[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26933-26942]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12502]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 10, 11, and 15

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0100]
RIN 1625-AC46

Amendments to the Marine Radar Observer Refresher Training
Regulations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise its merchant mariner
credentialing regulations to remove obsolete portions of the radar
observer requirements and harmonize the radar observer endorsement with
the merchant mariner credential. Under this proposed rule, an active
mariner who serves in a relevant position for 1 year in the previous 5
years using radar for navigation and collision avoidance purposes on
vessels equipped with radar, or has served as a qualified instructor
for a Coast Guard-approved radar course at least twice within the past
5 years, would not be required to complete a Coast Guard-approved radar
refresher or re-certification course in order to renew his or her radar
observer endorsement. This proposed rule would not change the existing
requirements for mariners seeking an original radar observer
endorsement or mariners who do not have either 1 year of relevant sea
service on board radar-equipped vessels in the previous 5 years or
service as a qualified instructor for a Coast Guard-approved radar
course at least twice within the past 5 years. Elimination of the
requirement to take a radar refresher or re-certification course every
5 years would reduce burden on affected mariners without impacting
safety.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0100 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Mr. Davis Breyer, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

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

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for
alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this proposed rule, and
all public comments, are available in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    We do not plan to hold a public meeting but we will consider doing
so if public comments indicate 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
CGAA 2015 Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MERPAC Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee
MMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation
MMC Merchant Mariner Credential
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section
STCW International Convention on the Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended
STCW Code Seafarers' Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Basis and Purpose

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to amend the radar observer
endorsement requirements by removing obsolete portions and harmonizing
the expiration dates of the radar observer endorsement and the merchant
mariner credential (MMC).
    The Coast Guard is authorized to determine and establish the
experience and professional qualifications required

for the issuance of officer credentials pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 7101.
Authority under 46 U.S.C. 7101 has been delegated to the Commandant of
the Coast Guard by Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1(II)(92)(e). The specifics of these professional qualifications
and the Coast Guard's evaluation process are prescribed by 46 CFR parts
10 and 11, and the manning requirements are in 46 CFR part 15.
    Section 304 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (CGAA
2015), Public Law 114-120, February 8, 2016 (codified as a statutory
note to 46 U.S.C. 7302), requires the harmonization of expiration dates
of a mariner's radar observer endorsement with his or her MMC and the
medical certificate, subject to certain exceptions.\1\ Furthermore, the
CGAA 2015 specifies that the process to harmonize cannot require a
mariner to renew the MMC before it expires. This proposed rule would
meet the statutory requirement with regard to the radar observer
endorsement. The requirement regarding the medical certificate is
already met through policy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 114-120, sec. 304(c), creates an exception for
individuals (1) holding a merchant mariner credential with--(A) an
active Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping
endorsement; or (B) Federal first-class pilot endorsement; or (2)
who have been issued a time-restricted medical certificate.
    \2\ CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-18: Guidelines for Requesting
Harmonization of Expiration Dates of Merchant Mariner Credentials
and Mariner Medical Certificates when Applying for an Original or
Renewal Merchant Mariner Credential. https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/5ps/MMC/CG-MMC-2%20Policies/CG-MMC%2001-18%20Harmonization.pdf?ver=2018-03-02-071916-180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Background

    Currently, 46 CFR 11.480 requires that a mariner with a radar
observer endorsement complete a Coast Guard-approved radar observer
refresher or re-certification course every 5 years to maintain a valid
radar observer endorsement on his or her MMC. The MMC is typically
valid for a 5-year period in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7302(f). Under
the current regulation, the radar observer endorsement must be added to
the MMC. However, the course completion certificate dictates the
validity of the radar observer endorsement. This requires the mariner
to carry the MMC and have the course completion certificate available
in order to demonstrate compliance with the regulations. Under current
regulation, it is not possible to harmonize the expiration dates of the
radar course completion certificate and the MMC.
    The Coast Guard sought comments from the Merchant Marine Personnel
Advisory Committee (MERPAC) about harmonization. In September 2015, at
Meeting 43, MERPAC recommended that the Coast Guard review whether
requiring a radar refresher or re-certification course for mariners
with relevant and recent underway service on a vessel equipped with
radar should be considered adequate experience for renewal (MERPAC
Recommendation 2015-56).\3\ MERPAC recommended the Coast Guard consider
the history of the radar observer endorsement, the current state of
radar observer training and prevalence of radar, and the concept that
knowledge and skills will degrade with time if not used or refreshed
through training. MERPAC also recommended the Coast Guard consider
whether the radar observer endorsement must be on the credential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Task Statement #91 from MERPAC https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?&ID=805&Source=https://homeport.uscg.mil/missions/ports-and-waterways/safety-advisory-committees/merpac/task-statements-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard first added a requirement to prove continued
competence in radar operation every 5 years by completing a
professional examination or completing a Coast Guard-approved course in
1958 (23 FR 3447, May 21, 1958). As discussed in that final rule, the
merchant mariner license endorsement ``Radar Observer'' has its roots
in a report by the Technical Staff of the Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries to the U.S. House of Representatives concerning the S.S.
Andrea Doria and the M.V. Stockholm collision.\4\ That report
recommended providing adequate training for deck officers and requiring
certification of officers such as radar observers. The International
Maritime Organization included a requirement for radar training in its
International Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW) and the STCW
Code.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The S.S. Andrea Doria and the M.V. Stockholm collision
occurred off Nantucket in heavy fog at approximately 10:30 p.m. on
July 25, 1956, and resulted in multiple fatalities.
    \5\ In response to increased marine casualties because of
untrained mariners, the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 and the
International Maritime Organization, through adoption of STCW
resolution 18, ``Radar simulator training'' and resolution 20,
``Training in the use of collision avoidance aids'' developed
training standards centered on live marine radar equipment,
including radar simulators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard believes that the potential for accidents
continues, and that it is important for mariners to continue to benefit
from training to be proficient in the use of radar as both a navigation
and collision avoidance tool. The Coast Guard also believes that radar
is now a commonly used navigation and collision avoidance tool. Radar
carriage requirements, both in the United States and internationally,
have increased in the last 60 years, and the current domestic training
requirements have been in place for the last 35 years. Currently,
mariners on vessels outfitted with radar maintain proficiency in the
use of radar through its constant use to navigate and prevent
collisions. Therefore, the Coast Guard has concluded that the current
requirement for the completion of a radar refresher or re-certification
course for mariners with relevant and recent service in a position
using radar for navigation and collision avoidance purposes on board
vessels equipped with radar is not necessary. Completion of refresher
training is unnecessarily burdensome to mariners who routinely use
radar.
    Section 304 of the CGAA 2015 requires the harmonization of
expiration dates of a mariner's radar observer endorsement with his or
her MMC, and prohibits requiring a mariner to renew a credential before
it expires. In this context, the Coast Guard believes that the MMC is
the primary credential documenting the individual's qualifications to
perform specific functions on board a ship, and should be the point of
alignment when harmonizing the expiration dates of a mariner's
endorsements.
    In looking at this requirement, the Coast Guard also considered
Executive Order 13771 of January 30, 2017, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Guidance of April 5, 2017, on that Executive order; and Executive Order
13777 of February 24, 2017, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.
These directives require agencies to review regulations in order to
provide a reduction of regulatory costs to members of the public.
Elimination of the requirement to take a radar refresher or re-
certification course every 5 years will eliminate an unnecessary burden
on the active mariner and make harmonization possible.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    In this proposed rule, the Coast Guard proposes to revise its
regulations so that the mariner who serves in a relevant position on
board a radar-equipped vessel for 1 year in the previous 5 years is not
required to complete a Coast Guard-approved radar refresher or re-
certification course per 46 CFR 11.480 to renew their radar observer
endorsement. The proposed

requirement for 1 year of sea service within the past 5 years is
consistent with similar existing sea service requirements found in, for
example, 46 CFR 10.227(e)(1), Requirements for Renewal of an MMC; 46
CFR 11.302(c), Basic Training; and 46 CFR 11.303(c), Advanced
Firefighting. For the purposes of this proposed rule, relevant sea
service means having served in a position using radar for navigation
and collision avoidance purposes on a radar-equipped vessel.
    Additionally, mariners who provide evidence of being a qualified
instructor and having taught a Coast Guard-approved radar endorsement
refresher or re-certification course at least twice within the past 5
years would not be required to complete a radar refresher or re-
certification course. The 5-year interval is based on both national and
STCW endorsement requirements that follow recognized principles and
standards of maritime skill acquisition and retention. The provision to
allow renewal of the endorsement by an instructor of the radar course
is the same provision that currently exists under 46 CFR
10.227(e)(1)(v) for MMC renewals. This provision would be applied to
the radar observer endorsement.
    This proposed rule would eliminate the requirement to carry a
certificate of training if the radar observer endorsement is on the
MMC, and would allow the endorsement and MMC to expire at the same
time.
    The Coast Guard did consider removing the radar refresher or re-
certification course requirement altogether. However, the Coast Guard
believes that the competencies required by a radar observer would
degrade if the mariner does not use them on board vessels or
periodically refresh them by teaching or completing a course. The
concept that knowledge and skills will degrade with time if not used or
refreshed has been applied in other basic maritime training arenas,
such as the STCW requirements for basic training and a firefighting
refresher course every 5 years, and is a recognized factor within the
education industry. While there are few specific studies in skill
degradation in the maritime industry, this issue has been the subject
of discussion for decades in other industries, including the aviation
industry, which is very similar to the maritime industry.\6\ Also,
radar continues to be incorporated into other shipboard systems and
continues to change with advancements in technology. The radar observer
must keep current with these changes through onboard utilization of
skills or a formal course of instruction. As a result, the Coast Guard
did not pursue removing refresher training altogether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Michael W. Gillen, ``Degradation of Piloting Skills''
(Master's Thesis), University of North Dakota, Grand Forks (2008),
assesses professional aircraft pilots' basic instrument skills in
the age of highly automated cockpits. In addition to the specific
findings related to the aircraft pilots, the document contains a
literature review of applicable background studies concerning the
general theory of learning related to skill acquisition, retention,
and declination. The referenced literature includes a discussion of
the inverse nature of practice and completion time--previous studies
showed that the time required to perform a task declined at a
decreasing rate as experience with the task increased. Results from
some of these previous studies indicated a rapid rate of learning
depreciation.
    Arthur Winfred, Jr., Bennett Winston, Jr., Pamela L. Stanush,
and Theresa L. McNelly, ``Factors That Influence Skill Decay and
Retention: A Quantitative Review and Analysis'', 11(1) Human
Performance 57 (1998), presents a review of skill retention and
skill decay literature about factors that influence the loss of
trained skills or knowledge over extended periods of non-use.
Results indicated that there is substantial skill loss after more
than 365 days of non-use or non-practice. Physical, natural, and
speed-based tasks--such as checklist and repetitive tasks--were less
susceptible to skill loss than decision-making tasks that are
cognitive, artificial, and accuracy-based. Collision avoidance and
navigation using radar can be considered examples of the latter
category.
    John M. O'Hara, ``The Retention of Skills Acquired Through
Simulator-based Training'', 33(9) Ergonomics 1143 (1990), examines
the loss of skills among two groups of merchant marine cadets that
were tested for watchstanding skills immediately preceding and
following a 9-month simulator-based training program. The mitigation
of decay as a function of a retraining experience was also
evaluated. The results indicated that watchstanding skills improved
following training and declined over the 9-month retention interval,
and that refresher training was effective in terms of skill loss
mitigation for some skill areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the Coast Guard is proposing to continue to require
attendance at a radar refresher or re-certification course for mariners
seeking to renew a radar observer endorsement who do not have 1 year of
relevant sea service in the previous 5 years using radar for navigation
and collision avoidance purposes on vessels equipped with radar. As
discussed earlier, mariners with radar observer endorsements who do
have 1 year of relevant sea service within the previous 5 years and
served in a position using radar for navigation and collision avoidance
purposes on board a radar-equipped vessel, or who have met certain
instructor requirements, would be able to renew the radar observer
endorsement without completing a course. In addition, the radar
observer endorsement would expire with the MMC, and the mariner with a
radar observer endorsement would no longer be required to present a
course completion certificate within 48 hours of the demand to do so by
an authorized official.
    Following is a section-by-section discussion of the proposed
changes.

46 CFR 11.480 Radar Observer

    This proposed rule would revise 46 CFR 11.480(d), (e), (f), (g),
and (h). Pursuant to these changes, a current course completion
certificate from a Coast Guard-approved radar refresher or re-
certification course in accordance with 46 CFR 11.480 would no longer
be the only determinant of a mariner's continued competency as a radar
observer.
    The proposed rule would revise 46 CFR 11.480 to apply the
provisions of 46 CFR 10.227(e)(1)(v) to the radar observer endorsement.
A qualified instructor who has taught a Coast Guard-approved radar
observer course at least twice within the past 5 years would not be
required to complete a refresher or re-certification course because he
or she will have met the standards to receive a course completion
certificate. During the course approval process in accordance with 46
CFR subpart D, instructors are evaluated to determine whether they are
qualified to teach the course; a qualified instructor does not need to
complete a refresher or re-certification course.
    This proposed rule would allow mariners to use recent sea service
in place of completing a radar refresher or re-certification course.
Mariners able to provide evidence of 1 year of relevant sea service
within the last 5 years in a position using radar for navigation and
collision avoidance purposes on vessels equipped with radar would not
be required to attend a course to obtain a course completion
certificate.
    If the radar observer endorsement is on the MMC, then the radar
observer endorsement is valid for the same period as the MMC. The
validity of the MMC will coincide with the validity of the radar
endorsement if the applicant provides the following information: (1)
Evidence of 1 year of sea service within the last 5 years in a position
using radar for navigation and collision avoidance purposes on board
radar-equipped vessels; (2) evidence of having been a qualified
instructor who has taught a Coast Guard-approved radar observer course
at least twice within the past 5 years; or (3) successful completion of
a Coast Guard-approved radar course within the past 5 years. If the
applicant does not provide evidence of meeting the requirements for the
radar observer endorsement, the endorsement will not be placed on the
MMC.

46 CFR 15.815

    The Coast Guard proposes to revise Sec.  15.815 to eliminate the
requirement that a person required to hold a radar endorsement must
have his or her course completion certificate readily available. Having
the course completion certificate available is not necessary if the MMC
reflects a radar observer endorsement, because the radar observer
endorsement indicates adequate training or experience demonstrated
through one of the three methods described in this proposed rule.
    The proposed rule would revise Sec.  15.815(d) to allow the
mariners listed in Sec.  15.815(a), (b), and (c), to sail without a
radar observer endorsement provided that they hold, and have
immediately available, a course completion certificate, issued within
the last 5 years, from a Coast Guard-approved radar course. This would
create flexibility for mariners who were not qualified for the radar
observer endorsement at their last credential application but have
subsequently completed a Coast Guard-approved radar course and hold a
course completion certificate.

46 CFR 10.232

    Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to add a corresponding
requirement to Sec.  10.232(a) so that the sea service letter indicates
whether the vessel the mariner has served on is equipped with radar,
and that the mariner served in a position using radar for navigation
and collision avoidance purposes. While certain vessels are required to
carry radar, some vessels are not required to do so, such as offshore
supply vessels of less than 100 gross tons and mechanically propelled
vessels of less than 1,600 gross tons in ocean or coastwise service.
This proposed rule would ensure that mariners serving in a position
using radar for navigation and collision avoidance purposes on vessels
equipped with radar will get credit towards renewal of the radar
observer endorsement, regardless of whether the vessel was required to
carry radar.

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, of harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control
regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation
issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination,
and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and
controlled through a budgeting process.''
    This proposed rule is not designated a significant regulatory
action by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
OMB has not reviewed it. OMB considers this rule to be an Executive
Order 13771 deregulatory action. See the OMB Memorandum titled
``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 2017).
    This regulatory analysis provides an evaluation of the economic
impacts associated with this proposed rule. The Coast Guard proposes to
revise its regulations so that the mariner who served on board a radar-
equipped vessel for 1 year in the previous 5 years, in a position using
radar for navigation and collision avoidance purposes, is not required
to complete a Coast Guard-approved radar refresher or re-certification
course to renew their radar observer endorsement, as discussed in
section V of this proposed rule. Additionally, mariners who provide
evidence of being a qualified instructor and having taught a Coast
Guard-approved radar endorsement refresher or re-certification course
at least twice within the past 5 years would not be required to
complete a radar refresher or re-certification course. Table 1 provides
a summary of the affected population, costs, and cost savings after
implementation of this proposed rule. The total 10-year discounted cost
savings of the rule would be $47,678,762 and the annualized total cost
savings would be $6,788,383, both discounted at 7 percent. We expect
that an average of 7,037 mariners would benefit from this proposed rule
each year. The proposed rule would result in cost savings to these
mariners for no longer incurring the costs to complete the radar
observer refresher course. There would be no impact to those mariners
seeking an original radar observer endorsement or who do not have 1
year of relevant sea service in a position using radar for navigation
and collision avoidance purposes on board radar-equipped vessels on
board radar-equipped vessels in the previous 5 years. This proposed
rule would not impose costs on industry.

                                Table 1--Summary of the Impacts of Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Affected
             Change                   Description         population             Costs           Cost savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise 46 CFR 11.480 (d), (e),    Revise the          Total of 35,183     No cost...........  $6,788,830
 (f), (g), and (h).                merchant mariner    mariners would no                       annualized and
                                   credentialing       longer be                               $47,678,762 10-
                                   regulations to      required to take                        year present
                                   allow mariners      radar refresher                         value monetized
                                   who are qualified   or re-                                  industry benefits
                                   instructors and     certification                           (cost savings)
                                   mariners with 1     course. Annual                          (7% discount
                                   year of sea         average of 7,037                        rate).
                                   service in the      mariners per year
                                   previous 5 years    benefit from
                                   using radar for     proposed rule
                                   navigation and      (rounded).
                                   collision
                                   avoidance
                                   purposes on radar-
                                   equipped vessels
                                   to retain their
                                   radar observer
                                   endorsement
                                   without being
                                   required to take
                                   a radar renewal
                                   or re-
                                   certification
                                   course.

Revise 46 CFR 15.815............  Remove requirement  35,183 mariners...  No cost...........  No cost savings.
                                   that a person
                                   with a radar
                                   observer
                                   endorsement must
                                   have a
                                   certificate of
                                   training readily
                                   available.
Revise 46 CFR 10.232(a)(2)......  Add requirement     35,183 mariners...  No quantifiable     No cost savings.
                                   that sea service                        cost. Cost to add
                                   letters include                         one line item to
                                   the information                         company's regular
                                   that the vessel                         update to the
                                   the mariner has                         service letter is
                                   served on is                            too small to
                                   radar equipped                          quantify.
                                   and the mariner
                                   served in a
                                   position using
                                   radar for
                                   navigation and
                                   collision
                                   avoidance
                                   purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed revisions to 46 CFR 11.480 would result in cost
savings to those mariners who no longer would have to complete the
radar observer refresher course.
    The proposed revisions to 46 CFR 15.815 would eliminate the
requirement that a person holding a radar endorsement must also have
his or her course completion certificate readily available. While the
mariner would no longer physically have to carry the certificate, the
mariner would still have to physically carry an MMC that reflects a
radar observer endorsement. The costs of obtaining the copy of the
certificate are included in the cost of the completion of the course.
Therefore, any cost savings from these revisions are included in the
calculations of the cost savings to the revisions to 46 CFR 11.480.
Those mariners who do not have an MMC that reflects a radar observer
endorsement would be allowed to sail if they hold, and have immediately
available, a course completion certificate, issued within the last 5
years, from a Coast Guard-approved radar course. There is no impact to
these mariners, as they currently have to carry a certificate to show
course completion.
    The proposed revisions to 46 CFR 10.232 would add a requirement
that the sea service letter indicate whether the mariner served on a
vessel equipped with radar, and if the mariner served in a position
using radar for navigation and collision avoidance purposes. The
operating companies that use service letters are already required to
provide mariner service information. The companies would have to add a
line item once per vessel, and then the letter would be available for
all other mariners serving on a radar-equipped vessel using radar for
navigation and collision avoidance purposes. The companies generally
produce a service letter once every 5 years to provide the employees
the documentation necessary to renew their credentials. Because the
cost to add one line item is a minimal burden and could be included in
the company's regular updates to the service letter, we consider the
proposed revisions to 46 CFR 10.232 to have no additional burden or
cost savings to industry.
Affected Population
    We expect that this proposed rule would affect mariners with a
radar observer endorsement and mariners who would need one in the
future. More specifically, it would affect those mariners with at least
1 year of sea service in the previous 5 years in a position using radar
for navigation and collision avoidance purposes on board a radar-
equipped vessel, as they will no longer be required to complete a Coast
Guard-approved radar refresher or re-certification course per 46 CFR
11.480 in order to renew their radar observer endorsement. It would
also affect mariners who have served as instructors for a Coast Guard-
approved radar course at least twice within the past 5 years, the
majority of whom hold a valid endorsement and would be included in the
affected population. The radar observer endorsement would expire with
the MMC and the mariner would no longer be required to carry the course
completion certificate so that it can be presented to the Coast Guard
upon demand.
    We used data from the Coast Guard's Merchant Mariner Licensing and
Documentation (MMLD) system to estimate the average number of mariners
affected by this proposed rule. The MMLD system is used to produce MMCs
at the National Maritime Center. Table 2 below shows the radar
endorsement data from the MMLD system used to estimate the affected
population. The MMLD system does not have exam data prior to 2011 for
the mariners who took the rules of the road exam to renew an MMC.

                              Table 2--Mariners Holding Radar Observer Endorsements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Mariners who hold
                                                          a radar observer  Mariners who took     Mariners who
                          Year                              endorsement     rules of the road     benefit from
                                                           (current total   exam to renew MMC    proposed rule
                                                            population)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011...................................................             37,612                488             37,124
2012...................................................             38,114                572             37,542
2013...................................................             37,011                638             36,373
2014...................................................             35,262                671             34,591
2015...................................................             34,280                716             33,564
2016...................................................             34,546                777             33,769
2017...................................................             34,076                755             33,321
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Average Total Mariners.............................             35,843                660             35,183
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------

    Impacted per Year..................................              7,169                132              7,037
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Mariners Who Hold a Radar Observer Endorsement'' column shows
the number of unique mariners who, on January 1 of each year, held a
valid MMC with a radar observer endorsement. Per Sec.  11.480, each
applicant for a renewal of a radar observer endorsement must complete
the appropriate Coast Guard-approved refresher or re-certification
course, receive the appropriate course completion certificate, and
present the certificate or a copy of the certificate to the Coast
Guard. A radar observer endorsement is typically valid for 5 years from
the date of completion of the Coast Guard-approved course. From 2011 to
2017, there was an average of 35,843 total mariners with a valid MMC
with a radar observer endorsement. The Coast Guard does not have more
detailed information as to the expiration for each mariner's radar
observer endorsement. Therefore, we divided the total mariners by 5 to
estimate that an average of 7,169 mariners currently would need to take
the radar renewal course each year (35,843 total mariners/5, rounded to
nearest whole number).
    Under this proposed rule, the Coast Guard expects that a portion of
the total mariners would not have 1 year of sea service in the last 5
years in a position using radar for navigation and collision avoidance
purposes on board radar-equipped vessels. There are some mariners who
are inactive but still complete the requirements to renew an MMC. The
requirements for the renewal of an MMC are in Sec.  10.227. In order to
renew their credentials, mariners must present acceptable documentary
evidence of at least 1 year of sea service during the past 5 years, or
pass a comprehensive, open-book exercise that includes a rules of the
road examination. Mariners who take the rules of the road exam are
tracked in the MMLD database. The ``Mariners Who Took Rules of the Road
Exam to Renew MMC'' column in table 3 shows the number of the unique
mariners in the ``Mariners Who Hold a Radar Observer Endorsement
(Current Total Population)'' column who took the rules of the road
examination as part of the MMC renewal process for their existing valid
MMC, not the number of mariners who took the rules of the road exam in
that given year. Therefore, we used this as a proxy to estimate the
number of mariners who did not have 1 year of sea service in the last 5
years. Under this proposed rule, an average of 660 total mariners would
still have had to take a radar refresher or re-certification course in
order to maintain the radar observer endorsement. The Coast Guard does
not have more detailed information as when each mariner took the radar
refresher or re-certification course over the 5-year period. We divided
the total mariners by 5 to find an average of 132 mariners would still
need to take the exam each year (660 total mariners/5).
    We subtracted the number in the ``Mariners Who Took Rules of the
Road Exam to Renew MMC'' column from the number in the ``Mariners Who
Hold a Radar Observer Endorsement'' column to find the mariners who,
under this proposed rule, would not have had to take a radar refresher
or re-certification course when they last renewed their MMC. From 2011
to 2017, there was an average of 35,183 mariners who held radar
observer endorsements and had at least 1 year of relevant sea service
during the past 5 years. This number represents the total number of
mariners expected to benefit from this proposed rule. We divided the
total number of mariners expected to benefit from this proposed rule by
5 to find the average mariners that would benefit each year (35,183
total mariners/5). This comes out to an average of 7,037 mariners per
year that would no longer have to take a radar refresher or re-
certification course (rounded to nearest whole number).
Costs
    The regulatory changes in this proposed rule would not impose any
costs to industry or government.
Cost Savings
    The cost savings to industry are the difference between the current
baseline cost to industry and the cost to industry if the regulatory
changes in this proposed rule are implemented.
Baseline Cost to Industry
    To estimate the cost savings to industry, we first estimated the
current costs to industry. The costs to industry include the cost of
the refresher or re-certification course, the time to take the course,
and time and mileage costs to travel to take the course. The mariners
incur costs for the radar refresher or re-certification course. To
estimate the cost of the course, the Coast Guard researched and found a
sample of course costs from five training centers that offer Coast
Guard-approved radar refresher or re-certification courses. The cost of
the courses ranged from $199 to $250. We took an average of the 5
estimates to find the average cost of the courses is $228 (($199 + $250
+ $225 + $225 + $243)/5, rounded to nearest
dollar).7 8 9 10 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Maritime Professional Training, course cost of $199, found
at http://www.mptusa.com/course/149-Radar-Observer-Recertification-Renewal.
    \8\ Compass Courses, course cost of $250, found at http://compasscourses.com/maritime-safety-training-courses/radar-re-certification/.
    \9\ The Marine Training Institute, course cost of $225, found at
http://themarinetraininginstitute.com/ecdis-radar-recertification/.
    \10\ Calhoon MEBA Engineering School, course cost of $225, found
at http://rro.cutwater.org/.
    \11\ Maritime Institute of Technology & Graduate Studies, course
cost of $243, found at https://www.mitags-pmi.org/courses/view/Radar_Observer_Recertification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We then estimated the cost of the time for the mariners to take the
refresher or re-certification course. The 5 training centers state that
the radar renewal course is 1-day. For the purposes of complying with
service requirements, a day is defined as 8 hours (46 CFR 10.107,
Definitions in subchapter B).\12\ We obtained the wage rate of a
mariner from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), using Occupational
Series 53-5021, Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels (May
2016). The BLS reports that the mean hourly wage rate for a Captain,
Mate, or Pilot is $39.19.\13\ To account for employee benefits, we used
a load factor of 1.52, which we calculated from 2016 4th quarter BLS
data.\14\ The loaded wage for a mariner is

estimated at $59.57 ($39.19 wage rate x 1.52 load factor). We
multiplied the loaded wage rate by the hourly burden to find the
current cost for a mariner to take the radar renewal course is $476.56
($59.57 wage rate x 8 hour burden).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 46 CFR 10.107, https://ecfr.io/Title-46/pt46.1.10#se46.1.10_1107.
    \13\ Mean wage, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes535021.htm.
    \14\ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation provides
information on the employer compensation and can be found in table 9
at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03172017.pdf. The
loaded wage factor is equal to the total compensation of $28.15
divided by the wages and salary of $18.53. Values for the total
compensation, wages, and salary are for all private industry workers
in the transportation and material moving occupations, 2016 4th
quarter. We use 2016 data to keep estimated cost savings in 2016
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We then estimated the cost for the mariners to travel to take the
refresher or re-certification course. The radar refresher or re-
certification course must be taken in person at a training center. This
means the mariners incur costs for time to travel to take the course.
We estimated mileage using travel costs assumptions from the
Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention
on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978, and Changes to National Endorsements Final Rule.\15\
On average, a mariner commutes 50 miles to a training course one-way,
or 100 miles round trip. The Federal Highway Administration reports the
average commute speed for private vehicles is 28.87 miles per hour.\16\
We divided the average round trip mileage to the training center by the
average commute time to find that it takes an average of 3.46 hours for
a mariner to travel to the training center (100 miles/28.87 miles per
hour, rounded). We multiplied this by the loaded hourly wage rate to
find that the hourly burden per mariner to travel to the training
center to take the refresher or re-certification course is $206.11
(3.46 hours x $59.57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2004-17914. Non-commuting driving time estimate found on page 132 of the
Regulatory Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
located under Supporting Documents.
    \16\ ``Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household Travel
Survey'', table 27, found at http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The mariners also incur additional mileage costs for traveling to
the training facility to take the 1-day course, such as gas and wear
and tear on their vehicles. We used the U.S. General Services
Administration privately owned vehicle mileage reimbursement rate of
$0.54 per mile to estimate this additional cost.\17\ We multiplied this
rate by the 100 miles round trip to the training facility to estimate
that the mariners incur a cost of $54 per mariner for the additional
mileage costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Found at https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-rates/pov-mileage-rates-archived. We use the 2016 rate to keep
all costs in 2016 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 summarizes the costs per mariner to take the radar
refresher or re-certification course. Adding the cost of the 1-day
course, the opportunity cost of time to take the course, and the
opportunity cost of roundtrip travel time and mileage costs to get to
the training center, we found that it costs $964.67 per mariner to take
the radar refresher or re-certification course.

   Table 3--Costs per Mariner for Radar Refresher or Re-Certification
                                 Course
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Cost category                             Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Day Course.................................................    $228.00
Opportunity Cost of Time (8 hours) Spent in Training Facility     476.56
Opportunity Cost of Roundtrip Travel Time to Training Center.     206.11
Mileage Costs................................................      54.00
                                                              ----------
  Total......................................................     964.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To find the baseline total cost for all mariners to take the radar
refresher or re-certification course, we multiplied the total cost per
mariner of $964.67 by the annual average mariners who currently hold
radar observer endorsements. As shown in table 2, we found this is an
annual average of 7,169 mariners. Therefore, the total baseline annual
average cost for all mariners is $6,915,719 (7,169 mariners x $964.67
per mariner, rounded).
Costs to Industry After Implementation of the Regulatory Changes
Proposed
    Revising Sec.  11.480 so that mariners who serve on board a radar-
equipped vessel for 1 year in the previous 5 years are not required to
take a radar refresher or re-certification course to renew their radar
observer endorsement would reduce the number of mariners who would need
to take the radar refresher or re-certification course. As shown in
table 2 in the ``Affected Population'' subsection, an average of 132
mariners would still need to take the radar refresher or re-
certification course each year. These mariners would continue to have
the same costs per mariner shown in table 3. Multiplying the cost per
mariner by the average mariners that would still need to take the
course each year, we found the total annual cost to industry that would
remain under this proposed rule would be $127,336 (132 mariners x
$964.67 per mariner).
Cost Savings
    To find the total cost savings of this proposed rule, we subtracted
the costs to industry after implementation of the proposed rule from
the baseline costs. Subtracting $127,336 from $6,915,719, we found the
total cost savings of this proposed rule would be $6,788,383. Table 4
shows the total 10-year undiscounted industry cost savings of this
proposed rule would be $67,883,830. The 10-year estimated discounted
cost savings to industry would be $47,678,762, with an annualized cost
savings of $6,788,383, using a 7-percent discount rate. Using a
perpetual period of analysis, we estimated the total annualized cost
savings of the proposed rule would be $5,541,343 in 2016 dollars, using
a 7-percent discount rate.

          Table 4--Total Estimated Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule Over a 10-Year Period of Analysis
                                         [Discounted at 7 and 3 percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Total, discounted
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................      $6,788,383      $6,344,283      $6,590,663
2...............................................................       6,788,383       5,929,237       6,398,702
3...............................................................       6,788,383       5,541,343       6,212,332
4...............................................................       6,788,383       5,178,825       6,031,390
5...............................................................       6,788,383       4,840,023       5,855,719
6...............................................................       6,788,383       4,523,386       5,685,164
7...............................................................       6,788,383       4,227,464       5,519,577

8...............................................................       6,788,383       3,950,901       5,358,812
9...............................................................       6,788,383       3,692,431       5,202,730
10..............................................................       6,788,383       3,450,870       5,051,194
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................      67,883,830      47,678,762      57,906,284
        Annualized..............................................  ..............       6,788,383       6,788,383
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This proposed rule reduces the burden on industry by removing the
requirement to attend a radar refresher or re-certification course
every 5 years for mariners who have 1 year of relevant sea service in
the previous 5 years in a position using radar for navigation and
collision avoidance purposes on board radar-equipped vessels, or for
Coast Guard-approved radar course qualified instructors who have taught
the class at least twice within the past 5 years. The MMC and radar
observer endorsement is in the mariner's name and not the company's
name, so we assume the affected mariners would receive the cost savings
from this proposed rule. We do not have further information that any
companies would reimburse the mariners for these costs and would
acquire the costs savings.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule reduces the
burden associated with mariners taking the radar refresher or re-
certification course and will not adversely affect small entities as
defined by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR 121.201. 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 proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. The
information collection associated with this proposed rule is the
currently approved collection 1625-0040 (MMC Application).\18\ The
proposed revisions to 46 CFR 15.815 would eliminate the requirement
that a person holding a radar endorsement must also have his or her
course completion certificate readily available. While the mariner
would no longer physically have to carry the certificate, the mariner
would still have to carry an MMC that reflects a radar observer
endorsement. Those mariners who do not have an MMC that reflects a
radar observer endorsement would be allowed to sail provided that they
hold, and have immediately available, a course completion certificate,
issued within the last 5 years, from a Coast Guard-approved radar
refresher or re-certification course. There is no impact to these
mariners, as they currently have to carry a certificate to show course
completion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The full title of COI 1625-0040 is ``Application for
Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC), Application for Medical
Certificate, Application for Medical Certificate--Short Form, Small
Vessel Sea Service (Optional) Form, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing
(Optional) Form, and Disclosure Statement for Narcotics, DWI/DUI,
and/or Other Convictions (Optional) Form.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed revisions to 46 CFR 10.232 would add a requirement
that the sea service letter indicates whether the mariner served on a
vessel equipped with radar, and if the mariner served in a position
using radar for navigation and collision avoidance purposes. In place
of an indication on an application or by separate certification that a
mariner completed a Coast Guard-approved radar observer course, a
statement would be added to the already-required sea service letter.
The operating companies that use service letters are already required
to provide mariner service information. The companies would have to add
a line item once per vessel, and then the letter would be available for
all other mariners serving on a radar-equipped vessel using radar for
navigation and collision avoidance purposes. The companies generally
produce a service letter once every 5 years to provide the employees
the documentation necessary to renew their credentials. Because the
cost to add one line item is a minimal burden and could be included in
the company's regular updates to the service letter, we

consider the proposed revisions to 46 CFR 10.232 to have no additional
burden to industry. Therefore, the proposed revisions would not change
the burden in the currently approved collection 1625-0040.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is explained below.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and
8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation,
equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as
the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress
intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the
States. See the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Locke and
Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). Because this
proposed rule involves the credentialing of mariners under 46 U.S.C.
7101, it relates to personnel qualifications and, as a result, is
foreclosed from regulation by the States. Therefore, because the States
may not regulate within these categories, this proposed rule is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications
and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs
agencies to consult with State and local governments during the
rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for
federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 would
not likely 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 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD (COMDTINST M16475.1D), 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 (draft) Record of Environmental Consideration (REC)
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments''
section of this preamble. This proposed rule would be categorically
excluded under categorical exclusion (CATEX) numbers L52, L56, L57, and
L62 of DHS Directive 023-01(series). As such, CATEX L52 pertains to
regulations concerning vessel operation safety standards, CATEX L56
pertains to regulations concerning the training, qualifying, and
licensing of maritime personnel, CATEX L57 pertains to regulations
concerning manning of vessels, and CATEX L62 pertains to regulations in
aid of navigation. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 10

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

46 CFR Part 11

    Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools,
Seamen.

46 CFR Part 15

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Vessels.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR parts 10, 11, and 15 as follows:

0
1. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103,
2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. chapter 73; 46 U.S.C. chapter
75; 46 U.S.C. 2104; 46 U.S.C. 7701, 8903, 8904, and 70105; Executive
Order 10173; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  10.232 by redesignating paragraphs (a)(2)(vii) through
(a)(2)(x) as paragraphs (a)(2)(viii) through (a)(2)(xi), respectively
and add new paragraph (a)(2)(vii) to read as follows:

Sec.  10.232  Sea service.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vii) For those seeking to renew a radar observer endorsement,
whether the vessel is equipped with radar and if the mariner served in
a position using radar for navigation and collision avoidance purposes.
* * * * *

PART 11--REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICER ENDORSEMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  11.480 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d), remove the text ``paragraph (e)'' and add, in its
place, the text ``paragraphs (f) or (g)''; and
0
b. Revise paragraphs (e) through (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  11.480   Radar observer.

* * * * *
    (e) A radar observer endorsement issued under this section is valid
until the expiration of the mariner's MMC.
    (f) A mariner may also renew his or her radar observer endorsement
by providing evidence of meeting the requirements located in 46 CFR
10.227(e)(1)(v).
    (g) The Coast Guard will accept on-board training and experience
through acceptable documentary evidence of 1 year of relevant sea
service within the last 5 years in a position using radar for
navigation and collision avoidance purposes on vessels equipped with
radar as meeting the refresher or re-certification requirements of
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (h) An applicant for renewal of a license or MMC who does not
provide evidence of meeting the renewal requirements of paragraphs (d),
(f), or (g) of this section will not have a radar observer endorsement
placed on his or her MMC.

PART 15--MANNING REQUIREMENTS

0
 1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 3306, 3703, 8101, 8102, 8103,
8104, 8105, 8301, 8304, 8502, 8503, 8701, 8702, 8901, 8902, 8903,
8904, 8905(b), 8906 and 9102; sec. 617, Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat.
2905; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  15.815 by revising paragraph (d) and removing paragraph
(e) to read as follows:

Sec.  15.815  Radar observers.

* * * * *
    (d) In the event that a person described in paragraphs (a), (b), or
(c) of this section does not hold an endorsement as radar observer, he
or she must have immediately available a valid course completion
certificate from a Coast Guard-approved radar course.

Jeffrey G. Lantz,
Director, Office of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2018-12502 Filed 6-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 61204]
[DOCID:fr29oc07-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 207/Airport Security
Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 207 Meeting, Airport Security
Access Control Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 207, Airport Security Access Control
Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 16, 2007 from 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., Conference Rooms,
1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street,
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 207 meeting. The agenda will
include:

 November 16:
     Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, Introductions, and
Administrative Remarks).
     Review of Meeting Summary.
     Review of Workgroup Leaders Meetings.
     Workgroups Reports.
     Workgroup 2: Introduction.
     Workgroup 3: Local Identity Management System.
     Workgroup 4: Physical Access Control.
     Workgroup 5: Intrusion Detection Systems.
     Workgroup 6: Video Systems.
     Workgroup 7: Security Operating Center.
     Workgroup 8: Communications Infrastructure.
     Workgroup 9: General Considerations.
     Workgroup 10: Appendices.
     Closing Plenary Session (Other Business, Establish Agenda,
Date and Place of Following Meetings).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 22, 2007.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 07-5320 Filed 10-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 53 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14424-14425]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06315]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension: Rule 11a1-1(T).
    SEC File No. 270-428, OMB Control No. 3235-0478.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
11a1-1(T) (17 CFR 240.11a1-1(T)), under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    On January 27, 1976, the Commission adopted Rule 11a1-1(T), to
exempt certain transactions of exchange members for their own accounts
that would otherwise be prohibited under Section 11(a) of the Exchange
Act. The rule provides that a member's proprietary order may be
executed on the exchange of which the trader is a member, if, among
other things: (1) The member discloses that a bid or offer for its
account is for its account to any member with whom such bid or offer is
placed or to whom it is communicated; (2) any such member through whom
that bid or offer is communicated discloses to others participating in
effecting the order that it is for the account of a member; and (3)
immediately before executing the order, a member (other than a
specialist in such security) presenting any order for the account of a
member on the exchange clearly announces or otherwise indicates to the
specialist and to other members then present that he is presenting an
order for the account of a member.
    Without these requirements, it would not be possible for the
Commission to monitor its mandate under the Exchange Act to promote
fair and orderly markets and ensure that exchange members have, as the
principal purpose of their exchange memberships, the conduct of a
public securities business.
    There are approximately 663 respondents that require an aggregate
total of 19 hours to comply with this rule. Each of these approximately
663 respondents makes an estimated 20 annual responses, for an
aggregate of 13,260 responses per year. Each response takes
approximately 5 seconds to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden
per year is 19 hours (13,260 x 5 seconds/60 seconds per minute/60
minutes per hour = 19 hours). The approximate cost per hour is $323,
resulting in a total cost of compliance for the annual burden of $6,137
(19 hours @$323).
    Compliance with Rule 11a-1(T) is necessary for exchange members to
make transactions for their own accounts under a specific exemption
from the general prohibition of such transactions under Section 11(a)
of the Exchange Act. Compliance with Rule 11a-1(T) does not involve the
collection of confidential information. Rule 11a-1(T) does not have a
record retention requirement per se. However, responses made pursuant
to Rule 11a-1(T) may be subject to the recordkeeping requirements of
Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the

Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: March 13, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06315 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


ÿþFull Name	User Action	Timestamp  "Halpert, Daniel"	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  "Kemme, Sara"	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  Thomason Susan - Conley LSI	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  Thomason Susan - Conley LSI	Left	"9/22/2021, 11:02:00 AM"  Thomason Susan - Conley LSI	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:02:10 AM"  "Saunders, Jennifer"	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  "Stark, Patrick"	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  "Stark, Patrick"	Left	"9/22/2021, 11:01:04 AM"  "Stark, Patrick"	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:01:28 AM"  Muchow Teri - Conley LSI	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  Forrest Schultz	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  Natalie Tarini	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  "Archer, Kevin"	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  "Bohnenblust, Eric"	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  "Richardson, Leigh Ann"	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  Ryan (Guest)	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  Richard (Guest)	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  Richard (Guest)	Left	"9/22/2021, 11:01:21 AM"  "Jeff Miller, TWC (Guest)"	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  "Jeff Miller, TWC (Guest)"	Left	"9/22/2021, 11:00:55 AM"  "Jeff Miller, TWC (Guest)"	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:00:59 AM"  Greg Baumann	Joined before	"9/22/2021, 11:00:22 AM"  "Herdman, Doug"	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:00:33 AM"  Dallin Brooks (Guest)	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:00:39 AM"  "Suarez, Mark"	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:00:42 AM"  Richard (Guest)	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:00:53 AM"  Hilsenbeck Jay - Conley LSI	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:00:53 AM"  Bill Buczek	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:00:57 AM"  "Romanovschi, Rodica (Rain Carbon)"	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:01:00 AM"  "Colby, Deanna"	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:01:19 AM"  "Zhang, Jun"	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:01:39 AM"  "Walsh, Mechelle"	Joined	"9/22/2021, 11:06:49 AM"


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8406-8408]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03394]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0750; FRL-9942-58-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for
the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of
Columbia (the District). This revision pertains to the infrastructure
requirement of interstate transport pollution with respect to the 2010
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0750. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available through www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment, Air Quality
Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th floor, Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, (215) 814-
2038, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Whenever new or revised NAAQS are promulgated, the CAA requires
states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic
program elements, including, but not limited to, regulatory structure,
monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary
to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements
are referred to as infrastructure requirements and are specified in
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Particularly, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the CAA requires state SIPs to address any emissions activity in one
state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes
with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. EPA sometimes
refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or
conjointly as the ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA.
    On December 4, 2015 (80 FR 75845), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the District. In the NPR, EPA proposed
approval of a SIP revision by the District addressing section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The
formal SIP revision was submitted by the District on June 6, 2014.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The District submitted on June 6, 2014 a SIP revision to satisfy
the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that
pertains to interstate transport. This rulemaking action is addressing
the portions of the District's June 6, 2014 infrastructure submittal
for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS that pertain to transport
requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA has previously taken rulemaking action on the June 6,
2014 SIP revision to address all other applicable infrastructure
requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, with the exception
of the transport elements in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 80 FR 19538
(April 13, 2015).

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

    The District's June 6, 2014 transport submittal concludes that the
District does not have sources that can contribute to nonattainment in,
or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. A detailed summary of EPA's review and
rationale for proposing approval of this SIP revision as meeting
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
may be found in the NPR and the Technical Support Document (TSD) for
this rulemaking action and will not be restated here. Both the NPR and
TSD are available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-
OAR-2015-0750. No public adverse comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the portions of the District's June 6, 2014 SIP
revision submittal addressing interstate transport for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS as a revision to the District SIP for purposes of
meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements with respect to this
NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Publ. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 19, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, addressing the District's interstate transport
requirements under the CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide.

    Dated: February 4, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart J--District of Columbia

0
2. In Sec.  52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS'' to the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                Additional
             revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Interstate Pollution Transport     Statewide..........          6/6/14  2/19/16 [Insert      This action
 Requirements for the 2010 NO2                                           Federal Register     addresses the
 NAAQS.                                                                  citation].           infrastructure
                                                                                element of CAA
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                , or the good
                                                                                neighbor
                                                                                provision, for the
                                                                                2010 NO2 NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-03394 Filed 2-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P