Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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
48937

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

7%

3%

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

$0
142,569
142,569
142,569
142,569
142,569
142,569
142,569
142,569
142,569

$0
124,525
116,379
108,765
101,650
95,000
88,785
82,976
77,548
72,475

$0
134,385
130,471
126,671
122,981
119,399
115,922
112,545
109,267
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.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Discounted cost savings
Undiscounted cost savings
Year
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 36 553.38

multiplied by 12/16 equals 415.04.
= 138.34 and 138.34 440 =
60,870, rounded.
37 553.38415.04

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:23 Aug 31, 2021

Jkt 253001

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.

38 We 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:FRFM01SEP1.SGM

01SEP1