 

Water Transportation’’ industry was used as this 

best approximates the wages of towing vessel 

masters, mates, and deckhands. 

34 [($42.39 divided by 3) plus ($24.01 multiplied 

by 2⁄3)] which equals $30.14. 

35 Data on the employer cost of compensation was 

sourced from the ‘‘Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation’’ one screen data search. We 

searched for both the total compensation and the 

wages and salaries of private industry workers in 

the ‘‘Transportation and Warehousing Industry’’ 

yielding BLS series CMU2014300000000D for total 

compensation and series CMU2024300000000D for 

wages. To derive the cost of compensation per hour 

worked, the Coast Guard first took the average of 

the four quarters of total compensation or $40.84 

and the average of the four quarters of wages and 

salaries of $26.56, rounded. We then divided the 

total compensation amount of $40.84 by the wage 

and salary amount of $26.56 to obtain the load 

factor of about 1.54 for ‘‘Transportation and 

Warehousing’’ occupations, rounded ($40.84 

divided by $26.56 equals 1.54, rounded). To load 

the wage, the Coast Guard multiplied the estimated 

hourly wage of $30.14 by the loaded wage factor of 

1.54 yielding $46.42, rounded, which accounts for 

the total cost of compensation per hour of work 

($30.14 multiplied by 1.54 equals $46.42). 

TABLE 8—DISCOUNTED COSTS OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS IN 2020 DOLLARS DISCOUNTED AT 7% AND 3%— 

Continued 

Year Undiscounted 

costs 

Discounted costs 

7% 3% 

10 ..................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 39,505 32,878 36,344 

Annualized ....................................................................................................................... ............................ 4,681 4,261 

Benefits 

The primary benefits of the rule come 

from the cost savings to mariners in 

terms of reduced time spent in training 

and reduced tuition. The modified 

course content would eliminate the 

requirement for training using certain 

firefighting equipment that is not 

required to be carried on towing vessels 

operating on inland waters or Western 

Rivers. Acquiring and maintaining this 

equipment contributes to the cost of the 

basic firefighting course. Therefore, the 

modified basic firefighting course would 

be shorter, and likely less expensive, 

than the basic firefighting course. Thus, 

a mariner would likely prefer to take a 

modified basic firefighting course 

instead of a basic firefighting course. 

Some mariners may prefer to take the 

basic firefighting course if they are 

considering the possibility of working 

on the Great Lakes, near coastal waters, 

or ocean routes in the future. However, 

we do not have data to forecast how 

many of these mariners might opt, in the 

future, to take the longer basic 

firefighting course when they apply for 

the endorsement as master (limited) of 

towing vessels or mate (pilot) of towing 

vessels for inland waters or Western 

Rivers. Because the modified basic 

firefighting course will be shorter, less 

expensive, and located in the same area 

as the basic firefighting course, and 

because only a small portion of mariners 

operate in the Great Lakes (5 percent) 

and we already account for them, we 

assume all mariners eligible to take a 

modified basic firefighting course will 

do so. We request comment on our 

assessment that mariners would prefer a 

modified firefighting course is correct 

and if any mariners would prefer to take 

the longer basic firefighting course. 

The basic firefighting training costs 

$553.38, on average, and lasts 16 

hours.32 The Coast Guard estimates that 

the modified basic firefighting courses 

will be 4 hours shorter than the current 

16-hour basic firefighting course. The 

modified basic firefighting course would 

likely be less expensive than the basic 

firefighting course, because it would 

require fewer resources to host, result in 

less wear and tear on the facility, and 

require fewer hours of an instructor’s 

time. 

In the affected population section, we 

estimate that 440 individuals would 

apply for an MMC endorsement as a 

mate (pilot) of towing vessels or master 

of towing vessels (limited) on inland 

waters or Western Rivers each year, and 

would be eligible to take the modified 

basic firefighting course in lieu of the 

basic firefighting course. Therefore, 

these applicants would save 4 hours of 

their time and the difference in costs 

between the basic firefighting tuition 

and the modified basic firefighting 

course tuition. 

The Coast Guard estimates that these 

440 applicants would be mariners who 

hold an MMC endorsement as 

apprentice mate (steersman), which is a 

position between ordinary seaman and 

mate. The BLS does not have a labor 

category for apprentice mate 

(steersman); however, the BLS 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

National-Industry-Specific 

Occupational Employment and Wage 

Estimates for May 2020 lists the wages 

for both ‘‘Captains, Mates, and Pilots of 

Water Vessels’’ and ‘‘Sailors and Marine 

Oilers.’’ 33 Because an apprentice mate 

(steersman) is a position between 

ordinary seaman and mates, we derive 

their wages by taking a weighted 

average wage of both ‘‘Captains, Mates, 

and Pilots of Water Vessels’’ and 

‘‘Sailors and Marine Oilers’’ operating 

in the ‘‘Inland Water Transportation’’ 

industry. We take a weighted average 

because the duties and responsibilities 

of an apprentice mate (steersman) are 

more similar to that of sailors than they 

are to mates. Consequently, we rate the 

sailor’s wage more heavily than we 

weight the mate’s wage. Specifically, we 

estimate the wage of an apprentice mate 

(steersman) by taking one-third of the 

average mate’s wage ($42.39) and twothirds of the average sailor’s wage 

($24.01), yielding $30.14 per hour, 

rounded.34 We then apply a load factor 

to account for non-wage compensation 

and benefits, which results in a fully 

loaded wage of $46.42.35 Therefore, we 

estimate the annual undiscounted cost 

savings for taking shorter courses to be 

about $81,699 [(440 endorsements × 4 

(the number of hours saved) × $46.42 

(the burdened wage)]. 

Applicants for MMC endorsements as 

mate (pilot) of towing vessels and 

master of towing vessel (limited) would 

also save the difference between the 

tuition for the less expensive, modified 

basic firefighting course and the basic 

firefighting course. If we use the tuition 

for the basic firefighting course, 

$553.38, as the cost of 16 hours of 

firefighting instruction, then 12 hours of 

instruction would be $415.04, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48937 

36 553.38 multiplied by 12/16 equals 415.04. 

37 553.38—415.04 = 138.34 and 138.34 × 440 = 

60,870, rounded. 

38We request public comments regarding the 

accuracy of this estimated reduction in course fees 

and if a different methodology would be more 

appropriate to estimate the reduction in course fees. 

rounded.36 We request public comment 

on whether or not the tuition would 

decrease proportionally to the reduction 

in the number of hours of instruction. 

The cost savings for the modified basic 

firefighting course due to reduced 

tuition would be $138.34 or $60,870 

total, rounded.37 In total, applicants for 

mate (pilot) of towing vessels and 

master of towing vessels (limited) on 

inland waters or Western Rivers routes 

would save $142,569 per year—$81,699 

from reduced hours spent in courses 

and $60,870 from reduced tuition fees.38

Because courses must be Coast Guardapproved before they can be offered to 

mariners, and developing a new course 

and obtaining approval from the Coast 

Guard can be a lengthy process, we 

assume that a modified firefighting 

course would not be available within 

the first year. We show the 10-year 

distribution of cost savings in table 9. 

TABLE 9—DISCOUNTED COST SAVINGS OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS IN 2020 DOLLARS AT 7% AND 3% 

Year Undiscounted 

cost savings 

Discounted cost savings 

7% 3% 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... $0 $0 $0 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 124,525 134,385 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 116,379 130,471 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 108,765 126,671 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 101,650 122,981 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 95,000 119,399 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 88,785 115,922 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 82,976 112,545 

9 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 77,548 109,267 

10 ..................................................................................................................................... 142,569 72,475 106,085 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 1,283,121 868,103 1,077,726 

Annualized ....................................................................................................................... ............................ 123,598 126,342 

Unquantified Benefits of the Proposed 

Rule 

We have no data to quantify any 

change in benefits, other than cost 

savings, that might result from 

providing an option to mariners to take 

a firefighting course more closely 

tailored to the type of equipment they 

would find on the vessels they serve on. 

Analysis of Alternatives 

In addition to our preferred 

alternative, discussed throughout the 

remainder of this regulatory analysis, 

we considered three additional 

alternatives: 

(1) No action, or maintaining the 

requirement that masters and mate 

(pilots) of towing vessels be required to 

take a basic firefighting course. With 

this alternative, industry would not 

benefit from a shorter, modified basic 

firefighting course. Therefore, there 

would be no cost savings. We rejected 

the no-action alternative because it 

would not create cost savings for 

mariners seeking an endorsement for 

master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels 

on inland waters or Western Rivers. 

(2) We also considered an alternative 

from a comment submitted during our 

request for feedback, discussed earlier 

in this NPRM. This commenter 

recommended that the Coast Guard 

eliminate the approved training 

requirement and rely instead on drills 

required by existing regulations to 

ensure mariner competence in 

firefighting. Proponents of this 

alternative are likely to argue that the 

absence of a training requirement could 

lead to cost savings from no longer 

traveling to, paying for or spending time 

in the training. However, the Coast 

Guard believes this alternative contains 

a number of serious drawbacks. First, as 

noted earlier in this NPRM, firefighting 

training ensures that mariners have 

basic firefighting skills that allow for the 

quick extinguishment of small fires that 

could otherwise spread and lead to 

property damage and personnel injury 

or death. Without the training, the Coast 

Guard cannot be sure that mariners 

would have the necessary skills to 

combat fires should they occur on 

vessels. Second, instructors in courses 

that are approved by the Coast Guard 

are required to have experience or 

training in effectively delivering course 

material. Third, the content of company 

managed training and drills would 

likely be much less intensive and 

exhaustive than what course providers 

will offer. Firefighting courses will 

include live fire exercises and practical 

experience identifying potential fire 

hazards and extinguishing live fires. As 

part of approved training, these types of 

activities take place in a controlled 

environment, allowing students to meet 

learning objectives while keeping them 

safe from the associated hazards. These 

practical exercises cannot be carried out 

on an operational vessel. While 

individuals no longer being required to 

take a firefighting course may view this 

as a benefit via cost savings, the Coast 

Guard views this as unacceptably 

decreasing the quality of firefighting 

skills and decreasing the safety of the 

inland waters and Western Rivers 

towing vessel fleet. 

Taken together, these three features 

would lower the safety and 

preparedness of the inland waters and 

Western Rivers towing vessel fleet 

substantially. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard rejected this alternative. 

(3) The third alternative we 

considered was permitting firefighting 

training specific to inland waters and 

Western Rivers towing vessels, but 

requiring the new training to have the 

same 16 hours of coursework and cover 

additional topics and situations 

common to inland waters and Western 

Rivers towing vessels not previously 

required by regulation. While the 

addition of topics for training could be 

beneficial, the Coast Guard has no data 

or feedback to support its impact on 

safety. Additionally, the Coast Guard 

believes course providers would have 

little incentive to undergo the expense 

of developing a firefighting course that 

would not provide cost savings to 

mariners. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48938 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

39 In the Affected Population section, we 

estimated that 23 providers would most likely be 

impacted by this rule based on their location and 

other factors. While we estimated that 23 providers 

would be most likely impacted, we identified 35 

providers that might offer a modified basic 

firefighting course. For the purposes of the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, and because we did 

not know with certainty which of the 35 course 

providers would be impacted, we reviewed the 

potential costs to any of 35 entities to see if this rule 

would be likely to have a substantial impact on 

small entities. These 35 course providers are listed 

in in a document which is available in the docket 

where indicated under the ADDRESSES portion of the 

preamble (See Table A1: Basic Firefighting Course 

Providers, Course Cost, and Likelihood to Offer a 

Modified Basic Firefighting Course). 

Both courses would occur over 2 

days. In the 16-hour course suggested by 

this alternative, the mariner would 

likely experience a cost savings from 

reduced tuition because there would be 

fewer equipment needs used for the 

training; however, we do not have a way 

to estimate the size of this reduction in 

fees. This reduction in fees would 

almost certainly be less than the 

reduction in fees for a 12-hour course 

instead of a 16-hour course, because the 

instructors would spend less time in 

class. Additionally, a 16-hour course 

would not result in the cost savings 

from the 4-hour reduced training 

duration, estimated at $92,381 annually. 

As a result, the Coast Guard rejected this 

alternative because it did not lead to the 

highest cost savings. 

Net Cost Savings 

As documented above, there would be 

costs to course providers and the Coast 

Guard, and cost savings to mariners who 

would have the option to complete a 

modified basic firefighting course. Table 

10 presents the net cost savings to 

industry and the Government over a 10- 

year period of analysis, in 2019 dollars. 

Net cost savings are expressed as 

negative numbers in the first year due 

to the absence of cost savings. 

TABLE 10—DISCOUNTED NET COST SAVINGS OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS IN 2020 DOLLARS AT 7% AND 3% 

Year Undiscounted 

cost savings 

Discounted cost savings 

7% 3% 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... ¥$24,432 ¥$22,834 ¥$23,721 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 124,525 134,385 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 116,379 130,471 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 108,765 126,671 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 101,650 122,981 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 127,496 84,956 106,776 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 88,785 115,922 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 82,976 112,545 

9 ....................................................................................................................................... 142,569 77,548 109,267 

10 ..................................................................................................................................... 142,569 72,475 106,085 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 1,243,616 835,225 1,041,382 

Annualized ....................................................................................................................... ............................ 118,917 122,082 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000 people. 

As described in section VI. A. of this 

preamble, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, there would be two affected 

populations: (1) Course providers who 

develop and submit a course to the 

Coast Guard for approval, and (2) 

applicants for mate (pilot) of towing 

vessels or master of towing vessels 

(limited) operating on inland waters or 

Western Rivers. Applicants are 

individuals and not entities; as such, the 

second affected population does not 

contain any small entities. 

Of the 91 course providers approved 

to offer a basic firefighting course, the 

Coast Guard identified 35 course 

providers who might submit requests for 

course approval to teach a modified 

firefighting course.39 Of these 35 

providers: 

• 13 are public agencies, none of 

which are classified as small entities; 

• 4 are non-profit organizations, and 

all 4 are classified as small entities; 

• 18 are private companies. Of these, 

4 are not classified as small businesses, 

8 are classified as small businesses, and 

6 could not be classified because 

information could not be found on those 

6 businesses. We classify those 6 

businesses, where information could not 

be found, as small entities. 

In total, we classified 18 of 35 entities 

as small entities. Table 11 lists the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes and size 

standards used to determine whether or 

not entities are small and the numbers 

of small entities. 

TABLE 11—SIZE STANDARDS AND THE AFFECTED ENTITIES

NAICS U.S. industry title NAICS code Size standard Number of 

entities 

Number of 

small 

entities 

Small Government Jurisdiction ....................... N/A ‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts with a population of less 

than 50,000.’’.

13 0 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48939 

40See footnote 24 for a calculation of the 

burdened wage rate for training and development 

specialists. 6 hours × $47.66 per hour is $285.96, 

while 12 hours × $47.66 per hour is $571.92 

41 $571.92 divided by .01 equals $57,192 

42We were not able to identify revenue 

information for the 4 nonprofit small entities and 

for 6 firms we identified as small. 

TABLE 11—SIZE STANDARDS AND THE AFFECTED ENTITIES—Continued 

NAICS U.S. industry title NAICS code Size standard Number of 

entities 

Number of 

small 

entities 

Small Organization .......................................... N/A ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not 

dominant in its field.’’.

4 4 

Crude Petroleum Extraction ............................ 211120 1250 employees ............................................. 1 0 

Inland Water Freight Transportation ............... 483211 750 employees ............................................... 1 1 

Inland Water Passenger Transportation ......... 483212 500 employees ............................................... 1 0 

Navigational Services to Shipping .................. 488330 $41.5 million in revenue ................................. 2 1 

Human Resources Consulting Services ......... 541612 $16.5 million in revenue ................................. 1 1 

Business and Secretarial Schools .................. 611410 $8 million in revenue ...................................... 1 1 

Other Technical and Trade Schools ............... 611519 $16.5 million in revenue ................................. 3 3 

Sports and Recreation Instruction .................. 611620 $8 million in revenue ...................................... 1 1 

Ambulance Services ....................................... 621910 $16.5 million in revenue ................................. 1 0 

Firms Where the Industry Could not be Identified.N/A N/A ................................................................. 6 6 

Total ......................................................... ........................ ......................................................................... 35 18 

As shown in the Costs section of this 

Regulatory Analysis, we estimate that it 

takes either 6 hours to prepare and 

submit a course approval request for a 

modified basic firefighting course or 12 

hours if the course approval request 

requires additional information and 

resubmission. A training and 

development specialist’s time is valued 

at a burdened rate of $45.40, for a total 

cost of either $272.40, or $544.80.40 For 

this proposed rule to impose a 

significant impact on a small entity, the 

impact would have to be greater than 1 

percent (.01) of a small entity’s annual 

revenue. That is, in order for this 

proposed rule to have a significant 

economic impact on an entity, the 

entity’s annual revenue would have to 

be less than $54,480.41 Out of the 8 

small entities for which we had revenue 

information, none had annual revenue 

under $54,480. Table 12 indicates the 

distribution of revenue impacts for the 

small entities for which we were able to 

identify revenue information.42

TABLE 12—DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE IMPACTS

Percent of revenue impact Average annual 

impact 

Small entities 

with known 

revenue 

Portion of small 

entities with 

known revenue 

<1% .................................................................................................................................. 544.80 8 100 

1–3% ................................................................................................................................ 544.80 0 0 

>3% .................................................................................................................................. 544.80 0 0 

Therefore, based on this analysis, the 

Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment to the docket 

at the address listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble. In your 

comment, explain why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this proposed rule would economically 

affect it. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 

121, we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

the person in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

proposed rule. The Coast Guard will not 

retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 

1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

D. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for a 

change to the existing information 

collection (OMB Control Number 1625– 

0028) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. As 

defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ‘‘collection 

of information’’ comprises reporting, 

recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, 

labeling, and other similar actions. The 

title and description of the information 

collections, a description of those who 

must collect the information, and an 

estimate of the total annual burden 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48940 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

follow. The estimate covers the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing sources of data, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the 

collection. 

Title: Course Approval and Records 

for Merchant Marine Training Schools 

OMB Control Number: 1625–0028. 

Summary of the Modification to the 

Collection of Information: This 

proposed rule would allow course 

providers to offer a new course 

approved under 46 CFR 10.402 and 

10.403 by permitting inland waters and 

Western Rivers towing vessel master 

and mate (pilot) applicants to take a 

modified course in lieu of a basic 

firefighting course. 

Need for information: The Coast 

Guard will need to receive a course 

approval submission from each course 

provider in order to approve each 

course provider’s new modified basic 

inland waters and Western Rivers 

towing vessel firefighting course. 

Proposed Use of the Information: The 

collection of information is intended to 

ensure that course providers meet the 

regulatory requirements for the courses 

that they offer. 

Description of the Respondents: The 

respondents are course providers 

wishing to offer a modified basic inland 

waters and Western Rivers towing 

vessel firefighting course. 

Number of Respondents: The Coast 

Guard estimates that there will not be 

any additional respondents, because the 

course providers who would request 

approval of a modified basic inland 

waters and Western Rivers towing 

vessel firefighting course would already 

have other courses approved by the 

Coast Guard. As such, the Coast Guard 

expects there will be no additional 

respondents because the respondents 

are already included in the collection of 

information. Out of the 315 current 

annual respondents for OMB Control 

Number 1625–0028, 91 are currently 

approved to offer a basic firefighting 

course. Based on information provided 

by an SME from the Coast Guard’s 

Office of Merchant Mariner 

Credentialing, we estimate that 23 of the 

91 course providers offering a basic 

firefighting course would likely request 

approval of a modified basic inland 

waters and Western Rivers towing 

vessel firefighting course. 

Frequency of Response: Half the 

course providers would request course 

approval and not need to provide 

additional information, and the other 

half would request course approval and 

need to provide additional information. 

The Coast Guard estimates these 

requests would happen in the first year. 

Therefore, we estimate that there would 

be 35 additional responses from this 

proposed rule (23 initial submissions, 

plus 12 submissions of additional 

information). The current collection of 

information estimates the annual 

number of responses at 3,757; adding 35 

responses brings the total estimated 

number of responses to 3,792. 

Burden of Response: Out of the 35 

responses, the Coast Guard estimates 

that 23 would take 6 hours to request 

approval of a modified basic inland 

waters and Western Rivers towing 

vessel firefighting course because the 

course provider’s submission complies 

with Coast Guard policies and 

regulations. Another 12 responses 

would take an additional 6 hours 

because the course package would need 

to be revised and resubmitted. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: All 

35 responses would take 6 hours to 

complete. As a consequence, the Coast 

Guard estimates that 35 × 6, or 210 

hours, will be incurred by course 

providers in requesting new modified 

basic firefighting course approvals. The 

current collection of information annual 

hour burden is 145,917 hours. Adding 

210 to this annual burden brings the 

total estimated hour burden to 146,127. 

As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we 

will submit a copy of this proposed rule 

to OMB for its review of the collection 

of information. We ask for public 

comment on the proposed revised 

collection of information to help us 

determine, among other things— 

• How useful the information is; 

• Whether the information can help 

us perform our functions better; 

• How we can improve the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the 

information; 

• Whether the information is readily 

available elsewhere; 

• How accurate our estimate is of the 

burden of collection; 

• How valid our methods are for 

determining the burden of collection; 

and 

• How we can minimize the burden 

of collection. 

If you submit comments on the 

collection of information, submit them 

to both to OMB and to the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. 

You need not respond to a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid control number from 

OMB. Before the Coast Guard could 

enforce the collection of information 

requirements in this NPRM, OMB 

would need to approve the Coast 

Guard’s request to collect this 

information. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct 

effect on States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under 

Executive Order 13132 and have 

determined that it is consistent with the 

fundamental federalism principles and 

preemption requirements described in 

Executive Order 13132. Our analysis 

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. 7101 (personnel 

qualifications of officers serving on 

board merchant vessels), and any other 

category in which Congress intended 

the Coast Guard to be the sole source of 

a vessel’s obligations, are within the 

field foreclosed from regulation by the 

States. See, e.g., United States v. Locke, 

529 U.S. 89 (2000) (finding that the 

states are foreclosed from regulating 

tanker vessels) see also Ray v. Atlantic 

Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 157 (1978) 

(state regulation is preempted where 

‘‘the scheme of federal regulation may 

be so pervasive as to make reasonable 

the inference that Congress left no room 

for the States to supplement it [or 

where] the Act of Congress may touch 

a field in which the federal interest is 

so dominant that the federal system will 

be assumed to preclude enforcement of 

state laws on the same subject.’’ 

(citations omitted)). Because this 

proposed rule involves the credentialing 

of merchant mariner 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. Because the 

States may not regulate within this 

category, this proposed rule is 

consistent with the principles of 

federalism and preemption 

requirements 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48941 

43https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ 

publications/DHS_Instruction%20Manual%20023- 

01-001-01%20Rev%2001_

508%20Admin%20Rev.pdf. 

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 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. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

Rev. 1,43 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 

L52 and L56 of Appendix A, Table 1 of 

DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–001– 

01, Rev.1. Paragraph L52 pertains to 

regulations concerning vessel operation 

safety standards and paragraph L56 

pertains to regulations concerning the 

training, qualifying, and licensing of 

maritime personnel. 

This proposed rule would revise the 

existing merchant mariner credentialing 

training requirements for national 

endorsements as master and mate (pilot) 

for towing vessels. The proposed 

changes would apply to mariners 

working on towing vessels inspected 

under 46 CFR subchapter M when 

operating on inland waters or Western 

Rivers routes. Under the proposed rule, 

these mariners would only be required 

to receive training that is relevant to the 

firefighting equipment that is available 

on their vessels. This proposed change 

would promote marine safety by 

focusing attention on the resources 

actually available to affected mariners. 

We seek any comments or information 

that may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 11 

Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Schools, 

Seamen. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 46 CFR part 11 as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 11 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 102(3); 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; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 11.107 is also 

issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

■ 2. Amend § 11.201 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (h)(1), (2)(i), 

and (3)(i) and (ii); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (h)(3)(iii) and 

(iv); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (l) . 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 11.201 General requirements for national 

and STCW officer endorsements. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) Applicants for an original officer 

endorsement in the following categories 

must present a certificate of completion 

from a firefighting course of instruction 

relevant to the endorsement being 

sought that has been approved by the 

Coast Guard. The firefighting course 

must have been completed within the 

past 5 years, or if it was completed more 

than 5 years before the date of 

application, the applicant must provide 

evidence of maintaining the standard of 

competence in accordance with the 

firefighting requirements for the 

credential sought. 

(2) * * * 

(i) All national officer endorsements 

as master or mate on seagoing vessels of 

200 GRT or more. 

* * * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48942 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and Change in HandDelivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 

(2020). 

(3) * * * 

(i) All officer endorsements as master 

on vessels of less than 500 GT in ocean 

service. 

(ii) All officer endorsements for 

master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels 

for service on near-coastal waters, 

except apprentice mate (steersman) of 

towing vessels. 

(iii) All officer endorsements for 

master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels 

for service on Great Lakes, except 

apprentice mate (steersman) of towing 

vessels. 

(iv) All officer endorsements as 

master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels 

for service on inland waters or Western 

Rivers, except apprentice mate 

(steersman) of towing vessels. 

(A) The Coast Guard will accept a 

Coast Guard approved modified basic 

firefighting course, which is the basic 

firefighting training described in 

paragraph (h)(3) of this section modified 

to only cover the equipment, fire 

prevention procedures, and firefighting 

operations required on towing vessels 

on inland waters or Western Rivers 

routes required in 46 CFR parts 140 and 

142. A mariner who completes this 

modified basic firefighting course will 

be issued an endorsement that is 

restricted to inland waters or Western 

Rivers. 

(B) To increase in scope to Great 

Lakes, near-coastal or oceans, the 

applicant will be required to complete 

the firefighting course appropriate to the 

route sought. 

* * * * * 

(l) Restrictions. The Coast Guard may 

modify the service, training, and 

examination requirements in this part to 

satisfy the unique qualification 

requirements of an applicant or distinct 

group of mariners. The Coast Guard may 

also lower the age requirement for 

OUPV applicants. The authority granted 

by an officer endorsement will be 

restricted to reflect any modifications 

made under the authority of this 

paragraph (l). 

Dated: August 16, 2021. 

J.W. Mauger, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Prevention Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17945 Filed 8–31–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 25, 73, and 76 

[MB Docket No. 21–293; FCC 21–91; FR ID 

43007] 

Revisions to Political Programming 

and Recordkeeping Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes to update its 

political programming and 

recordkeeping rules for broadcast 

licensees, cable television system 

operators, Direct Broadcast Satellite 

(DBS) service providers, and Satellite 

Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) 

licensees. The Commission proposes to 

update its political programming rules 

by adding the use of social media and 

the creation of a campaign website to 

the existing list of activities that may be 

considered in determining whether an 

individual running as a write-in 

candidate has made a ‘‘substantial 

showing’’ of his or her bona fide 

candidacy. The Commission also 

proposes to update its political 

recordkeeping rules by incorporating 

provisions which were adopted in the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 

2002. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

October 1, 2021; reply comments are 

due on or before October 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 21–293, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.1

• During the time the Commission’s 

building is closed to the general public 

and until further notice, if more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of a proceeding, 

paper filers need not submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number; an 

original and one copy are sufficient. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Gary Schonman, 

Special Counsel, Federal 

Communications Commission, Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, Political 

Programming Staff, at Gary.Schonman@

fcc.gov or 202–418–1795. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 21– 

91, adopted on August 3, 2021, and 

released on August 4, 2021. The full text 

of this document is available for public 

inspection and copying via ECFS at 

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs and the FCC’s 

website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/FCC-21-91A1.pdf. 

Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative 

formats are available for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to 

update our political programming and 

recordkeeping rules for broadcast 

licensees, cable television system 

operators, Direct Broadcast Satellite 

(DBS) service providers, and Satellite 

Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) 

licensees. While the agency has strived 

to update its guidance to reflect changes 

in law and campaign practices, it has 

not undertaken a formal review to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS